EPA's proposed Worker Protection Standard and the burdens of the past.

BACKGROUND: An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommendation for extensive changes to the Agency's 40-year-old Worker Protection Standard is currently stalled in the "proposed rule" stage. The proposal, which was available for public comment until 18 August, would improve safety, training, and hazard communication policies for agricultural pesticides. Exposure to hazards, including high heat, heavy machinery, stoop labor, and pesticides, makes occupational illness uncommonly common among the USA's estimated 2.5 million farm workers. OBJECTIVES: To consider the proposed revisions' likelihood of addressing historical gaps in farmworker protection. METHODS: The proposal was compared to the existing Worker Protection Standard, and key aspects were analyzed in relation to existing science on farm labor hazards, as well as historic occupational health, labor and immigration policy. RESULTS: US law historically has left farm workers largely unprotected. These exclusions and delays have been tolerated in part thanks to the myth of the independent family farmer, but more significant is the stingy nativism that presumes to benefit from immigrant labor without assuming any responsibility to protect the humans who provide it. In the first half of the 1970s, workers lobbied for robust protections, but rule making was impeded by lack of data and by the disproportionate influence of agricultural employers who sought minimal regulation. In 1974, the EPA passed the first Worker Protection Standard for farm workers. Key aspects of the proposed revision include stronger protections against drift and re-entry exposures, better information provision and training, and increased protections for workers under 16 years. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed changes represent an improvement over existing legislation, but do not go far enough. The revision should be strengthened along lines suggested by farm workers themselves, and other labor laws must also be amended to give the men, women, and children who work in the fields of this country full rights and protections.

Beyond reputation: debate on the role of corporate influence in occupational and environmental medicine.

In his article in this issue, Tee Guidotti casts recent works addressing corporate influence on occupational medicine as "collective act[s] of disparagement ... undertaken ... for political reasons." We move beyond the question of reputation to address key conflicts in the history of occupational medicine, including the American Occupational Medical Association's historical role in weakening the beryllium standard and the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine's recent efforts to limit the extent of the Family Medical Leave Act. The corporate practice of externalizing health and safety costs makes industry influence an important ongoing topic of debate in occupational and environmental medicine.

Code of Sustainable Practice in Occupational and Environmental Health and Safety for Corporations.

At a conference held at Stony Brook University in December 2007, "Dangerous Trade: Histories of Industrial Hazard across a Globalizing World," participants endorsed a Code of Sustainable Practice in Occupational and Environmental Health and Safety for Corporations. The Code outlines practices that would ensure corporations enact the highest health and environmentally protective measures in all the locations in which they operate. Corporations should observe international guidelines on occupational exposure to air contaminants, plant safety, air and water pollutant releases, hazardous waste disposal practices, remediation of polluted sites, public disclosure of toxic releases, product hazard labeling, sale of products for specific uses, storage and transport of toxic intermediates and products, corporate safety and health auditing, and corporate environmental auditing. Protective measures in all locations should be consonant with the most protective measures applied anywhere in the world, and should apply to the corporations' subsidiaries, contractors, suppliers, distributors, and licensees of technology. Key words: corporations, sustainability, environmental protection, occupational health, code of practice.

Manipulated data in Shell's Benzene Historical Exposure Study.

In 1983, in the face of mounting evidence of excess leukemia among workers at Shell Oil's Wood River (IL) and Deer Park (TX) petroleum refineries, Shell initiated the Benzene Historical Exposure Study (BHES). Shell's prior research had implicated occupational exposure to benzene as the source of the excess leukemia. The BHES report submission, which ultimately found no link between exposure and the excess morbidity, coincided with OSHA's planned hearings over a new regulatory standard for benzene. Over the next two decades, Shell published several papers based on or expanding the BHES data, all of which concluded that the excess of leukemia was unrelated to benzene. A review of the raw data on which Shell and its consultants relied reveals that Shell manipulated and omitted data in order to reach conclusions that exculpated it from liability and helped delay stricter benzene regulation.

Maximizing profit and endangering health: corporate strategies to avoid litigation and regulation.

Corporations and industries use various tactics to obscure the fact that their products are dangerous or deadly. Their aim is to secure the least restrictive possible regulatory environment and avert legal liability for deaths or injuries in order to maximize profit. They work with attorneys and public relations professionals, using scientists, science advisory boards; front groups, industry organizations, think tanks, and the media to influence scientific and popular opinion of the risks of their products or processes. The strategy, which depends on corrupt science, profits corporations at the expense of public health. Public health professionals can learn from this strategy how to effectively build scientific and public opinion that prioritizes both good science and the public health.

Over a barrel: corporate corruption of science and its effects on workers and the environment.

Although occupational and environmental diseases are often viewed as isolated and unique failures of science, the government, or industry to protect the best interest of the public, they are in fact an outcome of a pervasive system of corporate priority setting, decision making, and influence. This system produces disease because political, economic, regulatory and ideological norms prioritize values of wealth and profit over human health and environmental well-being. Science is a key part of this system; there is a substantial tradition of manipulation of evidence, data, and analysis, ultimately designed to maintain favorable conditions for industry at both material and ideological levels. This issue offers examples of how corporations influence science, shows the effects that influence has on environmental and occupational health, and provides evidence of a systemic problem.

Exposing the "myth" of ABC, "anything but chrysotile": a critique of the Canadian asbestos mining industry and McGill University chrysotile studies.

BACKGROUND: Beginning in the 1930s, the Canadian asbestos industry created and advanced the idea that chrysotile asbestos is safer than asbestos of other fiber types. METHODS: We critically evaluate published and unpublished studies funded by the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association (QAMA) and performed by researchers at McGill University. RESULTS: QAMA-funded researchers put forth several myths purporting that Quebec-mined chrysotile was harmless, and contended that the contamination of chrysotile with oils, tremolite, or crocidolite was the source of occupational health risk. In addition, QAMA-funded researchers manipulated data and used unsound sampling and analysis techniques to back up their contention that chrysotile was "essentially innocuous." CONCLUSIONS: These studies were used to promote the marketing and sales of asbestos, and have had a substantial effect on policy and occupational health litigation. Asbestos manufacturing companies and the Canadian government continue to use them to promote the use of asbestos in Europe and in developing countries. Am. J. Ind. Med. 44:540-557, 2003.

The beryllium "double standard" standard.

Brush Wellman, the world's leading producer and supplier of beryllium products, has systematically hidden cases of beryllium disease that occurred below the threshold limit value (TLV) and lied about the efficacy of the TLV in published papers, lectures, reports to government agencies, and instructional materials prepared for customers and workers. Hypocritically, Brush Wellman instituted a zero exposure standard for corporate executives while workers and customers were told the 2 microgram standard was "safe." Brush intentionally used its workers as "canaries for the plant," and referred to them as such. Internal documents and corporate depositions indicate that these actions were intentional and that the motive was money. Despite knowledge of the inadequacy of the TLV, Brush has successfully used it as a defense against lawsuits brought by injured workers and as a sales device to provide reassurance to customers. Brush's policy has reaped an untold number of victims and resulted in mass distribution of beryllium in consumer products. Such corporate malfeasance is perpetuated by the current market system, which is controlled by an organized oligopoly that creates an incentive for the neglect of worker health and safety in favor of externalizing costs to victimized workers, their families, and society at large.