Document GKoeDy2kzLezwkNO7XQ61BmNV

if ! >1 I ,'i in: !1 l Confrontation over issues surrounding genetic protection involves chemical companies, unions, worik%i5 rights groups, and several government agencies Rebecca L. Rawls C&EN, Washington The stage is set for confrontation. The overture began in the mid-1970's when workers in plants manufac turing chemicals such as kepone and l,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) began to complain ofsterility and other reproductive deficiencies caused, they thought, by exposure to these chemicals. The curtain rose late last year when the Department of Labor cited American Cyanamid for work policies which, it claimed, forced women to be sterilized or lose their jobs at Cyanamid's Willow Island, W.Va., lead pigments manufacturing facility. At about the same time, a woman in Ohio brought suit against B. F. Goodrich Co. for not allowing her to continue to work in an area where vinyl chloride is polymerized because of the potential risk of chemical ex- *8f&-pc-r,un: toa fetus should she become pregnant. The 1980's as a "decade of genetic confrontation"--which one labor leader already is calling it--seems well under way. It is a confrontation that is drawing , in many parties. Labor unions and other workers' rights groups are in volved. Coalitions of many of these groups are forming. Probably most notable is the Coalition for the Re productive Rights of Workers (CROW), which pulls together labor unions, women's rights groups, and legal groups concerned with possible violations of an individual's right to fair employment in the name of ge netic protection. The federal government also is in volved through several different agencies. The Occupational Safety & Health Administration in the De partment of Labor has taken the lead among the government agencies. Its interest comes from its charge to as sure a healthful workplace for all employees. But the federal agencies responsible for assuring equal treat trol of weeds in soybean and fruit ment of men and women in employ crops. Last November, the Interna ment also are involved, principally tional Chemical Workers Union the Equal Employment Opportunity urged OSHA to shut down the Rens Commission and the Department of selaer plant and the Environmental Labor's Office of Federal Contract Protection Agency to ban the use of Compliance Programs. Just last week Oryzalin, charging that the Lilly these two agencies issued joint herbicide was responsible for birth guidelines to employers on which defects or miscarriages among the programs.aimed at protecting work offspring of five male workers at the ers' offspring they would consider facility. nondiscriminatory. According to the union, no normal And, of course, the chemical com pregnancies occurred in the families panies are involved. So far, their role of the 110 workers at the plant during remains the key one, for individually the 18 months that the compound they are still setting personnel poli wns being produced there. But three cies within their companies. There children were born with heart defects, were no uniform federal guidelines a fourth, who died of pneumonia two until last week, and it is still too early months after birth, also may have had to see the impact of the new guide a heart defect; and a fifth pregnancy lines on company policies. Labor ended in miscarriage. In each case, it unions and other workers' rights was only the fathers of the children groups, for now, are aiming their ef who worked with Oryzalin (C&EN, forts primarily at influencing the Nov. 12,1979, page 6). government to control the companies OSHA and the National Institute tightly. They have only begun in a for Occupational Safety & Health are small way any direct action against arioi.kiivr into i.bn union's claims abou* the companies themselves. Oryzalin, both at the Rensselaer plant" The most recent cases to draw and at other locations where Oryzalin public attention have centered on the is made. So far, according to ICWU question of women working in certain general counsel Salvatore J. Falletta, areas. But women workers are only NIOSH has not found any evidence of part of the issue. Men, too, can be af harm to offspring of workers at other , fected by exposure to certain chemi locations. This does not mean that cals, and such exposure could very the chemical is not the source of the likely cause abnormalities in problem, Falletta points out. It may, offspring. for instance, be handled differently at A case in point is that of chemical the other locations, posing a hazard workers at a Rensselaer, N.Y., chem only at the Rensselaer site. OSHA's ical plant that made Oryzalin, a her final report on the question is ex bicide sold by Eli Lilly & Co. for con- pected in the next few weeks. Eli Lilly says that the birth defects among the families of workers at the This article is part 1 of a two-part series. Rensselaer plant are "multiple coin Here. C&EN examines the issue of male cidences" and have nothing to do with reproductive hazards, disputes that exposure of the fathers to Oryzalin or seem headed for court settlements, and its precursors. This is the conclusion the government's emerging position. of the New York Institute of Birth Part 2 will examine how government, Defects and doctors at the Albany , chemical companies, and unions are Medical Center, who have been in- d approaching the problems of worker vestigating the cases since the first of J protection. the children were born in 1976, the company says. j 2S CAEN Feb. 11,1980 BFG66022 iiiiui.. itaOiisu a conn* . .u-i. .. occupational exposure to certain chemicals and effects on male repro ductive function is that of DBCP, a soil fumigant used to control nema todes. Studies in laboratory animals and human data indicate that expo sure to relatively low levels of this compound can reduce sperm counts enough to cause sterility. When data on the effects on human workers be came public in 1977, the two major U.S. producers of DBCP, Dow Chemical and Shell Chemical, both stopped making it. OSHA quickly issued temporary emergency standards for exposure to nonagricultural workers of 10 ppb in the air. OSHA's permanent standard, issued in 1978, set the exposure level at 1 ppb. EPA restricted use of the compound to a limited number of crops, chiefly citrus fruits, in 1977. Even these uses are now being chal lenged, however, since data gathered last summer show unexpectedly high levels of DBCP in drinking water near agricultural areas. There is also concern that DBCP may cause birth defects in the chil dren of workers exposed to it One suit is under way involving California DBCP workers who claim that their sons were bom with defective penises because of the workers' exposure to the chemical;'* ~ Hr.*..**** However, probably the compound attracting the most attention, because of its possible effects on male fertility or on offspring through the fathers' exposure, is 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodi- benzo-p-dioxin, the contaminant in agent orange, the military herbicide used in Vietnam. Suits and counter suits have been filed in federal courts concerning the exposure of about 3000 Vietnam veterans to the com pound. A Vietnam veterans group that is suing on behalf of these vet erans claims, among other things, that exposure to the herbicide led to loss of sexual ability in the men and mal formations in their children (C&EN, Jan. 21, page 14). Although the veterans' suit charges birth defects associated with agent orange exposure in Vietnam, data on this point are not uniformly accepted as conclusive. NIOSH is in the midst of a multiple-generation study with rodents designed to show whether exposure to the chemical by the fa ther can cause defects in his offspring. And at least one of the chemical companies that supplied the Defense Department with agent orange during the Vietnam war is conducting a massive study of its workers who made the herbicide to ilufttrtnine whether there have Imihii any repro ductive effects in this group, With women exposed to chemicals in work activities, such as this plating ope ration, concern has tocused on repro ductive hazards of chemical exposure Despite the very real concern over reproductive hazards to men arising from exposure to hazardous chemi cals in the workplace, the focus of this issue at the moment is on women. Nearly all chemical companies, and a great many toxicologists, generally maintain that there are chemicals that can damage a developing embryo or fetus but are not harmful to a healthy male or female adult. Con trolling worker exposure to these substances is causing most of the current concern. Not everyone agrees with this viewpoint. Anthony Mazzocchi, di rector of health and safety for the Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Inter national Union (OCAW), for in stance, says existing data do not show the fetus to be any more vulnerable to chemical damage than the sperm. "We know of no substance that af fects the fetus and not male sperm,'' Mazzocchi says. The emerging government position appears to be somewhere in between these two views. That is, it does not state that a substance that affects the fetus must necessarily also affect the sperm, but it does caution companies that such effects are possible and cannot be ignored without the risk of the company's being charged with sex discrimination. Companies whose workers are ex posed to reproductive hazards in the workplace may not discriminate in the hiring or work assignments of their employees on Die basis of sex, including piegmm<*y nr rlilldheiii lug capacity, say the new I'oiloral guide- iiussiuii Ui,CA.<i i aim I in; uepai unent of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). Companies may establish "neutral" policies to protect employees and their offspring from reproductive hazards, but they must be certain that in practice the plans do not adversely affect only one sex. However, the new guidelines do allow for "temporary" exclusion of workers of one sex only from a work place under certain conditions. The first of these is that there be reputable scientific evidence that the hazard is likely to harm only one sex or only pregnant employees. The employer also must show that it has thoroughly searched the scientific literature and cannot find evidence of a similar hazard for the nonexcluded sex. Fi nally, companies must begin, within six months, research projects to find out whether the chemicals in question also produce adverse reproductive effects in the nonexcluded sex. These research projects are to be conducted under "accepted scientific methods" and produce results within two years. For now, these are only proposed guidelines. Chemical companies and others are being given 120 days to comment on them before they come out in final form. r..., The EEOC-OFCCP position re flects concerns sounded earlier in statements by officials at both NIOSH and OSHA. In a letter last month to B. F. Goodrich's manager of industrial relations F. R. Pruitt, for example, NIOSH director Anthony Robbins discusses the lack of ade quate data in some cases for estab lishing safe levels of exposure to cer tain chemicals for an unborn embryo or fetus. "We must, however, stand firm on the principle that if an expo sure is sufficiently toxic to produce genetic damage in an unborn child or in a fertile female, then it must be considered to be equally toxic to the fertile male worker and to his unborn child," Robbins says. "There is a priori no reason to believe that the genetic material of a male worker is in any way more resistant to toxic oc cupational injury than that of t he fe male. In addition, we feel that work ers of both sexes should be counseled regarding the nature of the materials with which they work and the poten tial toxic effects on them and on their offspring." Robbins' letter marks a definite change from the agency's stand on this question in the early l!)70's. In 11)74, fur example, NH H5I l' upn ilimill impiiBiue 1<I11111I<<11I l<<< vl<<vl ehlmirlii recommemlch ituil "mi BFG66023 tali. 11, IUIIO CAI N i* Jh? woman who is pregnant or expects to posures kept below that level, certain the information available in the lit f'-i become pregnant should be employed work areas are not open for fertile erature on their toxicological effects, directly in vinyl chloride monomer women. Klyne explains. For each substance, operations." In his letter to Goodrich, Whether such a policy, in principle, the company has established expo Ftobbins now says that companies illegally discriminates against women sure values that it considers safe for ( that keep women ofchildbearing age is being widely argued among the a healthy adult and for a developing from working in certain areas, based groups that are concerned with this fetus. Typically, the safe levels for on the 1974 NIOSH recommendation, issue. And even if the principle itself adult exposure are five to 10 times I could be guilty of sex discrimina is allowed, the question still arises as higher than for the fetus. In the case tion. to how well the personnel policies of of lead, Klyne says, the literature OSHA Administrator Eula Bing individual companies adhere to it- Do review and setting of safe exposure ham has been warning companies for companies sometimes act illegally to levels look more than a year. several years that her agency does not keep women out of certain kinds of Altogether 23 women who worked like policies that exclude workers jobs in the name of protecting their in manufacturing operations at Wil from unhealthful workplaces just to unborn children? low Island were informed early in avoid cleaning up the workplace. Such questions will almost cer 1978 that they might be working with Companies should be careful in par tainly be resolved ultimately in the feto-toxic substances and that the ticular, she has said, of focusing their courts. The first cases in this area may company was formulating policies concerns for fetal safety only on the be approaching the courts now. that would require their transferring hazards that may come by way of the One case centers on women who to other work areas if their exposure mother. worked at American Cyanamid's were found to be hazardous, says "Concern for female reproductive Willow Island lead chromate pig William A. Fead, manager of manu X capacity and the fetus is praisewor ments plant. These women maintain facturing and marketing services for thy, but experience is demonstrating that they were pressured by the Cyanamid's organic chemicals divi 1 i that any given substance may be company to become surgically steril sion. By October 1978, when the pol equally damaging to the male repro ized to keep their jobs. Cyanamid says icy went into effect at Willow Island, ductive system and through the male that it did not condone the steriliza the only affected area of the plant was to the fetus. I believe that attention tion procedure and counseled the lead chromate pigment manufactur must be focused on hazards faced by women against it. Nevertheless, ing, where eight women worked, in ail workers--men as well as women, under their employment practices, the meantime, 14 women and their / she stated in a letter to corporate surgically sterilized women can work union, OCAW, filed complaints medical directors in 1976. in the lead pigment area but fertile against the policy with OSHA, the "OSHA is convinced that the mere women cannot. West Virginia Homan Rights Com exclusion of workers does nothing to Lead is one of five chemicals used mission, or with the Equal Employ eliminate the hazard which is pur by Cyanamid that, it considers, poses ment Opportunity Commission in i ported to justify exclusion," Bingham special hazards to the fetus, according West Virginia or in Washington, D.C. vi also says, "and that such exclusion is to corporate medical director Robert Of the eight women working in the :! not intended by the Occupational M. Klyne. The other four are hydra lead area, only two were capable of Safety & Health Act.... The laws of zine hvdrate, hydrazine sulfate, and hearing children when the policy went this nation are committed to guar two pnnrmaceuticals, Thiotepa and into effect, so they were the only ones anteeing both healthful working Methotrexate. moved. conditions and equal employment These compounds were winnowed Both women initially took janito opportunity. I believe, therefore, that employers should exhaust all possible from a larger list of suspected feto- rial jobs with no change in their pay toxins through an extensive search of for 90 days and with special op t avenues of worker protection (be they portunities to bid for other openings engineering controls, work practices, in the plant as they became available. personal protective equipment, etc.) Ir before considering the adoption of exclusionary employment prac tices." Nevertheless, every chemical Both were offered jobs at their old pay level during the 90-day period, Fead says. One took the new job; the other chose to remain in the janitorial job and reverted to the customary pay t' company contacted by C&EN main tains, at least in principle, that > women who are biologically capable for that job at the end of the 90 days--about a 5% reduction from the pay level in her original production of pregnancy cannot be allowed to line job. work in areas where feto-toxic Both Fead and Klyne vigorously chemicals are found at levels that defend Cyanamid's policy at Willow could damage an embryo or fetus, Island. "The ideal is that the work regardless of whether the women ac place has to be safe for everyone--the tually are pregnant. These policies man, the woman, and the child," i come about because major malfor Klyne explains. "In the real world, mations, if they occur at all during a that's totally unachievable without pregnancy, occur during the period from the 14th to the 40th day, when l.lif xiiijor organ system* are being emasculating the chemical industry. The fetus is far more susceptible to t certnin risks. Them is no wny. even r-v Imini-il, And i itn ii'il mu "liit lpi- lii.i.i f-tiiihii ` i Ini' i mil inl-, lit Hiller it |limnilllc to detect pl gwn'V ill 'ii ,'* 111 ill m I il lull".' Hi lniiii. in women workers ami retnovii lliwn Vi|li:||: '/II; I illllinl (/mill I II,i III'" i to a safe workplace before that critical period. Thus, unless safe exposure levels for these chemicals can be fcs- thf iht> Mm Mfl fttitk ex MIC ICIIIlill ll III lllllVl: II llV..,/ Illllll 11,1 hazard, ami that law to iiu-nii moving the mother as well." Effecting this p.',F~v n* Willow T- land was particularly difficult because of the small size of the facility, Fead says. The same policy was put into effect at about the same time at Cyanamid's pharmaceutical manu facturing facility, Lederle Laborato ries, with a very different outcome, Klyne says. There, 15 or 20 women were affected. They were counseled individually, rather than in group meetings as at Willow Island, and, as Klyne puts it, "The women took a far more reasonable approach." All were transferred within a couple of days into new permanent positions within Lederle at the same pay as before. Most of the women transferred from production to packaging lines within the same plant, he says. There have been no indications of dissatisfaction from these transfers, Klyne says. Klyne attributes the main differ ence in the effect of the policy at the two plants to the fact that Lederle is about 10 times larger--with about 2000 jobs--than the pigments facility at Willow Island. Thus, equivalent positions were immediately available for women who were transferred out of hazardous work areas. At Willow Island, equivalent jobs were not im mediately available., and the women had to be 'placed liirhpofdrily in lower-status jobs, although with re tention of pay, until openings became available. To OSHA, which cited Cyanamid for its actions at Willow Island and fined the company $10,000, any ex tenuating circumstances at that site are no excuse for a policy that ulti mately led some women to have themselves sterilized rather than risk losing their jobs. "It seems a very simple thing to us," says OSHA senior policy analyst Margaret R. Richardson. "You do not protect workers by inducing them to harm themselves. If an employer has people working on a roof and does not want to put a fence around the roof or provide them with safety harnesses, he can't nail their feet to the roof to keep them on." In citing Cyanamid, OSHA is at tempting to expand its authority over the setting of safety standards in the workplace. In addition to citing Cy anamid for not being in compliance with the lead standards for adults at Willow Island--a side issue that is sure to complicate the matter--it also cited the company under the general duty clause of the Occupational Safety & Health Act of 1970. This is t.h first lim" ibis clause has beau iik i! to joi'Oly tin ( l`'Mb ItaMoti Till' i Iiiiim- hiiyM I Iml I hi: i'iii|iiuyri imml provide ail environment free Iu>m recognized hazards likely to cause death or seriouB physical harm. Serious physical harm includes harm to the reproductive system caused by sterilization, OSHA is saying with this citation. "No worker must be forced to sacrifice his or her right to conceive children in order to hold a job," OSHA's Bingham says. The Willow Island case was sup posed to be heard by an OSHA ad ministrative law judge--the first forum for disputing the citation--last December. The hearings have been "Where we cannot protect the fetus, we are required to move it away from the hazard, and that has to mean moving the mother as well" postponed, however, although they probably will be held very soon. Another case that has been briefly in the courts and is likely to be back again involves a woman who worked for Goodrich Chemical Co. in Avon Lake, Ohio. The woman, Carole Doerr, worked in a vinyl chloride polymerization area and was removed from there last August when Good rich introduced a policy of not allow ing women who could be pregnant to work in areas where they are exposed to vinyl chloride. The Goodrich policy covers 10 chemicals besides vinyl chloride. They are benzene, carbon tetrachlo ride, chloroform, chromium(IV), lead, methyl ethyl ketone, ethylene thio urea, mercury, acrylonitrile, and dimethylacetamide. When the policy went into effect last summer, about two dozen were found to be working in areas where they were exposed to at least one of these feto-toxic sub stances, says Goodrich director of health and environmental services Harold W. Dietz. For these substances, the company does not absolutely prohibit expo sure, Dietz says, but has what he calls a "practical zero." "We won't put fertile women in an environment where we know they are exposed," he says. "The fetus needs an extra degree of protection that is not feasible or required for adults. We have solid evidence that this is true." According to Goodrich, Doerr and the other women affected by the policy yooe iooo>-cld IndlvidOfilk' id/ich tjii, 11 ! ini- Im iin 1111)11 .< mill wii u ill In i i| nllni |nlii' ill I III * min' plioil will/ lliu hmm; pay. Ilucci whs offered a position with the same job title as her old job in a different building at the Avon Lake facility. She chose, instead, to stay in the same building in a lower-status job, still at the same pay. But she wants her old job back and has complained to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, charging sex discrimi nation. Doerr bases her charge on medical evidence that vinyl chloride, in addi tion to possibly being a transplacental carcinogen, is also a mutagen that causes damage to sperm. Therefore, she contends, Goodrich's policy, which protects the fetus only from the cancer risk arising from the mother's occupational exposure to vinyl chlo ride and not from the mutation risk caused by the father's exposure, discriminates illegally by sex. Doerr filed suit in the U.S. District Court in Cleveland last October and asked for a temporary injunction so that she not be removed from her old job. The suit was denied on a techni cality--she had failed to get a right- to-sue order from the Equal Em ployment Opportunity Commission after first filing the complaint with them. The temporary injunction also was denied because the court felt that since her new job retained the pay and seniority of her original position she would not suffer jrrennrnhle harm by remaining in it untii the dispute is settled. The court also said she hadn't demonstrated the substantial likeli hood of winning her suit, another re quirement for a temporary injunc tion. In his decision, Judge Robert B. Krupansky spells out what he sees as the relevant issue to be decided in this case, should it ever be refiled in the proper manner: "the comparative risks of transplacental carcinogenesis on the one hand and male mutagen esis on the other resulting from ex posure to vinyl chloride at the current permissible levels." These risks "are not well established, as the medical evidence to date appears largely in conclusive," he continues. "To the extent that it can be subsequently demonstrated that the risk of fetal damage associated with transpla cental carcinogenesis is substantially greater than that associated with male mutagenesis, it might appear that defendant's policy is grounded upon a legitimate, nondiscriminatory factor." Just how EEOC's new guidelines will affect this issue, if at all, remains to be seen. Goodrich expects to see the case return to court. "It is verv clenr that It F, ftnliilrli h ('ii. !r. li'ii i"<i<i' In Iik lilili III i MU ,11 il I 1, 11 ' i/ ii Ill,,I .,||| , .,11 I If i i' i '/ iiii|m>l i y iilliiiii' I' i'i 11 i" r i.ini" i "The judge has spelled nut wlmi we think is the issue. We are prepared to defend on that." Q BFG66025 News Feature Reproductive hazards in the misplace Government and companies are at odds over approaches to worker protection, mainly because of differences in interpretation of the problem Rebecca L. Rawls C&EN, Washington The long-awaited federal guidelines proposed early this month to detail what programs companies may have to institute to protect workers from reproductive hazards without un fairly discriminating against women in job placement are not likely to find much favor with the chemical in-, dustry. The guidelines, issued jointly by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, say that pro rams set up to protect workers against reproductive hazards may not discriminate in hiring or work as signments on the basis of sex, in cluding pregnancy or childbearing potential. Women, or men, may be temporarily excluded from a partic ular work area where a special hazard to them is thought to be present. However, this may happen only if the hazard is well documented, there is no evidence of a similar hazard to the nonexcluded sex, and the company establishing the policy also begins, within six months, animal studies that will demonstrate, within two years, whether there is, in fact, a similar hazard to the nonexcluded sex. It is common practice in the chemical industry not to allow women capable of bearing children to work in areas where they would be exposed to toxic levels of chemicals thought to be hazardous to a developing embryo or fetus. A great many chemical com panies--though not all--have some chemicals and some workplaces where this exclusion occurs. It is done in the name of protecting the unborn child. * Imilly, I In' (lew Inluml |i((|di ll(l*-,i`i I hey (in lulu lim e m fill || pichciil |ir<i|t(iHtul form, will iniiku it much nnmuiirficiill for companion to con tinue these policies. The problem, as Karrh: two aaparata Issuoa companies see it, is that federal reg ulators aTe confusing two related but separate issues. One is the need to protect workers against exposure to substances that could endanger their ability to produce healthy offspring. The second issue is the protection of the fetus or embryo, once conceived, which may itself spend several months in the workplace, possibly exposed to toxic substances. Policies that exclude fertile women from certain work areas are not aimed at protecting the woman's reproduc tive ability or even at protecting the unborn child from tpxic effects in herited from the mother, the com panies say. Instead, they are aimed at This article is part 2 of a two-part series. It examines how government and chemical companies are approaching the problems of worker prolection. Part I, wliWi efipenrerl ln-1 i/*sl' hJ>iHitn*fl Him III!in III |,f.,|l. |U|lllll|lll l| IH |l.l <11 li#, llll.plllub lll.ll iilllllll IlU.lllUll llll Mill Mi sulllomunib, uimI Him yuvnrriiiwnl's emerging position. protecting the fetus as a separate in dividual who is in the workplace and may be faced with special risks that healthy adults, men or women, do not face. "The biggest problem we have," says Bruce W. Karrh, corporate medical director for Du Pont, "is the seeming lack of understanding that these are two separate issues. The problem is not protecting the repro ductive potential of males or females. We think we can do this with engi neering and other controls. The problem is protecting the fetus." The problem is compounded by the fact that the most critical period in the development of the embryo and fetus, in terms of the possibility of major malformations, is the period from the 14th to the 40th day after conception, when the major organ systems are being formed. Most companies believe this period is too early to be able to detect pregnancy and move women in hazardous work environments to safer ones before damage to the embryo can occur. Thus, companies restrict women who might be pregnant from working at jobs that involve exposure to haz ardous levels of feto-toxic substances. Since most fertile women are not pregnant at any given time, this means that most of the women who are excluded from such workplaces on any given day would face no special risk from working in them. The Occupational Safety & Health Administration, though not con cerned directly with sex discrimina tion issues, has taken the lead at the federal level in showing concern about this type of restriction of women from certain jobs. In May 1978, Eula Bingham, administrator of OSHA. llf|M) Mll|((irHtl? lUMlICftl lUtl'l lnt" III ll< (' fill |,|i till i i fiin i liih ii J i mil m iiilii|i!li||i in r|>iiinlliij; ' |"ll " * wiiii li irifiiini liml 'vuiiM ii ill till*l limning ii|in mill |irii|iiiiinl wiiiiimi lm nxrlmli'il from Jitlm involving poimi- tinl exposure to cerium toxic sub- BFG66026 i i,i`,` BFCibbU 1/ | cupationally related reproductive industry reaction. This attitude is | hazards can be well identified. These based in part on medical argument, 1 include better epidemiological studies but it stems, too, from legal consid 5 of reproduction through standardized erations. 1 occupational history forms for use in Legally, the fetus is not an emy the medical community, recording of ployee, and it did not choose to be in the occupational history of both par the work environment. Nor is it ca ents on birth certificates, and certi pable of either understanding the fication of stillbirths as well as live hazards it may be exposed to or of births so that causes of aborted and waiving its rights to protection malformed children can be traced. He against these hazards. also calls for better animal testing for Worker injuries are covered by reproductive hazards. workmen's compensation laws, de Some chemical company toxicolo signed to speed up settlement of lia gists, such as Bernard A. Schwetz, bility claims, but which also limit an director of toxicological research at employer's liability toward the Dow Chemical, share Infante's con worker. But the fetus is legally a cern about the need for more data on "third party." If it is damaged but not reproductive effects. killed, the person it becomes can sue "I don't think we should overreact for any amount of compensation it to this one potential source of hazard can convince a jury is justified. Cases Infante: need to Identify hazards [harm to the fetusj," Schwetz says. that have gone to court concerning "We need to rememlier that there are malformations caused by exposure to stances." She said that the view that other potential routes of harm and thalidomide and other drugs in utern certain substances present a special study them all." lead chemical companies to view this health risk to the fetus is often un He cites lead as an example. This potential liability as enormous. And substantiated. chemical does affect the development their health policies reflect this de "The laws of this nation are com of the embryo and fetus, he says. It is termination to avoid such claims. mitted to guaranteeing both healthful a teratogen in humans. But research "We'd rather go to bat with the working conditions and equal em also shows that it may affect male regulatory agencies [over possible job ployment opportunity," she said. "I fertility or cause mutations. discrimination caused by a health believe, therefore, that employers Nevertheless, Schwetz cautions, policy] than run the risk of open- should exhaust all possible avenues of there are such things as terato ended liability should a malformed worker protection (be they engineer gens--substances that cause harm to child result," one chemical company ing controls, work practices, personal a developing organism at levels that lawyer says frankly. protective equipment, etc.) before are not harmful to the adult Mercury If the government really wants the considering the adoption of ex and thalidomide, two of the most responsibility for deciding whether to clusionary practices." potent teratogens that have been accept the risk of exposure to feto- OSHA would like to see two things studied, are only that--they do not toxic substances in early pregnancy to change about the way most chemical cause harm to either male or female rest with the employee, says Joseph companies handle the problem of adults at the same exposure level that B. Wollenberger, corporate labor fetal risk from occupational chemical will harm a fetus, Scnwetz says. counsel for Monsanto, all that needs exposure. The first is to get better Dow has been doing reproductive to be done is to pass a law saying that data on which to base protection studies on animals for 30 years, companies that are following all of the policies, and the second is to provide Schwetz says. Currently these studies OSHA regulations have no further temporary transfer of women from usually involve three animal species liability should workers have mal hazardous work environments rather (rats, mice, and rabbits) and study formed children. than permanent exclusion of fertile the effect of exposure of both male Such a law would be ridiculous, he women from these areas. and female animals through three adds. The responsibility is the com "The data are not very good on any generations of offspring. With such pany's and that is where it should aspect of this issue," says OSHA se data, he believes, it is possible to set stay. nior policy analyst Margaret R. policies to control exposure that are The ideal position on fetal hazards, Richardson. Sometimes employers acceptable to all the parties in most companies agree, is to be able to exclude women from a workplace volved. identify safe levels for each of these with very little information on Though companies may agree with compounds and keep exposure below whether there is a hazard to the fetus, OSHA that more and better data on these levels everywhere the chemicals she says. Also, toxicologists and epi reproductive hazards would be useful, are used. Few companies claim to be demiologists have not made a big OSHA's call for temporary removal of able to do that in all cases, however. enough effort to look into the repro women from areas that present fetal Monsanto's McEwen sums up what ductive hazards to males. hazards rather than permanent ex could be the attitude of all chemical "We can't even say how many clusion from these areas during their employers. The notion that every job chemicals are out there that cause reproductive lives is another ought to be available to every person reproductive problems in animals, let matter. just isn't true, he says. "There is no alone in man," says Peter F. Infante, Every chemical company contacted such thing as a risk-free environment. an OSHA toxicologist who heads the by C&EN says that such a policy does As more and more nontraditinnal jobs office of erUriPoeep Identification. `Vt.-i-.. in ,fhu UV'! \\ v.'O.lb. Ill I ill'll, tic liiH.IIISt: 'III liie IIIiIt) study ilml has been done, we have, in fact, found hazards." Infante identifies several research areas that need attention before oc- In' oltuprovI-i.,dme irniou'oh|ip-iw.oimrctifiip,i fotr'tth.ne. i lu'iuit'.ils ,im| could nut lie iiilopled at that company. It's a "Pollyanna" approach, says Monsanto's equal opportunity affairs director, Bill McEwen, summing up Upr*11 up I'l'*' people, tlvir :lll> IM'iUR 10 III' M ly "H'j Monsanto ulenlilif!, iiicmuy unit two or three oilier compounds as posing particular hazards to the fetus in the work environment. Often the company has been able, through en- 36 CSPN Fed 18, 1980 .ilp, t. I: 1 l,t.`S Ol t lit ' ' | tective devices, to bring exposure to these chemicals to sate levels, and women are allowed to work in these areas, says James H. Spraul, a senior physician in the department of med icine and environmental health. However, sometimes they feel "un easy" about exposure at a particular location. Then, says Spraul, "it's reasonable to ask women not to work there." Altogether Monsanto has about 150 jobs which it does not allow fertile women to hold, out of about 50,000 jobs in the U.S. Probably less than half these jobs have ever been held by women, since men are also eligible for the positions. This policy is no different from the way the company handles other types of hazards that affect only certain groups of employees, explains Ray E. Witter, director of safety and prop lead, the company has established erty protection. Monsanto does not safe exposure levels for the fetus and allow color-blind people (usually allows women to work with these men) to work as electricians, for ex compounds if the exposures can be ample, since they cannot distinguish kept below these levels. The level set the different colors which key elec for lead is the background level, since trical wiring. Nor are people who lack the company has not been able to es depth perception allowed to operate tablish any level that presents no risk certain kinds of trucks where this to the fetus. deficiency could be a hazard. Karrh says Du Pont recently has Du Pont treats reproductive and been able to bring exposure levels for fetal hazards in the same way it treats dimethylacetamide to below its safety any other hazard from chemical ex level at all locations where the posure, says Karrh. All hazardous chemical is used, so no women are chemicals are controlled for their excluded from working with this most potent hazard. Thus, for exam substance. However, for each of the ple, hexafluoroacetone is viewed by other five compounds, there are some Du Pont as being hazardous both areas where fertile women are not al because of its possible effect on male lowed to work. Women who were reproduction and for its feto-toxicity. working in these areas when the pol However, the acceptable threshold icy went into effect were transferred limit value to protect against the ef to other comparable jobs. Karrh says fect on men, 0.1 ppm, is lower than he is reasonably sure that no woman would be needed to protect a fetus. So has ever been denied employment or the company controls for the male terminated because of this policy and reproductive effect and automatically that he is not aware of any woman protects the fetus as well. who has ever been moved to a job Much as OSHA's Bingham has with lower pay. recommended, Karrh says Du Pont Shell Chemical is still trying to tries to limit worker exposure to toxic draft a formal policy for protecting chemicals first by engineering means, the fetus, says Howard L. Kusnetz, then by modifying work practices so corporate manager of safety and hy that the job is done without people giene for all Shell operations in the having to enter the high-exposure U.S. Shell is collecting information areas, and then by administrative from the literature and its ow.n toxi practices that limit the amount of cological research on the reproductive time that workers spend exposed to effects of the compounds it manu the hazardous chemical. If all of these factures. The company also is carry measures still leave fertile women ing out special examinations of its unacceptably exposed to a feto-toxic workers when there is a suggestion substance, then the company ex that a compound might pose a haz cludes them from that job. ard. So far, these worker studies have Du Pont has six compounds found not turned up any hazards. in the workplace that it has identified "We have the dual function of as hazardous in fhe fefus. Tht>v ar<* tur.ttuiiitnwthint. ooiiik, limn (liylliiiuuunidv, Iniiii iiiintk-, ulhyiuuctIliumvii, und lend. protecting the v/it/lft-i, ntl ptoferfinh Un mi/.lni:; (il l i lb I"'/., I /,//.j i ),)(<|iim '"m ihi flu '"Mil" / ilL'/xiviiJ ol i iiiimiiiiic ii)))ni)li)))iiy, For all uf Ilium! rniii|i<iiiiidit uxcupl. KIlHIMfi/ Miy. Dow Chemical set up a special task force that labored for four years to come up with a policy on reproductive hazards, says personnel relations di rector Frank P. Hammond. The pol icy controls exposure to feto-toxic materials whenever possible. When this is not possible, women capable of reproduction are net allowed to work in areas where they might be subject to hazardous exposure. Dow has a fetal toxicity group which is responsible for analyzing and evaluating all chemicals used at Dow for possible fetal toxicity. All chemi cals are put into three categories, ex plains Benjamin B. Holder, Dow's medical director. They are either fetal toxins for which there is no known safe level of exposure--Dow has yet to put anything into this category; suspected feto-toxins that do have a safe exposure level; or chemicals that are not toxic to the fetus. Unlike many other chemical mak ers, Holder says, Dow is able to keep exposures at all its locations below the levels it considers safe. Thus, women may work anywhere at Dow. Holder attributes Dow's ability to do this a little bit to luck. There are some chemicals, such as lead, that cause other companies problems and that Dow does not work with. "It's quite possible that we might at some time have one plant where exposure couldn't be kept down to an acceptable level," Holder says. "Then we would temporarily transfer the women out and get the level lower." Hammond says, "1 suspect if we ever found a substance that had no safe exposure level for fetal toxicity, we would lean really hard toward not hnodliligit.' ..///i/// ;!>II/. ' Vi / inti din|itt.,./or Illt.'lllO'*' V.I' WOlllltll 1 IIIIIHII |l, ho imyn BFG66028 roll. !fl. OHIO II '*t