Document zVEpqYarjGkzvRJe22Gw4Gj0

>* News Feature ---------------- u~~~ mmtm Confrontation over issues surrounding genetic protection involves chemical companies, unions, workers' rights groups, and several government agencies Reb cca t_ Rawls /= ' .responsible for assuring equal treat- trol of weeds in soybean and fruit C&EN, Washington ' \ . - ment of men and women in employ- crops. Last November, the Interna- . - ment also are involved, principally tional Chemical Workers Union The stage is set for confrontation. the Equal Employment Opportunity urged OSHA to shut down the Rens The overture began in the mid-1970's Commission and the Department of selaer plant and the Environmental . when workers in plants manufac : Labor's Office of Federal Contract Protection Agency to ban the use of turing chemicals such as kepone ' Compliance Programs. Just last week "Oryzalin, charging that the Lilly and l,2-dibromp-3-chloropropane these two agencies issued joint herbicide was responsible for birth (DBCP) began to complain ofsterility guidelines to employers on. which defects or miscarriages among the and other reproductive deficiencies programs aimed atprotecting work offspring of five male workers at the ^caused, they thought, by exposure to ers' offspring they would consider facility. _ , .. these chemicals. :' 'X - nondiscriminatory. - y'/: According to the union, no normal The curtain rose late lastyear when . And, of course, the chemical com pregnancies occurred in the families the Department. of Labor cited panies are involved. So far, their role ofthe 110 workers at the plant during ^ American Cyanamid for work policies. remains the key one, for individually the 18 months that the compound \which, it claimed, forced women to be * they are still setting personnel poli- was being produced there. But three Sterilized or lose theirjobs at Cyana^ 'I cies within their companies. There children were born with heart defects, mid's Willow Island, W.Va., lead',. _ were no uniform federal guidelines a fourth, who died pfpneumonia two pigments manufacturing facility. _T.. ; until last week, and it is still too early months after birth, also may have had * At about the same time, a woman to see the impact of the new guide- a heart defect; and a fifth pregnancy . in Ohio-brought suit against B. F.?.- lines on company policies. Labor ended in miscarriage. In each case, it Goodrich Co. for not allowing her to' unions and other workers' rights was only the fathers of the children . continue to work in an area where groups, for now, are aiming their ef- who worked with Oryzalin (C&EN, vinyl chloride is polymerized because : forts primarily at influencing the Nov. 12,1979, page 6). of the potential risk of chemical ex-| " government to control the companies OSHA. and the National Institute posure to a fetus should she become tightly. They have only begun in a for Occupational Safety & Heal th are pregnant. ' small way any direct action against looking into the union's claims about The 1980's as a "decade of genetic the companies themselves.; . Oryzalin, both at the Rensselaer plant confrontation"--which, one labor, The most recent cases to draw and at other locations where Oryzalin leader already is calling it--seems- public attention have centered on the is made. S--o-- fa--r,r --a--ccording to ICWii Uw well under way. ` j question ofwomen working in certain ;eneral counsel Salvatore J. Falletta, It is a confrontation that is draw! areas. But women workers are only NIOSH has not found any evidence of in many parties. Labor unions am part ofthe issue. Men, too, can be af harm to offspring of workers at other other workers' rights groups are in-; fected by exposure to certain chemi locations. This does not mean that volved. Coalitions of many of these cals, and such exposure could very the chemical is not the source of the groups are forming. Probably moat likely cause - abnormalities in problem, Falletta points out It may, notable is the Coalition for the Re offspring. _ _ for instance, be handled differently at productive Rights of Workers A case in point is that of chemical the other locations, posing a hazard (CROW), which pulls together labor workers at a Rensselaer, N.Y., chem only at the Rensselaer site. OSHA's unions, women's rights groups', and. ical plant that made Oiyzalin, a her final report on the question is ex legal groups concerned with possible bicide sold by Eli Lilly & Co. for con-- pected in the next few weeks. violations of an individual's right to Eli Lilly says that the birth defects fair employment in the name of ge among the families of workers at the netic protection. ^ ; This article is part 1 of a two-part series. Rensselaer plant are "multiple coin The federal government also is in- Here. C&EN examines the issue of male cidences" and have nothing to do with volved through several different agencies. The Occupational Safety & Health Administration in the De reproductive hazards, disputes that seem headed for court settlements, and the government's emerging position. 1 exposure of the fathers to Oryzalin or its precursors. This is the conclusion of the New York Institute of Birth partment of Labor has taken the lead Part 2 will eixamin how government, Defects and doctors at the Albany - among the government agencies. Its chemical companies, and unions are Medical Center, who have been in interest comes from its charge to as approaching the problems of worker vestigating the cases since the first of sure a healthful workplace for all protection. the children were born in 1976, the employees. But the federal agencies company says. I,,,,l 'D 03 -'A case in which the data more def lines issued last week by the Equal initely establish a connection between Employment Opportunities Com occupational exposure to certain mission (EEOC) and the Department chemicals and effects on male repro of Labor's Office of Federal Contract ductive function is that of DBCP, a Compliance Programs (OFCCP). oil fumigant used to control nema- Companies may establish "neutral" es. Studies in laboratory animals policies to protect employees and ^Tinndd human data indicate that expo their offspring from reproductive sure to relatively low levels of this hazards, but they must be certain that compound can reduce sperm counts in practice the plans do not adversely enough to cause sterility. When data affect only one sex. on the effects on human workers be . However, the new guidelines do came public in 1977, the two major allow for "temporary" exclusion of U.S. producers of DBCP, Dow workers of one sex only from a work Chemical and Shell Chemical, both place under pertain conditions. The stopped making it. first of these is that there be reputable OSHA quickly issued temporary scientific evidence that the hazard is emergency standards for exposure to likely to harm only one sex or only nonagricultural workers.of 10 ppb in pregnant employees. The employer - the air. OSHA's permanent standard, also must show that it has thoroughly issued in 1978, set the exposure level searched the scientific literature and at 1 ppb. EPA restricted use of the cannot find evidence of a similar compound to a limited number of hazard for the nonexcluded sex. Fi crops, chiefly citrus fruits, in 1977. nally, companies must begin, within Even these uses aTe now being chal six months, research projects to find lenged, however, since data gathered' With women exposed to chemicals in out whether the chemicals in question last summer show unexpectedly high work activities, such as this plating ope- ' also produce adverse reproductive levels ofDBCP in drinking water near ration, concern has focused onjepro- effects in the nonexcluded sex. These agricultural areas. ductive hazards of chemical exposure research projects are to be conducted ' There is also concern that DBCP under "accepted scientific methods" may cause birth defects in the chil Despite the very real concern over and produce results within two dren of workers exposed to it. One reproductive hazards to men arising years. suit is under way involving California from exposure to hazardous chemi For now, these are only proposed DBCP workers who claim that their cals in the workplace, the focus of this guidelines. Chemical companies and Ss>oU1ns were born with defective penises issue at the moment is on women. others are being given 120 days to ' ecause of the workers' exposure to Nearly all chemical companies, and a comment on them before they come e chemical. great many toxicologists, generally out in final form. However, probably the compound maintain that there are chemicals The EEOC-OFCCP position re attracting the most attention, because that can damage a developing embryo flects concerns sounded earlier in - ofits possible effects on male fertility, or fetus but are not harmful to a statements by officials at both or on offspring through the fathers*-', healthy male or female adult. Con NIOSH and OSHA. In a letter last exposure, is 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodi- trolling worker exposure to these month to B. F. Goodrich's manager of henzo-p-dioxin, the contaminant in substances is causing most of the industrial relations F. R. Pruitt, for agent orange, the military herbicide * current concern. example, NIOSH director Anthony . . used in Vietnam. Suits and counter- Not everyone agrees with this Robbins discusses the lack of ade suits have been filed in federal courts ' viewpoint. Anthony Mazzocchi, di quate data in some cases for estab- - concerning the exposure of about rector of health and safety for the Oil, lishing safe levels of exposure to cer 3000 Vietnam veterans to the com Chemical & Atomic Workers Inter tain chemicals for an unborn embryo pound. A Vietnam veterans group national Union (OCAW), for in or fetus. "We must, however, stand that is suing on behalf of these vet stance, says existing data do not show firm on the principle that if an expo erans claims, amongother things, that the fetus to be any more vulnerable to sure is sufficiently toxic to produce . ' exposure to the herbicide led to loss chemical damage than the sperm. genetic damage in an unborn child or of sexual ability in the men and mal "We know of no substance that af m a fertile female, then it must be formations in their children (C&EN, fects the fetus and not male sperm," considered to be equally toxic to the ; Jan. 21, page 14). Mazzocchi says. fertile male worker and to his unborn Although the veterans' suit charges The emerging government position child," Robbins says. "There is a birth defects associated with agent appears to be somewhere in between priori no reason to believe that the orange exposure in Vietnam, data on these two views. That is, it does not genetic material of a male worker is in this point are not uniformly accepted state that a substance that affects the any way more resistant to toxic oc as.conclusive. NIOSH is in the midst fetus must necessarily also affect the cupational injury than that of the fe of a multiple-generation study with sperm, but it does caution companies male. In addition, we feel that work rodents designed to show whether that such effects are possible and ers of both sexes should be counseled exposure to the chemical by the fa cannot be ignored without the risk of regarding the. nature of the materials t ther can cause defects in his offspring. the company's being charged with sex with which they work and the poten- ' And at least one of the chemical discrimination. tial toxic effects on them and on their r mpanies that supplied the Defense Companies whose workers are ex offspring," jj . epartment with agent orange during posed to reproductive hazards in the Robbins' letter marks a definite the Vietnam war is conducting a workplace may not discriminate in change from the agency's stand on J' massive study of its workers who the Hiring or work assignments of this question in the early 1970's. In made the herbicide to determine their employees on the basis of sex, 1974, for example, NIOSH's occupa whether there have been any repro including pregnancy or childbearing tional exposure standard for vinyl ductive effects in this group. capacity, say the new federal guide chloride recommended that "no 44 men /* rn * land was particularly difficult because to the reproductive system caused by . She chose, instead, to stay in the same ** of the small siz of the facility, Fead sterilization, OSHA is saying with this building in a lower-status job, still at . says. The same policy was put into citation. "No worker must be forced the same pay. But she Wants her old effect at about the same time at Cy- to sacrifice his or her right to conceive job back and has complained to the anamid's pharmaceutical manu- children in order to hold a job," Equal Employment Opportunity fcturing facility, Lederl Laborato- OSHA's Bingham says. Commission, charging sex discrimi [s, with a very different outcome, The Willow Island cas was sup nation. lyne says. There, 15 or 20 women posed to be heard by an OSHA ad Doerr bases her charge on medical were affected. They were counseled ministrative law judge--the first evidence that vinyl chloride, in addi individually, rather than in group forum for.disputing the citation--last tion to possibly being a transplacental meetings as at Willow Island, and, as December. The hearings have been carcinogen, is also a mutagen that Klyne puts it, "The women took a far causes damage to sperm. Therefore-, more reasonable approach." All were she contends, Goodrich's policy, transferred within a couple of days which protects the fetus only from the into new permanent positions within "Where we cannot protect the cancer risk arising from the mother's Lederle at the same pay as before. Most of the women transferred from fetus, we are required to move occupational exposure to vinyl chlo ride and not from the mutation risk production to packaging lines within the same plant, he says. There have it away from the hazard, caused by the father's exposure, discriminates illegally by sex. been no indications of dissatisfaction and that has to mean moving from these transfers, Klyne says. Doerr filed suit in the U.S. District Court in Cleveland last October and Klyne attributes the main differ the mother as weil" asked for a temporary injunction so ence in the effect of the policy at the that she not be removed from her old two plants to the fact that Lederle is job. The suit was denied on a techni about 10 times larger--with about cality--she had failed to get a right- 2000jobs--than the pigments facility postponed, however, although they to-sue order from the Equal Em at Willow Island. Thus, equivalent probably will be held very soon. ployment Opportunity Commission positions were immediately available Another case that has been briefly after first filing the complaint with for women who were transferred out in the courts and is likely to be back them. The temporary injunction also of hazardous work areas. At Willow again involves a woman who worked was denied because the court felt that Island, equivalent jobs were not im for Goodrich Chemical Co. in Avon since her new job retained the pay mediately available, and the women Lake, Ohio. The woman, .Carole and seniority of her original position had to be placed temporarily in Doerr, worked in a vinyl chloride she would not suffer irreparable harm lower-status jobs, although with re polymerization area and was removed by remaining in it until the dispute is tention of pay, until openings became from there last August when Good settled. The court also said shehadn't ^^arlable. . rich introduced a policy of not allow demonstrated the substantial likeli ^BTo OSHA, which cited Cyanamid ing women who could be pregnant to hood of winning her suit, another re Tor its actions at Willow Island and work in areas where they are exposed quirement for a temporary injunc fined the company $10,000, any ex to vinyl chloride. tion. tenuating circumstances at that site, ./''The Goodrich policy covers 10 In his decision. Judge Robert B. are no excuse for a policy that ulti-' 'chemicals besides vinyl chloride. Krupansky spells out what he sees as mately led some women to have They are benzene, carbon tetrachlo-, the relevant issue to be decided in this themselves sterilized rather than risk ride, chloroform,. chromiumdV). lead, j case, should it ever be refiled in the losing their jobs. methyl ethyl ketone, ethylene 'thio proper manner: "the comparative "It seems a very simple thing toj urea, mercury, acrylonitrile, and di- risks of transplacental carcinogenesis us," says OSHA senior policy analyst^ methylacetamide; When the policy on the one hand and male mutagen Margaret R. Richardson. "You do not' iwent into efiecclast summer, about esis on the other resulting from ex protect workers by inducing them to two dozen were found to be working posure to vinyl chloride at the current harm themselves. If an employer has in areas where they were exposed to permissible levels." These risks "are people working on a roof and does not at least one of these feto-toxic sub not well established, as the medical want to put a fence around the roof or stances, says Goodrich director of evidence to date appears largely in Erovide them with safety harnesses, health and environmental service: e can't nail their feet to the roof to Harold W. Dietz. conclusive," lie continues, "To the extent that it can be-subsequently keep them on." \ For these substances, the company demonstrated that the risk of fetal In citing Cyanamid, OSHA is at does not absolutely prohibit expo damage associated with transpla tempting to expand its authority over sure, Dietz says, but has what he calls cental carcinogenesis is substantially the setting of safety standards in the a "practical zero." "We won't put greater than that associated with workplace. In addition to citing Cy fertile women in an environment male mutagenesis, it might appear anamid for not being in compliance where we know they are exposed," he that defendant's policy is grounded with the lead standards for adults at says. "The fetus needs an extra degree upon a legitimate, nondiscriminatory Willow Island--a side issue that is of protection that is not feasible or factor." Just how EEOC's new sure to complicate the matter--it also required1 for adults. We have solid guidelines will affect this issue, if at cited the company under the general evidence that this is true." all, remains to be seen. duty clause of the Occupational According to Goodrich, Doerr and Goodrich expects to see the case JJafety & Health Act of 1970. This is the other women affected by the return to court. ``It is very clear that |e first time this clause has been policy were counseled individually B. F. Goodrich Co. is not going to be led to justify an OSHA citation. about the reasons for the policy and able to settle with Ms. Doerr in a way The clause says that the employer were offered other jobs at the same that will satisfy her," says director of must provide an environment free plant with the same pay. Doerr was industry affairs F. Terrence Flannery. from recognized hazards likely to offered a position with the same job "The judge has spelled out what we cause death or serious physical harm. title as her old job in a different think is the issue. We are prepared to Serious physical harm includes harm building at the Avon Lake facility. defend on that." cupationally related reproductive hazards can be well identified. These : include better epidemiological studies i of reproduction through standardized i occupational history forms for use in the medical community, recording of the occupational history of both par ents on birth certificates, and certi fication of stillbirths as well as live ' births so that causes of aborted and malformed children can be traced. He also calb for better animal testing for reproductive hazards. - Some chemical company toxicolo gists, such as Bernard A. Schwetz, director of toxicological research at Dow Chemical, share Infante's con cern about the need for more data on .reproductive effects. "I don't think we should overreact to this one potential source of hazard Infante; need ta identify hazards [harm to the fetus]," Schwetz says. "We need to remember that there are stances." She said that the view that other potential routes of harm and certain substances present a special study them all." health risk to the fetus is often un He cites lead as an example. This substantiated. chemical does affect the development "The laws of this nation are com of the embryo and fetus, he says. It is mitted to guaranteeing both healthful a teratogen in humans. But research working conditions and equal em- also shows that it may affect male Eloyment opportunity," she said. "I fertility or cause mutations. elieve, therefore, that employers Nevertheless, Schwetz cautions, should exhaust all possible avenues of there -are such things as terato worker protection (be they engineer gens---Substances that cause harm to ing controls, work practices, personal a developing organism at levels that protective equipment, etc.)' before are not harmful to the adult. Mercury considering the adoption of ex and thalidomide, two of the most clusionary practices." . potent teratogens that have been . OSHA would like to see two things studied, are only that--they do not change about the way most chemical cause harm to either male or female companies handle the problerry;of adults at the same exposure level that fetal risk from occupational chemical. : will harm a fetus, Schwetz says. xposure. The first is to get better Dow has been doing reproductive data on which to base protection studies on animals for 30 years, policies, and the second is to provide Schwetz says. Currently these studies temporary transfer of women from usually involve three animal s'pecies hazardous work environments rather (rats, mice, and rabbits) and study than permanent exclusion of fertile the effect of exposure of both male women from these areas. and female animals through three "The data are not very good on any generations of offspring. With such aspect of this issue," says OSHA se data, he believes, it is possible to set nior policy analyst Margaret R. policies to control exposure that are Richardson. Sometimes employers acceptable to all the parties in- exclude women from a workplace ' volved. with very little information on Though companies may agree with whether there is a hazard to the fetus, OSHA that more and better data on she says. Also, toxicologists and epi reproductive hazards would be useful, demiologists have not made a big OSHA's call for temporary removal of enough effort to look into the repro women from areas that present fetal ductive hazards to males. hazards rather than permanent ex "We can't even say how many clusion from these areas during their chemicals are out there that cause reproductive lives is another reproductive problems in animals, let matter. alone in man," says Peter F. Infante, Every chemical company contacted an OSHA toxicologist who heads the by C&EN says that such a policy docs office of carcinogen identification. not provide enough protection for the More work in this area .is badly fetus against exposure to toxic needed, he says, because "in the little chemicals and could not be adopted study that has been done, we have, in at that company. fact, found hazards." It's a "Pollyanna" approach, says Infante identifies several research Monsanto's equal opportunity affairs areas that need attention before oc director, Bill McEwen, summing up industry reaction. This attitude* based in part on medical argument, ^ but it stems, too, from legal consid- s erations. Legally, the fetus is not an em ployee, and it did not choose to be in the wor^, environment. Nor is it ca pable of either understanding thehazards it may be exposed to or of waiving its rights to protection against these hazards. Worker injuries are covered by workmen's compensation laws, de signed to speed up settlement of lia bility claims, but which also limit an employer's liability - toward the worker. But the fetus is legally a "third party." If it is damaged but not killed, the person it becomes can Sue for any amount of compensation it can convince a jury isjustified. Cases that have gone, to court concerning malformations caused by exposure to thalidomide and other drugs in utero lead chemical companies to view this potential liability as enormous. And their health policies reflect this de termination to avoid such claims. . "We'd rather go to bat with the regulatory agencies [over possiblejob discrimination caused by a health policy] than fun the risk of openended liability should a malformed child result," one chemical company lawyer says frankly. If the government really wants the responsibility for deciding whether to accept the risk of exposure to fetotoxic substances in early pregnancy to rest with the employee, says Joseph B. Wollenberger, corporate labor counsel for Monsanto, all that needs to be done is to pass a law saying that companies that are following all of the OSHA regulations have no further liability should workers have mal formed children. Such a law would be ridiculous, he adds. The responsibility is the com pany's and that is where it should stay. The ideal position on fetal hazards, most companies agree, is to be able to identify safe levels for each of these compounds and keep exposure below these levels everywhere the chemicals are used. Few companies claim to be able to do that in all cases, however. Monsanto's McEwen sums up what could be the attitude of all chemical employers. The notion that every job ought to be available to every person just isn't true, he say3. "There is no such thing as a risk-free environment. As more and more nontraditional jobs open up for people, there are going to be trade-offs." Monsanto identifies mercury and two or three other compounds as posing particular hazards to the fetus in the work environment Often the company has been able, through en-