Celeste Monforton

Weight of the Evidence or Wait for the Evidence? Protecting Underground Miners From Diesel Particulate Matter

A coalition of mine operators has used a variety of tactics to obstruct scientific inquiry and impede public health action designed to protect underground miners from diesel particulate matter. These workers are exposed to the highest level of diesel particulate matter compared with any other occupational group. This case study profiles a decade-long saga of the Methane Awareness Resource Group Diesel Coalition to impede epidemiological studies on diesel exhaust undertaken by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the National Cancer Institute, and to derail a health standard promulgated by the Mine Safety and Health Administration. The case study highlights the coalitions mastery of legislative, judicial, and executive branch operations and the reaction of policymakers.

Effects of Social, Economic, and Labor Policies on Occupational Health Disparities

BACKGROUND This article introduces some key labor, economic, and social policies that historically and currently impact occupational health disparities in the United States. METHODS We conducted a broad review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature on the effects of social, economic, and labor policies on occupational health disparities. RESULTS Many populations such as tipped workers, public employees, immigrant workers, and misclassified workers are not protected by current laws and policies, including workers compensation or Occupational Safety and Health Administration enforcement of standards. Local and state initiatives, such as living wage laws and community benefit agreements, as well as multiagency law enforcement contribute to reducing occupational health disparities. CONCLUSIONS There is a need to build coalitions and collaborations to command the resources necessary to identify, and then reduce and eliminate occupational disparities by establishing healthy, safe, and just work for all.

An Impact Evaluation of a Federal Mine Safety Training Regulation on Injury Rates Among US Stone, Sand, and Gravel Mine Workers: An Interrupted Time-Series Analysis

OBJECTIVES We evaluated the impact of a safety training regulation, implemented by the US Department of Labors Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) in 1999, on injury rates at stone, sand, and gravel mining operations. METHODS We applied a time-series design and analyses with quarterly counts of nonfatal injuries and employment hours from 7998 surface aggregate mines from 1995 through 2006. Covariates included standard industrial classification codes, ownership, and injury severity. RESULTS Overall crude rates of injuries declined over the 12-year period. Reductions in incident rates for medical treatment only, restricted duty, and lost-time injuries were consistent with temporal trends and provided no evidence of an intervention effect attributable to the MSHA regulation. Rates of permanently disabling injuries (PDIs) declined markedly. Regression analyses documented a statistically significant reduction in the risk rate in the postintervention time period (risk rate = 0.591; 95% confidence interval = 0.529, 0.661). CONCLUSIONS Although a causal relationship between the regulatory intervention and the decline in the rate of PDIs is plausible, inconsistency in the results with the other injury-severity categories preclude attributing the observed outcome to the MSHA regulation. Further analyses of these data are needed.

Exposure science will not increase protection of workers from asbestos-caused diseases: NIOSH fails to provide needed public health action and leadership.

Exposure science will not increase protection of workers from asbestos-caused diseases: NIOSH fails to provide needed public health action and leadership

INDUSTRY ATTACKS ON SCIENCE

I applaud Rosenstock and Lee for their article “Attacks on Science: The Risk to Evidence-Based Policy.”1 The authors describe tactics used by a variety of interests to undermine public health initiatives and suggest that the scientific community understand these threats and devise institutional responses to them. They illustrate the need for action by recounting the measures used by an industry group to delay the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and National Cancer Institute (NIOSH–NCI) epidemiological study of diesel exhaust. A lesser-known aspect of this story exposes the mining industry groups duplicity and intensifies the call for a public health response. While the US Department of Health and Human Services was engaged in its legal battle with the Methane Awareness Resource Group (MARG), another cabinet-level agency was hearing a much different tale from this industry coalition. The US Department of Labor (DOL) was engaged in rulemaking to protect underground miners, the most heavily exposed workers, from diesel particulate matter.2,3 In writing and at public hearings before DOL officials, MARG expressed its support for the NIOSH–NCI study. The group indicated that it was “participating cooperatively with government researchers”4 and that it “endorsed the study.”5 At times, mining industry executives extolled the studys value, noting that it “has the potential to fill in many knowledge gaps.”6 MARGs statements to DOL officials suggested that the group eagerly awaited the studys results. In reality, the opposite was true. The coalition worked to block the workplace standards by pressuring the Secretary of Labor to wait for completion of the study. Industry representatives argued that a delay in the new rules was necessary because the science was incomplete. One testified that the study would “offer definitive data on the actual mining population . . . not a biased view of various academic studies.”7 The coalition, however, was actually engaged in inventive legal maneuvers against the Department of Health and Human Services to thwart the epidemiological research. Through its separate interactions with the 2 agencies (NIOSH and DOL), MARG successfully characterized itself as an active participant in and advocate for the study, at the same time that it was amassing a written record of opposition to the study. Ultimately, this was a new twist to a tried-and-true strategy: oppose protective regulations by arguing for better science, and obstruct the research that would enhance scientific understanding and improve evidence-based policy. Such blatant attacks on science will not be addressed by government agencies. The public health community must answer the call.