Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act
Floor Speech
POPCORN WORKERS LUNG DISEASE PREVENTION ACT -- (House of Representatives - September 26, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, when I looked at the issue of diacetyl in manufacturing during the debate in committee, the answer seemed very clear to me at the time: proper ventilation. Even though it is unclear what is affecting manufacturing workers, all the experts agree that engineering controls, such as ventilation, reduce worker exposure.
I take very seriously lung illness. For nearly 10 years, I served on the State board of the South Carolina Lung Association. In the South Carolina State Senate, I introduced innovative legislation promoting clean air.
Fundamentally, the science does not exist to state a link between diacetyl and impaired lung function. Indeed, last year, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, noted, ``At this time, insufficient data exists on which to base workplace exposure standards or recommended exposure limits for butter flavorings.''
Unfortunately, this bill goes beyond the issue of what is known. The underlying bill requires the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, to set a standard based on documents that OSHA informs us cannot guide rulemaking. These documents provide guidelines of how to solve the problem at issue but are not the foundation for a rule.
More research is currently under way to determine a connection between diacetyl and this respiratory condition. I fully support that research moving forward. In fact, the underlying measure contains an amendment I offered during the committee consideration of the bill to require NIOSH to study similar flavorings to determine possible exposure hazards with flavorings similar to diacetyl. Until there is conclusive evidence, it remains to be seen if diacetyl alone is to blame or whether the chemical, in combination with the other flavorings, places workers at risk.
On June 18, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Edwin Foulke, a distinguished attorney from Greenville, South Carolina, of the highest integrity, reiterated this in a letter to Congress, in which he stated, ``Focusing on diacetyl ignores the possibility that other flavoring components, many of which are irritants and airway-reactive substances, are playing a role in the development of disease. Given the wide variety of ways and forms in which diacetyl and other flavoring components are used in the food manufacturing industry, a narrow focus on diacetyl would likely result in the selection of risk-management strategies that may not adequately protect employees.''
This is a critical point. Until we know the true cause of this lung impairment, I do not see how we can effectively legislate on it. Further, major manufacturers, using this flavoring have already announced they will no longer be using diacetyl.
The lack of scientific foundation is, unfortunately, not the only problem with the bill before us. There are numerous flaws outlined by the OSHA administrator's letter. Further, the President has announced strong opposition to the bill, largely because it is flawed. Undermining the rulemaking process, as this bill does, would almost certainly exclude input from key stakeholders that often proves imperative for a balanced rulemaking process.
Because this bill fails to allow time for appropriate scientific research and because it undermines the proven regulatory framework, I fear it will not do enough to protect workers.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment that was made in order would resolve much of this problem.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Washington, DC, June 19, 2007.
Hon. George Miller,
Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
DEAR CHAIRMAN MILLER: I am writing to express my strong concerns with legislation (H.R. 2693) that would require the promulgation of an interim final standard (IFR) regulating employee exposure to diacetyl in the popcorn and flavor manufacturing industries and mandate that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issue a final rule covering all workplaces that use diacetyl.
I share your goal of protecting workers from the risk of obstructive lung disease. As outlined below OSHA is in the process of taking important steps to strengthen worker protections in this area. However, after careful review of this legislation, we have concluded that the regulatory approach mandated by H.R. 2693 will not afford the best level of protection for workers. Equally important, the process the bill would require may result in missed opportunities to provide needed worker safety. Instead, I urge you to allow OSHA to thoroughly evaluate all available science concerning the effects of exposures to food flavorings, feasible abatements and related issues.
Several considerations lead us to the conclusion that the approach mandated by H.R. 2693 would not best protect workers:
1. The expanded scope of the final rule and the lack of knowledge about the industries that use diacetyl will lead to superficial analysis that may fail to provide needed worker protection.
H.R. 2693 would require OSHA to expand the scope of the final rule to include all establishments where there is potential for exposure to diacetyl. Unfortunately, little is known about industries--other than the microwave popcorn manufacturing and food flavoring manufacturing industries--that use diacetyl and diacetyl-containing flavorings. OSHA would need to identify those companies that use diacetyl then conduct site visits to gather needed data to (1) identify processes where exposures occur, (2) develop control strategies for each process, and (3) identify employers who have implemented control strategies to determine if those control strategies are effective. Although OSHA has been obtaining this information for microwave popcorn and food flavoring manufacturing establishments, to date little information is available on the many other industry sectors that would potentially be covered by the final role required by the bill. OSHA believes that two years is too short a period of time to develop the information base and analysis necessary to adequately support the proposed and final role, and to afford the public adequate time to comment on OSHA's proposal. The Agency believes that robust public input is essential to achieving a final rule that provides protection for employees while addressing potential impacts on all affected industries.
2. Focusing solely on a Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) for diacetyl may ignore other components that are playing an important role in the development of disease.
H.R 2693 requires OSHA to develop a PEL for diacetyl that would apply to all facilities where diacetyl is processed or used. Research is ongoing by groups such as the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the National Jewish Medical Center, the National Institute for Environmental Health Studies and California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal OSHA) to better determine the role that exposures to diacetyl and other chemicals may play in the development of bronchiolitis obliterans.
By focusing solely on diacetyl, H.R 2693 raises two major concerns:
a. Focusing on diacetyl ignores the possibility that other flavoring components--many of which are irritants and airway-reactive substances--are playing a role in the development of disease. Given the wide variety of ways and forms (e.g., liquids or powders) in which diacetyl and other flavoring components are used in the food manufacturing industry, a narrow focus on diacetyl would likely result in the selection of risk management strategies that may not adequately protect employees. These might include substitution of diacetyl with other chemicals that may be as dangerous under similar circumstances as diacetyl.
b. NIOSH has stated that ``at this time, insufficent data exist on which to base workplace exposure standards or recommended exposure limits for butter flavorings.'' Given the state of the data currently available, OSHA would only be able to develop an imprecise PEL for diacetyl which would have a considerable amount of uncertainty associated with respect to the degree of protection afforded.
3. As drafted the bill would require the interim final rule to impose engineering requirements based on NIOSH recommendations that lack the clarity and specificity necessary to form the basis of a new health standard.
H.R. 2693 would direct OSHA to issue an interim rule at least as stringent as the 2004 NIOSH Hazard Alert. The NIOSH recommendations serve as good general recommendations, but do not provide specific performance criteria that would be necessary to develop an unambiguous and enforceable interim rule. The NIOSH Alert refers to the 2001 ACGIH Ventilation Manual, which provides some general objective design criteria, but mixing and blending processes in flavoring establishments vary greatly. For example, they can range from a 10-gallon batch operation up to several hundred pounds of batch mixing. Each of these operations may use similar control strategies but would require different engineering design parameters to achieve the same level of effectiveness. Therefore, the NIOSH Hazard Alert is not helpful to specify required minimum operating parameters for engineering controls because these minimum parameters will not provide equal protection to all employees in affected establishments. Furthermore, there is simply not enough information available at this point on flavoring processes and current exposure control practices to develop a specification-oriented standard.
OSHA traditionally has used PELs instead of specification-oriented standards to protect workers in this type of situation, because a PEL will set a precise, measurable standard to protect workers. However, as previously mentioned, currently available data do not support setting a PEL for diacetyl. Thus, OSHA would be forced by H.R. 2693 to issue a PEL based on imprecise information and an IFR based on a NIOSH Hazard Alert that does not provide specific performance criteria.
Additionally, the Department of Labor is very concerned that the IFR that is mandated by this legislation will not be open for comment by stakeholders, or reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), the Administrative Procedures Act, and the rulemaking requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act These statutes ensure thorough consideration and transparency in rulemaking. We do not believe these regulatory requirements should be waived except in the most exceptional situations. Thorough vetting is particularly critical when the medical and scientific studies do not provide unequivocal conclusions.
The Department of Labor is committed to protecting employees from obstructive lung diseases. The Department recently announced that OSHA win focus on health hazards of microwave popcorn butter flavorings containing diacetyl through a new National Emphasis Program (NEP). The NEP will direct inspections to the facilities where workers may be at the greatest risk of exposure to this hazard. Implementation of this NEP would allow OSHA to inspect every such facility under Federal jurisdiction by the end of this year. This will be followed by a second NEP that focuses on establishments manufacturing food flavorings containing diacetyl.
In addition to the NEP, OSHA is also preparing a Safety and Health Information Bulletin (SHIB) to better inform and instruct employers on how to protect employees from obstructive lung disease caused or exacerbated by food flavorings used in the microwave popcorn manufacturing industry. The SHIB will provide guidance to alert employers and workers to the potential hazards associated with butter flavorings containing diacetyl and will provide recommendations on how to control these hazards. OSHA is also developing a hazard communication guidance document to ensure that material safety data sheets and labels properly convey hazard information on diacetyl and diacetyl-containing food flavorings. Given that NIOSH has stated that insufficient data exist on which to base workplace exposure standards or recommended exposure limits for butter flavorings the approach we are taking is the quickest and most effective means of providing protection to workers in the popcorn and flavor manufacturing industries.
Because of the concerns I have outlined, the Department of Labor is opposed to H.R 2693. We have concluded that the approach proposed by H.R. 2693 will not afford the best level of protection for workers. By not providing sufficient time to do a proper rulemakin OSHA may unintentionally overlook opportunities to provide needed worker safety and, at the same timel require expensive process isolation, and ventilation and other control strategies that may be ineffective. Instead, I urge you to allow OSHA to thoroughly evaluate all available science concerning the effects of exposures to food flavorings, feasibie abatements, and related issues.
Sincerely,
EDWIN G. FOULKE, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for
Occupational Safety and Health.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record letters in opposition from the American Bakers Association, dated September 25, 2007; the OSHA Fairness Coalition, September 25, 2007; and the Office of Management and Budget, dated September 25, 2007.
AMERICAN BAKERS ASSOCIATION,
Washington, DC, September 25, 2007.
Hon. Howard McKeon,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. MCKEON: On behalf of the American Bakers Association (ABA), I am writing to express our opposition to H.R. 2693, ``the Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act,'' which the House of Representatives is expected to consider this week. Passage of H.R. 2693 would significantly short circuit the appropriate regulatory process by mandating that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) implement a regulation, including a Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL), applicable to all sectors of the food industry, and based on limited scientific data. For over 100 years, the ABA has represented the interests of the wholesale baking industry and its suppliers--companies that work together to provide over 80 percent of the wholesome and nutritious bakery products purchased by American consumers.
The American Bakers Association prides itself on our long history of assisting baking companies to stay ahead of the curve on safety and health in the workplace. Our Safety Committee provides tremendous leadership on safety and health policy issues. We are committed to keeping our workers safe and support science-based standards and regulations. The ABA is aware of recent data from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) regarding the use of diacetyl in popcorn manufacturing and the flavor manufacturing industry. We also understand the severity of the health effects that have been demonstrated in a limited number of cases. However, we strongly believe that the recent NIOSH data does not accurately reflect the use of diacetyl in other sectors of the food industry, such as baking. Differences exist in the food processing industry, the concentrations of diacetyl used, and the existing controls in place.
Mandating specific requirements that OSHA must include in a diacetyl standard sets a precedent that should be avoided. Congress's role as set forth in the OSH Act of 1970 is to ``assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources.'' However, it is the role of the Department of Labor to use its expertise for implementing regulations. For Congress to specify the applicable requirements of a ``final standard'' would bypass inappropriately the mechanisms and tests established under the OSH Act. Expedited regulation, even if directed by Congress, would rest on very limited scientific evidence and would represent rushed and inappropriate legislative and Agency action.
Further H.R. 2693 does not address the carefully developed procedures for rulemaking that Congress and the courts have put in place under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), including provisions designed to protect small businesses. Finally, on September 24, 2007 OSHA announced its intent to move forward with a rulemaking on diacetyl. This rulemaking process should be allowed to move forward as it includes the appropriate procedural safeguards.
ABA respectfully urges you to oppose this legislation and allow the regulatory procedures designed to protect the interests of small businesses to guide OSHA in developing a standard.
Sincerely,
Robb MacKie,
President and CEO.
--
OSHA Fairness Coalition
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: We write to inform you of our strong opposition to H.R. 2693, ``the Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act,'' which the House of Representatives is expected to consider this week. The bill directs the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to issue a standard regulating exposure to diacetyl (a substance used to impart butter flavor to various foods, most notably microwave popcorn) even though the science and data available are insufficient to allow OSHA to establish an exposure limit. Such a mandate would be completely at odds with all other laws, judicial decisions, executive orders and sound policy considerations under which OSHA promulgates standards and regulations.
This bill mandates that OSHA issue an interim final regulation within 90 days of enactment, and then a final regulation which would include a short term exposure limit and a permissible exposure limit, within two years of enactment. Unfortunately, data does not currently exist as to where these lines could be drawn. The very NIOSH document cited in the bill for support also states with respect to diacetyl and other flavorings: ``Little is currently known about which chemicals used in flavorings have the potential to cause lung disease and other health effects, and what workplace exposure concentrations are safe. ..... Most chemicals used in flavorings have not been tested for respiratory toxicity via the inhalation route, and occupational exposure limits have been established for only a relatively small number of these chemicals.'' (NIOSH Publication 2004-110, pp. 5-6).
Most importantly, this bill mandates that OSHA completely ignore the carefully developed, balanced, and necessary requirements for rulemaking that Congress and the courts have put in place to make sure OSHA standards reflect the best science available, are responsive to a specific hazard, and are both technologically and economically feasible for the affected employers. Both Congress and the Supreme Court have made clear that OSHA can regulate only after it has satisfied specific requirements for data and analysis as contained in Section 6 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act including specific provisions designed to protect small businesses. Because regulations have a much different and more significant impact on small businesses, adhering to the strict rulemaking guidelines of the APA are that much more important to small businesses. The normal OSHA rulemaking process allows for regulatory impacts on small businesses (which according to the Small Business Administration are 50 percent higher than they are for large firms) to be assessed, and for important changes to be made to proposed regulations mitigating those impacts. Shortchanging that process could be potentially devastating to those small businesses which provide 60 percent of all new jobs in the United States.
The interim final regulation specified by this bill, which would have the legal effect of an OSHA standard, would not be produced under any rulemaking procedures. Indeed, this bill attempts to write the interim final standard directly, bypassing OSHA's expertise and ability to tailor such a regulation to those circumstances where it is truly warranted. Under the bill the interim final standard would be issued without any analysis of its impact, or opportunity for those subject to it to provide comments or input, nor would it be subject to comments once issued as is customary for interim final rules. Because there is no data around which to formulate the short term exposure limit and permissible exposure limit, the two year timeframe specified for OSHA to issue the final regulation is too accelerated to permit the agency to conduct the necessary impact analyses and other small business-focused analyses that would normally accompany an OSHA rulemaking.
Finally, any need for this bill has been eliminated as a result of the world's largest producer of microwave popcorn, ConAgra Foods Inc., and another large manufacturer of microwave popcorn recently indicating their plans to eliminate diacetyl from their brands, and OSHA's announcement on September 24 that the agency will move forward with various measures to address the hazard of workplace diacetyl exposure including a rulemaking consistent with the full procedural safeguards.
H.R. 2693, while well intentioned, is ill conceived and would establish a devastating precedent of Congress mandating a regulation when there is no data available to use in setting the exposure limit, and trampling on regulatory procedure designed to protect the interests of small businesses. The Coalition urges the House not to pass H.R. 2693.
Sincerely,
American Bakers Association; Associated Builders and Contractors; International Food Distributors Association; National Association of Home Builders; National Oilseed Processors Association; NFIB; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors--National Association; American Foundry Society; Associated General Contractors; National Association of Convenience Stores; National Association of Manufacturers; Mason Contractors Association of America; and Printing Industries of America.
--
Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 2693--The Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act
(Rep. Woolsey (D) CA and 17 cosponsors)
The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 2693, ``Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act,'' in its current form. H.R. 2693 would require the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to publish a premature interim standard within 90 days of enactment regulating worker exposure to diacetyl and publish a final regulation that includes a permissible exposure limit (PEL) within two years. The bill also directs the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to conduct a study to determine the potential exposure hazards of diacetyl and associated chemicals used in the production of microwave popcorn.
The Administration shares the goal of protecting workers from the risk of obstructive lung disease, and OSHA is already taking steps to strengthen worker protections in this area. These measures include: (1) Announcement of a regular rulemaking process under the Occupational Safety and Health Act to address occupational exposure to flavorings containing diacetyl; (2) inspections at every microwave popcorn manufacturing plant in the nation within the calendar year to ensure that acceptable ventilation and other engineering controls are in place and that appropriate personal protective equipment is in use; (3) issuance of a Safety and Health Information Bulletin that advises employers about diacetyl, recommends specific engineering and work practice controls to regulate exposures, and requires appropriate personal protective equipment and respiratory protection when handling diacetyl; and (4) issuance of a guidance document about health hazard information that must be included on diacetyl material safety data sheets under the Hazard Communication standard.
The Administration does not believe that H.R. 2693 in its present form is the best regulatory approach for protecting workers. Before a PEL can be promulgated, more time is needed to gather sufficient evidence concerning (1) the causes of bronchiolitis obliterans (``popcorn lung disease'') in workers exposed to diacetyl and other chemicals used in butter flavorings; (2) the range of exposure levels that may be hazardous; and (3) the kinds of control measures that are most effective. Additional time is also needed to obtain sufficient information about the many other industries besides microwave popcorn manufacturing that use diacetyl and diacetyl-containing flavorings. The expedited rulemaking required by H.R. 2693 would not allow OSHA sufficient time to gather and analyze the kind of evidence and information needed to ensure the promulgation of a standard that adequately protects workers.
The Administration is also very concerned that the interim standard that is mandated by this legislation will not be open for comment by stakeholders, particularly small business, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, and the rulemaking requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. These statutes ensure thorough consideration and transparency in rulemaking, as well as stakeholder input. The Administration believes these requirements should be waived only in the most exceptional situations. Thorough vetting is particularly critical when the medical and scientific studies do not provide unequivocal conclusions.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), an experienced physician.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we are considering this bill under unfortunate circumstances. A number of workers have become ill, and it is not entirely clear why. We suspect this particular food flavoring diacetyl may be involved, so we all support a thorough investigation into this substance and how exposure to it may impact workers.
Like my friends on the other side of the aisle, I wish there was an easy answer. If only we knew what had made these workers ill, we could immediately eliminate the risks. If only we knew for sure that diacetyl and manufacturing alone caused lung obstruction, then Federal agencies could go through the appropriate regulatory process to establish exposure limitations and take the necessary steps to protect workers.
Unfortunately, we do not have enough information at this point in time to take such action. Research is underway, and it is my hope that the research continues quickly so we can get to the bottom of these questions about how diacetyl impacts manufacturing workers.
Until that research is available and until we have a scientific basis for regulation, in my mind we simply cannot move forward. There is a very real danger that by acting too quickly, we could inadvertently push manufacturers to begin using substitute flavorings. There is a possibility that these substitute flavorings could also put workers at risk; thus, a hurried regulation may provide a false sense of security while manufacturing workers remain vulnerable.
Again, I understand the frustration about a lack of clarity on the administration's intent in this area. Until the recent announcement by the Department of Labor that it intends to undertake a rulemaking process for this flavoring, we had not received any clear indication from the administration that it intended to take action. As such, I believe some on the other side the aisle believed they had no choice but to act themselves.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize the difficulty we face. We have workers who have fallen ill and we do not know why. We have questions about a flavoring that workers are exposed to during manufacturing, but we do not know whether it is the sole cause of their ailments. We have a Federal regulatory agency that is responsible for ensuring workplace safety, but until this week we did not know whether the agency would act.
Republicans proposed a sensible alternative when this bill was considered in the committee, and we plan to do the same today. We want to balance our pressing desire to act quickly to protect workers with our equally important need to adhere to sound science.
Because I believe it undermines the basic regulatory framework and neglects the necessary scientific foundation, I regret I cannot support the bill in its current form. I hope my alternative will be adopted so that we can quickly increase evidence to guide the final rules to provide the strongest protections possible.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, this isn't about confusion. This isn't about uncertainty. This is about the absolute failure of a Federal agency that has been established and designed to protect the health and the safety of American workers, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, and the absolutely failure of that agency to take action, the absolute failure of this administration, the Bush administration, to insist they take action in light of mounting and compelling evidence that workers in popcorn manufacturing facilities and workers maybe now in other food industries have been stricken with a horrible disease that has been directly related to diacetyl.
I appreciate they want to throw up all of the other reasons. Maybe it wasn't O.J., but the fact of the matter is, here it is diacetyl, and we have got to understand that because people are going in for lung transplants, people are losing their ability to earn a living, and people have died from the results of this, and manufacturers and others are paying out millions of dollars.
The other side wants to offer an amendment that is based upon very old information, 3 years old. In those 3 years, NIOSH has recommended that actions be taken. The actions were not taken. NIOSH based that on the information at that time.
Then the industry recommended that actions be taken to protect the lives and the health and the safety of these workers, and actions were not taken in many parts of that industry. And, lo and behold, on the day that we are arguing this bill on the floor, we find out that OSHA has finally taken action.
And what action has OSHA taken? It didn't take action in the absence of information. It specifically states that they are updating the material safety data sheets because they have to include newer health effects information, information they need to understand the hazards associated. The hazards associated.
This is OSHA as of today. OSHA couldn't figure it out yesterday, they couldn't figure it out last year or the year before or the year before. But because Congress is moving, they are now going to give people a data sheet that says diacetyl, in the data sheet from OSHA today, can cause damage to respiratory tract and lungs if inhaled, and it is highly flammable.
This isn't because we don't have information. This is because they refused to act earlier.
The gentleman from the other side wants to talk about the fact that they have put together a rulemaking process. No, what they announced was a one-day meeting, a one-day meeting of stakeholders, and then that was the end of it. We don't know whether they are going to go to the rest of the process or not. There is no indication in their past that they have.
They have forfeited their right to suggest that they will set the time and the tempo and the urgency of the protection of these workers and their families. They have forfeited that. We are stepping in here; and in the first interim standard we are asking NIOSH to do what they have already recommended that they do, based upon the evidence they have today. We are asking them to join with the manufacturers who have made these same recommendations based upon the evidence that they have today.
And what are they asking them to do? These are the first precautionary things that you do: Isolate the mixing room from the rest of the plant using walls, doors or other barriers; provide the mixing room with a separate ventilation system and ensure that negative air pressure relative to the rest of the plant is maintained in the mixing room. Yes, they are doing this because they have information that this can cause damage to your respiratory tracts and your lungs.
The other side wants to suggest in their amendment that if we just knew more, we could do better. It goes on and on.
They suggest reducing the operating temperature and holding the mixing tanks to the minimum temperature necessary, equipping the head space of the mixing and holding tanks with flavor added to oil and held in a pure form, automating the mixing process using closed processes to transfer flavorings. These are all designed to protect these workers, and they would not have happened but for this committee action, but for this floor time and this debate, and but for us voting this bill out of here.
This is the least we can do, to ask these agencies to do what was already recommended they should do in 2003, to do at least what the manufacturers have already recommended they do in 2004. And then we ask them to proceed with a permanent standard using their scientific evidence, their data, their knowledge, not ours. And that is the process by which these workers are going to get protection.
They are not going to get protection from the gentleman's amendment on the other side of the aisle, and they are not going to get it from stalling the Congress from going forward.
This is our opportunity to respond to an urgent medical crises in this industry by these workers and their families. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation when it comes time for final passage and to defeat the Wilson amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Wilson of South Carolina:
Page 6, line 18, strike ``the date of enactment of this Act,'' and insert ``the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health concludes there is sufficient data to support a recommended exposure limit and establishes such recommended exposure limit,''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 678, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward. This would ensure that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, sets a permissible exposure limit as directed by the underlying bill, which can be relied in science.
I offered this amendment in the Education and Labor Committee, and we agreed to work together to see if we could reach an agreement. Between committee action and today, we were unable to reach an agreement on the timeframe addressed by my amendment. So I'm offering it for floor consideration.
I understand my colleagues' goal is to set a standard for a substance that appears to be harming manufacturing workers in and around microwave popcorn manufacturing facilities. I know the well-meaning intention of their efforts. Unfortunately, I do not share their belief that this legislation will accomplish that goal.
First, there is widespread concern that while diacetyl is unquestionably a marker, it is not the sole cause of lung impairment in these workers. In addition to this, however, this bill would regulate diacetyl and require a standard to be set based on little or no available science. In other words, if a food manufacturing facility substitutes diacetyl with another flavoring chemical, there is no guarantee that that chemical is not the one making manufacturing workers sick.
Technically, the bill before us requires OSHA to set an interim final rule for diacetyl manufacturers and microwave popcorn plants to implement engineering controls for diacetyl exposure. It then directs OSHA to set a standard that will apply to all food manufacturing facilities. The expansion of coverage from the interim rule to the final rule and the time frame of 2 years in which OSHA is given to set the standard will impact OSHA's ability to follow the appropriate legal guidelines that would apply to a normal rulemaking.
All my amendment does is ensure that OSHA promulgates a regulation with appropriate stakeholder input and the science to establish a technically feasible permissible exposure limit. Also, I would note that OSHA announced Monday that it would undertake a rulemaking on this substance.
I should note that there is a great deal of ongoing research and data gathering concerning the health effects of diacetyl. For example, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is working to improve measuring diacetyl, while the National Jewish Medical Center is working to gather data from workers about lung function. California OSHA also is working with the industry to gather the much-needed information to set a standard. Without any conclusive evidence, which has yet to be generated by any source at this point in time, we are putting the cart before the horse, and because of this, I respectfully urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, again, I urge adoption of the amendment. I want to commend my colleagues again for their good intentions.
I would like to restate that as a former member of the State board of the American Lung Association for a number of years, I've had a long-time concern about lung illnesses. I sincerely believe that the amendment that I have, which provides that action would be taken upon scientific evidence, is in the interest of the manufacturing workers in the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source