researching and writing about Boeing's 737 Max airliners

Commentary

The 'Right-to-Know' Movement EULA BINGHAM, PHD

Seldom has an issue such as the "Right-to-Know" captured the attention of the public and occupational and environmental health constituents and galvanized entire communites into action. During the last two years of the Carter administration, it became apparent that while a commitment and concerted effort to issue health standards on individual substances was important, at best, it was and is a slow and cumbersome approach to bringing about real changes in worker health. Two fundamental concepts were considered essential to making significant progress: 1) identi- fication of hazardous substances in the workplace, and in the environs surrounding the factory; and 2) education of the employees and employers, many of whom are unfamiliar with fundamental toxic processes.

The first concept of identification of hazardous sub- stances has implicit in it a worker's knowledge of whether or not he or she has suffered adverse health effects as deter- mined by the medical records kept by the employer and the monitoring of chemicals exposures by the employer. These rights were embodied in a standard issued by the Occupa- tional Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in the summer of 1980.1 The second aspect of identifying hazard- ous substances is revealing the identity of chemicals in the workplace and its environs. Great efforts were expended during the 18-month period following the summer of 1980 to issue a proposal for the hazard identification or labeling standard, better known as Right-to-Know, part 11.2 The goal was two standards dealing with occupational and environ- mental chemicals in a complementary and reinforcing mode. In the closing days of the Carter administration, the decision was made at OSHA to move forward with a proposal in the hope that the next administration would move the process to completion after hearings and public comment. Such hope was based on the history of every succeeding administration, to move forward building upon the gains made in the preceding one as had been the pattern at OSHA beginning with Assistant Secretary John Stender, followed by Morton Corn, followed by Bingham. Such was not the case with Assistant Secretary Thorne Auchter, as he moved to with- draw the proposal. Eventually the reissue of a much wa- tered-down labeling proposal occurred after great pressure from the industrial community to do so. While the public health community awaits the final, eviscerated version of the Reagan administration's standard-promised months ago-a legislative revolution has occurred.

In the fall of 1980 it appeared likely that only a "propos- al" could be issued before the end of the Carter administra- tion. With this realization and a growing cynicism that the Reagan administration would be so intent on regulatory reform that health standards would be stopped in their

Address reprint requests to Eula Bingham, PhD, Professor of Toxicolo- gy, Institute of Environmental Health, College of Medicine, Kettering Labo- ratory, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45267. Dr. Bingham is former Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, US Department of Labor.

© 1983 American Journal of Public Health 0090-0036/83 $1.50

tracks, coupled with increasing knowedge of the critical nature of chemical identity in hazard control, a move toward local legislation began to emerge. First, the Philadelphia ordinance, that actually is directed toward community expo- sures, was passed on January 22, 1981. State legislatures- urged on by community committees on occupational safety and health (COSH) and similar coalitions-began to demand the litany of state regulations dealing with Right-to-Know concerning chemical identities. Among the first were New York, Maine, West Virginia, and Connecticut-and on it goes with each additional state having a sharper definition of the need and remedy. The last count in the states, in August 1983 as the Journal went to press, was 10 laws, with many more in the legislative process. While some conclude that if and when the diluted federal standard is issued it will preempt many of these more local laws, this is not clear-cut. Certainly in the case where fire codes are vehicles for the coverage, or where laws provide coverage for state and local public employees who are exempted from the federal health and safety law, there will be no preemption.

One of the most striking aspects of this "will of the people" narrative in public health is the unique aspects of these laws. The Cincinnati ordinance is enforced by the fire department during routine inspections of facilities in general fire prevention; the Connecticut law has a provision for establishing a fund to educate workers regarding toxic chemicals. With the 40 per cent cutback in OSHA New Directions training money, this training provision assumes great importance in achieving the overall public health goal of preventing chemically induced disease by revealing the hazards and providing the knowedge needed for prevention.

One may speculate on reasons for the apparent success of the demand for "Right-to-Know" laws. Certainly a grow- ing sophistication on the part of the general public regarding health, an increased awareness that "inside the factory" becomes "outside the factory" (often into homes as demon- strated by dumpsites), and the political savvy of health and safety coalitions play a part.

It is ironic that many still argue that the most cost- efficient approach to solving a national public health problem is through a national initiative. Perhaps the impetus for such can be credited to the national effort for a "medical access and workplace monitoring" standard and proposal for a labeling standard. Nevertheless, it remains a fact that the most effective means of finally achieving worker and com- munity knowledge has been through the local efforts of multiple local coalitions of public health activists, local labor unions, citizens, and even certain business leaders who are turning the tide on toxic chemical ignorance.

REFERENCES 1. Occupational Safety and Health Administration: Access to Employee

Exposure and Medical Records, Final Rule. Federal Register, May 23. 1980 (45 FR 35212).

2. Occupational Safety and Health Administration: Hazardous Materials Labeling. Proposed Rule. Federal Register, January 16, 1981 (46 FR 4412).

3. Occupational Safety and Health Administration: Hazard Communication Standard, Drafted March 1983.

AJPH November 1983, Vol. 73, No. 111 302,