Lack of worker safety highlighted by April disasters

By Michell K. McIntyre, Director of NCL’s Special Project on Wage Theft

April was not a good month for worker safety. Over a two-week span, four separate events – an explosion at a fertilizer plant in Texas, a fire at an Exxon refinery in Texas, a building collapse in Bangladesh, and the death of a poultry plant inspector in New York– highlight the human cost of big business. It is estimated that every day in America, 13 workers go to their job and never come home.

This last Sunday, April 28, was Workers Memorial Day, a day set aside to honor the hundreds of thousands of men and women who have suffered and died on the job from workplace injuries and diseases. Each death has left friends and family behind to pick up the pieces and move on with a new reality. These are lives that could have been saved. Lives that, if the necessary precautions had been made and basic safety standards implemented, could have been prevented.

Big business has consistently put its interests ahead of the interests of its employees. Either through lobbying to weaken regulations and government oversight, or simply gross negligence, industry has gambled with people’s lives. Unfortunately, it is the workers who pay when this gamble fails. Government is continuously lobbied by industry to either weaken existing regulations or prevent new proposed regulations from becoming law. Industry has lobbied to skewer government agency budgets to prevent proper funding to agencies tasked with inspecting duties.

American companies have a responsibility to protect their employees.  Too often, big companies are deemed innocent of any wrongdoing in cases of preventable work-related injury. We must put pressure on these companies to raise safety standards throughout their supply chain to protect workers both at home and abroad. Stay tuned to nclnet.org for an in-depth piece on workplace disasters later this week.

FDA issues advisory on foreign counterfeit Botox

The FDA has issued an advisory, warning consumers and healthcare professionals about counterfeit Botox that has entered the marketplace.  The outer carton of these counterfeit products appears to be the FDA approved version of Botox, but inside there is a foreign version of Botox, not approved by the FDA. These counterfeits are being sold through “blast faxes” in which a foreign company solicits sales from medical practices at very low prices.

There is no indication that the FDA approved version of Botox is unsafe, but these foreign counterfeit versions are unfamiliar and untested. Medical practices should not purchase products that are unsolicited. Signs that the Botox is counterfeit include the incorrect active ingredient listed on the outer carton, or expiration dates on the outer carton that do not match the accompanying vial enclosed within.

Consumers must be aware that fraudulent Botox is being widely distributed, and should take extra precaution before beginning Botox treatment. If you see any suspicious looking products please report these cases of fraud immediately to Fraud.org, the FDA, or call the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations at 1-800-551-3989 to prevent other consumers from falling victim to the same traps.

LifeSmarts announces partnership with UL’s Safety Smart Ambassador program

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERABy Lisa Hertzberg, LifeSmarts Program Director

LifeSmarts is offering an exciting new opportunity for its participants: Safety Smart! Our latest expansion effort and partnership, with Underwriters Laboratories, (UL), is offering teens a chance to focus on health and safety curriculum while giving back through community service.

By combining efforts on a joint educational project, LifeSmarts and UL are teaming up to offer LifeSmarts participants a win-win opportunity – students gain new resources to learn about relevant topics and prepare for competition, and demonstrate their leadership skills by providing Safety Smart presentations to young children in their communities.

Safety Smart is a program from UL that operates under the philosophy that unintentional injuries are avoidable and preventable when people make smart choices. When Safety Smart Ambassadors share Safety Smart concepts with children, they help raise awareness and inspire action. Safety Smart Ambassadors help cultivate a younger generation of children to be Safety Advocates…Safety Scientists…Safety Smart.

Thanks to this new partnership, LifeSmarts participants will gain from UL’s vast research in safety science, which has been used to develop new competition questions, a 50-question TeamSmarts competition, a LifeSmarts U lesson, and team challenges for 2013 live competitions.

In addition, we are encouraging LifeSmarts participants to become Safety Smart Ambassadors. Three lessons have been created for LifeSmarts student leaders to teach young children about the benefits of ‘going green’ and being ‘healthy and fit.’ We’re providing the tools; now it’s up to our student participants to get out there in their communities to make a difference!

The LifeSmarts Safety Smart Ambassador program is:

  • Quick and easy – each lesson is designed as a 30 minute presentation
  • Fun – Timon and Pumbaa from Disney’s The Lion King introduce the topics in DVDs available free to Student Ambassadors
  • Educational – young children will gain knowledge about important environmental and health and safety topics, and high school students will learn along with them
  • Satisfying – LifeSmarts participants will have the opportunity to provide a quality, interactive lesson to younger children, serving as mentors and demonstrating leadership in their community
  • A great fit – Many students are required to do community service, participate in service learning, or complete a senior project – the Safety Smart Ambassador program helps meet all of these requirements
  • Turnkey – everything you need to get started is in one place:www.lifesmarts.org/SAFETYSMART
  • Rewarding –Students who participate in the LifeSmarts Safety Ambassador program may be eligible to win prizes and scholarships. See: www.lifesmarts.org/SAFETYSMART/PRIZES to learn more.

LifeSmarts is pleased to partner with UL, and working with our dedicated and inspiring student leaders, we are excited about the positive impact this program will have across the country. We can’t wait to see what our LifeSmarts Safety Smart Ambassadors will do! Join us today! www.lifesmarts.org/SAFETYSMART

Poultry ‘modernization’ bad news for consumers and workers

By Michell K. McIntyre, Director of NCL’s Special Project on Wage Theft and Teresa Green, Linda Golodner Food Safety & Nutrition Fellow

What do you call a proposed federal regulatory rule that looks to help make hundreds of millions of dollars for industry at the expense of worker and the public’s safety? Irresponsible? Reckless?

In a nutshell, that’s what’s happening with the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) proposed changes to the poultry inspection process. It sounds like a lot of legal mumbo jumbo, but what is boils down to is that it allows the fox to guard the hen house – almost literally. The changes allow the government to layoff federally trained and experienced poultry inspectors, who are tasked with keeping American poultry safe, and allows the poultry plants to hire private employees to carry out those duties. These private employees do not have mandatory training nor would have the same level of experience. The workers would also be at the mercy of their employers of when they could blow the whistle and stop an unfit carcass from getting mixed in with poultry sent to consumers’ tables. Poultry plants would also be permitted to speed up the inspection lines in order to make more profits. But at the cost of what?  Increased risk of worker injuries? Increase in foodborne diseases like salmonella and campylobacter?
A retired federal poultry inspector has been blowing the lid about what she’s seen at a pilot plant and calling into question the wisdom of the proposed change.  Phyllis McKelvey, grandmother of 8 and the whistle blowing retired poultry inspector with over 40 years of experience, took her concerns public through a Change.org petition that more than 177,000 people signed.  Last week, she delivered the petitions to USDA and called on them to stop this new inspection process from spreading to a majority of poultry plants.
The proposed rule would allow the poultry plants to speed up the lines of inspection to 175 birds per minute – that’s 3 birds per second and 1 bird per 1/3 of a second.  You can’t even wink that fast!
What makes USDA think untrained private inspectors can inspect a bird in that time? Can they find the puss, scabs, tumors and fecal contamination in that time?  Can even trained and experienced federal inspectors catch defects in that short period of time? And should we put public’s safety on the line in order for the poultry industry to make more profits?
That’s a gamble we’re not willing to take.
For more information on the USDA’s proposed changes to the poultry inspection process and what you can do, please visit UFCW and National Council of La Raza.

Where’s that scalpel?!?! New technology could reduce number of surgical items left in patients

Every year 4,000 patients end up with “retained surgical items” left in their bodies after surgery, the vast majority are sponges used to soak up blood. These “retained” items can cause lifelong distress and discomfort. New technology and sponge counting methods are available to make it easier to address the problem, but hospitals are resisting. Dr. Verna Gibbs, a professor of surgery at the University of Calfornia, San Francisco, is director of “NoThing Left Behind” a national surgical patient safety project. The New York Times recently reported that all sorts of tools are left in patients by mistake – not only sponges, which account for 2/3 of the left items, but clamps, scalpels, and even scissors!

The new technologies include radio-frequency tags, which tracks use of sponges with a tiny radio frequency tag. When the operation is complete, a detector alerts the surgery team if any sponges are inside the patient and is very effective in spotting things left behind. Another tracking system relies on bar codes for every sponge, but apparently, according to the Times, fewer than 1 percent of hospitals employ it. One doctor quoted in the article was sued before he became an advocate of electronic tracking, and now he won’t do surgery without the technology at work to make sure he and his team don’t leave any “retained’ items inside patients. Why don’t more hospitals use this technology? “In my heart, I think it comes down to hospitals not wanting to spend the extra 10 bucks,” he told the Times. That’s troubling, especially when $10 per operation cost for the added technology could save millions in malpractice costs.

Professor Gibbs says technology should be used in combination with other methods for accountability among surgery teams. Sure, the whole team must be involved in making sure items are not left inside patients, but technology can help a lot. Hospitals should be adopting it across the board because it’s the most foolproof way – in a system full of potential human errors – to protect patients. It’s that simple.

What’s next for mine safety standards?

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

The sad aftermath of the tragic and terrible explosion that killed 29 miners in April 2010 at the Upper Big Branch Mine (UBB) in West Virginia came down recently in the form of a  $209 million fine. Federal prosecutors settled with Alpha Natural Resources – the company that bought Massey Energy, the owner of the mine at the time of the explosion.  UBB was the worst mine disaster in 40 years and the fine is 40 times the size of any previous one. But, of course, nothing can bring back the 29 miners–they had families, were part of their community, they worked grueling jobs each and every day, and they were fathers, husbands, brothers, uncles and sons.

Dean Jones, one of the miners who died, had warned the company of the dangerous conditions before the disaster and was told to get back to work or he and the other miners would be fired. The owners refused to allow the United Mine Workers to organize UBB, thus removing any leverage the workers had to negotiate for safer conditions.

Under the settlement, Alpha will pay $1.5 million each to of the 29 families; the company has also agreed to spend at least $80 million on prevention reforms that will help to avert another disaster, including better air monitors in their mines and new devices to prevent suffocation.

The same week federal prosecutors announced the fine, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) released a 1,000+ page report that described UBB as lacking the basic modern safety measures: coal dust and poor ventilation is what caused this explosion, the same conditions that killed coal miners 100 years ago. The UBB mine’s ventilation system wasn’t working properly, causing a build up of flammable coal dust and the hazardous conditions that lead to the explosion. $34 million of the fine is for Massey’s violations of safety requirements.

Don Blankenship, the arrogant former Massey Energy owner who was sent packing after the disaster, was notorious for flouting safety requirements. Massey kept two sets of books – one for regulators, and one for internal purposes. Blankenship was preoccupied with how much money the mines were making, sometimes checking production every few hours, and always at the expense of safety.

This historic $290 million fine and report certainly brings some closure to the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster. The question is – will safety in the mines finally become a true priority, will mine owners finally see the value in having their workforce represented by the United Mine Workers which puts safety and health at the top of its demands, and will the lives of coal miners begin to be truly valued after this sad chapter in coal mining and labor history? We certainly hope so, but only time will tell.

 

From hurricanes to earthquakes: be prepared for anything

By Mimi Johnson, NCL Director of Health Policy

Nearly the entire eastern seaboard felt the quake on Tuesday, and nearly the entire eastern seaboard will feel the effects of Hurricane Irene later this week.  This is a great time to get your emergency plan in place, assemble an emergency kit, and stay informed.

Every home and business should have a disaster kit in place. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends the following items be placed in an emergency kit in your home, office, car, and/or school:

  • Water—one gallon per person, per day (3­ day supply for evacuation, 2 ­week supply for home)
  • Food—non­perishable, easy-­to-­prepare items (again, 3­ day supply for evacuation, 2­ week supply for home)
  • Flashlight
  • Battery-powered or hand-­crank radio (NOAA Weather Radio, if possible)
  • Extra batteries
  • First aid kit
  • Medications (7­ day supply) and medical items
  • Multi­purpose tool
  • Sanitation and personal hygiene items
  • Copies of personal documents (medication list and pertinent medical information, proof of address, deed/lease to home, passports, birth certificates, insurance policies)
  • Cell phone with chargers
  • Family and emergency contact information
  • Extra cash
  • Emergency blanket
  • Map(s) of the area

Consider the needs of all family members and when gathering supplies for your kit. Suggested items to help meet additional needs include:

  • Medical supplies (hearing aids with extra batteries, glasses, contact lenses, syringes, cane)
  • Baby supplies (bottles, formula, baby food, diapers)
  • Games and activities for children
  • Pet supplies (collar, leash, ID, food, carrier, bowl)
  • Two­-way radios
  • Extra set of car keys and house keys
  • Manual can opener

Additional supplies to keep at home or in your kit based on the types of disasters common to your area:

  • Whistle
  • N95 or surgical masks
  • Matches
  • Rain gear
  • Towels
  • Work gloves
  • Tools/supplies for securing your home
  • Extra clothing, hat and sturdy shoes
  • Plastic sheeting
  • Duct tape
  • Scissors
  • Household liquid bleach
  • Entertainment items
  • Blankets or sleeping bags

It is especially important to keep your kit current, and if you have a chronic condition, PLEASE keep a supply of meds in the kit.  Dealing with a disaster and unknowns can be stressful and chaotic, which makes it all the more important to maintain your health and keep a clear head.  The CDC has great resources for specific chronic conditions and what kits should look like for different conditions. For more information on managing your chronic condition, visit http://www.scriptyourfuture.org

While the likelihood of another moderate earthquake hitting the East Coast anytime soon is slim, it was a good reminder that natural disasters and emergencies can strike at any time, and often without any warning.  If you would like to learn more about how to best to prepare for possible disasters in your community, contact your local public health department for more information.

Massey Energy case makes clear: miners need more protections

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

In the 1890’s in America, mine workers faced harsh working conditions. There were few safety mechanisms on machines, pay commonly amounted to less than one dollar for a 12 to 14-hour workday, and mine owners commonly paid their employees in scrip, company-printed money, only usable at company-owned stores, where prices were significantly higher. And especially important to NCL’s history, many mine workers were children, with mine owners commonly hiring boys as young as ten years of age to work in the mines.

Thanks to decades of battles to get union representation by the United Mine Workers union and its many hard-fought battles, conditions have improved in the mines and mineworkers are well paid. But the lives of mineworkers are still too cheap.

Last week, federal investigators looking into the mine explosion in April of last year in West Virginia found that Massey Energy, the owner of the mine where 29 men were killed in an explosion, kept accounts of hazardous conditions out of official record books where inspectors would see them. For example, one internal report from March 1, 2010, shortly before the accident, noted a problem with water sprayers, while the official report stated flatly “none observed” in the column for hazardous conditions.

After the mine disaster, a lot negative information came to light about Don Blankenship, owner of Massey Mines – including how he undervalued the safety of miners, was obsessed with output, checking on mine production every several hours. Now we learn that Massey Mines kept a set of internal books where safety hazards were recorded, out of sight of state inspectors, and off the official books that the law required them to keep.

We owe a debt of gratitude to the team of federal investigators, who spent a year sifting through more than 84,000 pages of documents, interviewing 266 people and examining evidence at the Upper Big Branch mine, where the explosion occurred.

Kevin Stricklin of MSHA, the federal agency responsible for mine safety, at a press conference this week, gave a stinging indictment of Massey practices, saying the federal investigation by more than 100 people had been able to rule out the company’s assertion that the explosion on April 5, 2010, happened because of an event beyond its control: a huge inundation of gas.

His findings matched those of the earlier report, conducted by a former federal mine safety chief which said that coal dust had been allowed to accumulate, spreading what had been a small ignition of methane through the mine and creating the deadliest mine blast in 40 years. Stricklin said this wasn’t simply a theory, “This is our conclusion.”

Falsifying records is a felony under federal mining laws. Though two people have been indicted in the mine explosion, Massey managers, including the former chief executive, Don Blankenship, have not been charged. 18 Massey executives have refused to be interviewed for the federal investigation, invoking their Fifth Amendment rights. Stricklin’s report found that Massey managers also pressured workers to omit dangerous conditions from the official books, Mr. Stricklin said that workers who tried to report risks were intimidated.

What can we do in the future to prevent negligent anti-union mine owners like Don Blankenship from exposing coal miners – who work under very dangerous conditions in the best of times – from continuing to operate? After all, the negligence killed 29 men working in the mine. Federal criminal indictments might help – and once these findings make their way to the US Attorney’s office – prosecutors should press charges against any and all officials whose actions put coal miners at risk.

Charting a course toward safer table saws

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

In the United States each year, 40,000 users of table saws sustain serious injuries; 10 percent of those injuries are amputations, and that number is up approximately 10,000 injuries over the past decade. The injuries are painful, traumatic, and life-altering events for victims and their families. But what is hard to believe is that, as all of these grave injuries that are racked up year in and year out, there’s been a foolproof, highly effective technology to prevent 99 percent these injuries available since 2003. The only problem is that the conventional sawmakers have refused to adopt the safety technology.

That’s not surprising. In my work in product safety industries often resist adopting available and affordable safety devices that protect their customers. The reasons are varied, but none are defensible in my view – if there’s a safety technology to protect people from such terrible injuries as finger amputations and arms nearly sliced in half (and grisly deaths, I might add. There are a number of those too in the database – I’ve seen the pictures) and it’s affordable, it should be adopted as soon as possible. Imagine arguing that its not needed or wanted by consumers. I cannot.

I learned about the epidemic of table saw injuries in 2004 when I heard a story by National Public Radio’s Chris Arnold. At the time I was senior product safety counsel at Consumers Union and passionately working to get dangerous products removed from the market. I was shocked – both at the harrowing injury statistics and that the makers of the safety technology had no luck getting any of the saw manufacturers to license the safe saw design. I figured once this story ran, the Consumer Product Safety Commission would take up the issue and require the table saw safety technology on its own accord.

How wrong I was. Last summer I heard Chris Arnold’s follow-up story, six years after the first one; I learned to my shock and horror that the safety technology has never been adopted while table saw injuries have been climbing over a ten-year period. We consulted NCL policy on product safety, adopted in 2000, and it is crystal clear and touches every important aspect of this issue:

  • NCL supports strong and effective government regulatory and enforcement agencies to assure safety of services and products used by consumers and the environment in which they are used.
  • NCL believes that corporations have a responsibility to assure that safety and universal design be built into product and service design.
  • NCL supports consumer education and information to teach safe behavior but recognizes that consumer education is never an acceptable substitute for quality safety standards and careful design and production;
  • NCL urges that diligent enforcement of safety standards be carried out by private as well as public groups;
  • NCL encourages prompt gathering of injury data by the public and private sectors in order to identify trends, inform consumers, and take appropriate actions to address safety concerns.

In consultation with our Board of Directors, NCL wrote in November of last year to the five commissioners at the Consumer Product Safety Commission urging them to begin the regulatory process toward a mandatory safety performance standard for table saws that is technology neutral – which means not endorsing any one technololgy. Such a safety standard dictates what the result must be – safety in using the product during regular use – not how you get there. Then, in February of this year, USA Today featured an article on the hazards of table saws, which prompted CPSC Commissioner Bob Adler to bring the makers of the safe saw, SawStop, into Washington for a meeting. The industry representatives, the Power Tool Institute, also presented to Commissioner Adler, arguing they couldn’t adopt the technology because it too expensive to implement especially in the smaller saws.

Sally Greenberg speaks to reporters about table saw dangers at the National Press Club on May 25.

In the latest development, this week NCL escorted four men from three different states around Washington. Each of them had personal interactions with table saw injuries – three had serious injuries themselves, including amputations and a mangled right arm that may never function normally, and one owned a cabinetmaking shop where two of his workers had their hands maimed by the saws; three of them knew about the safety technology when they bought their saws; two couldn’t afford a higher-end saw (and ran small businesses on the side while holding other jobs,) and the shop owner had tried to buy two saws before they were on the market. They are all deeply sorry they didn’t have safe saws.

We visited four of the five CPSC Commissioners, a number of senators and several members of the House of Representatives. At the end of this grueling three days, these guys – who had never met before this week, were like brothers. They heard one another’s stories time and time again and all were asking that all table saws sold in the United States be subject to a mandatory safety standard.

We got positive feedback from the Chairman of the CPSC, Inez Tenenbaum, who told us she believes they have the votes to open an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. That very important regulatory process is the first move toward a mandatory standard, if one is to be adopted.

And we are ready for the predictable resistance from industry – but that ship has sailed. NCL will invite 100 victims of saw accidents to come to Washington if need be – and with them, pictures of their bloody and painful injuries. They all have a story to tell – about dreams destroyed, careers ruined, livelihoods in jeopardy, being forced to go on welfare, food stamps, and energy assistance because they can’t make a living – and the constant pain and suffering they endure because of one millisecond slip into the blade of a table saw. All the while, they could have been kept safe by currently available technology. Once the real story gets out, no one will be able to argue that making the most dangerous product in the workshop the safest isn’t a cause worth fighting for – and winning.

Advocates to CPSC, industry: making window blinds safer an easy fix

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

It’s hard to believe that something as seemingly benign as a window blind shade could kill a child, but as a recent New York Times story illustrated, we haven’t yet solved the fatal hazard window blinds present to children. Andrew Martin’s Times story is a cautionary tale about what happens when regulators wait and wait for industry to get off the dime and design a safer product. It doesn’t happen without regulatory pressure toward a mandatory standard.

As Martin’s story illustrates, regulators have been aware of the hazards of window cord blinds since at least the early 1980s, when a federal study to determine the causes of child strangulation tied 41 deaths to drapery and blind cords. Everything from warnings to discontinuing certain styles like horizontal blinds with pull cords ending in a loop, to other fixes like a breakaway device, have been tried. In fact, one manufacturer, Comfortex, produced an ad that highlighted its own solution to the cord problem. Comfortex advertised: “In 1996, only one company offered a real solution to the problem of injuries due to cords. While the industry searched for ways to make cords safer, Comfortex found a way to make shades without cords.”

Over a period of many years, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has been talking about cracking down on the industry and insisting on a cord-free design. Corded window blinds continue to present dangers to kids. It seems that no matter how well the cords on these blinds are hidden, when a child’s crib or bed is near a window with such a blind, the danger that the child will reach into the window blind and become entangled in the cord is always present.

For years, CPSC has asked manufacturers to devise a way to eliminate the risks from window cords or face the possibility of mandatory regulations. But manufacturers have dragged their feet on addressing safety hazards for decades, making minor tweaks or putting the onus on parents to shorten cords or buy tie-down devices.

CPSC has a task force to look at the issue. As an NCL friend and safety expert Carol Pollack-Nelson told the Times, “It was my understanding that we were eliminating the hazard. Now they are talking about reducing the hazard. We don’t want reduced strangulation. We want no chance of it.” We agree with Carol.

As the Times story also noted, a solution has been available for several decades: cordless blinds. The industry has testified that the additional cost of making a cordless blind is $1 to $2. And industry says cordless blinds are more difficult to manufacture than corded blinds.

Are these extra cost and other concerns worth the cost of a child’s life? Talk to parents who’ve lost a child – or seen their child suffer brain damage from being entangled in a window blind cord – and the answer will be, unequivocally yes. Would any of us disagree if our own children’s lives were in question?

The CPSC should stop pussyfooting around. We have a product that with a pattern of injury, there’s a technology to make it safe, and doing so is not prohibitively expensive. After years of handwringing, the CPSC should move forward at long last and put a mandatory standard in place for window blinds. No child should have to die because regulators and industry can’t make a simple decision to adopt a safer design for window shades.