BACKGROUND: An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommendation for extensive changes to the Agency's 40-year-old Worker Protection Standard is currently stalled in the "proposed rule" stage. The proposal, which was available for public comment until 18 August, would improve safety, training, and hazard communication policies for agricultural pesticides. Exposure to hazards, including high heat, heavy machinery, stoop labor, and pesticides, makes occupational illness uncommonly common among the USA's estimated 2.5 million farm workers. OBJECTIVES: To consider the proposed revisions' likelihood of addressing historical gaps in farmworker protection. METHODS: The proposal was compared to the existing Worker Protection Standard, and key aspects were analyzed in relation to existing science on farm labor hazards, as well as historic occupational health, labor and immigration policy. RESULTS: US law historically has left farm workers largely unprotected. These exclusions and delays have been tolerated in part thanks to the myth of the independent family farmer, but more significant is the stingy nativism that presumes to benefit from immigrant labor without assuming any responsibility to protect the humans who provide it. In the first half of the 1970s, workers lobbied for robust protections, but rule making was impeded by lack of data and by the disproportionate influence of agricultural employers who sought minimal regulation. In 1974, the EPA passed the first Worker Protection Standard for farm workers. Key aspects of the proposed revision include stronger protections against drift and re-entry exposures, better information provision and training, and increased protections for workers under 16 years. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed changes represent an improvement over existing legislation, but do not go far enough. The revision should be strengthened along lines suggested by farm workers themselves, and other labor laws must also be amended to give the men, women, and children who work in the fields of this country full rights and protections.
BACKGROUND: An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommendation for extensive changes to the Agency's 40-year-old Worker Protection Standard is currently stalled in the "proposed rule" stage. The proposal, which was available for public comment until 18 August, would improve safety, training, and hazard communication policies for agricultural pesticides. Exposure to hazards, including high heat, heavy machinery, stoop labor, and pesticides, makes occupational illness uncommonly common among the USA's estimated 2.5 million farm workers. OBJECTIVES: To consider the proposed revisions' likelihood of addressing historical gaps in farmworker protection. METHODS: The proposal was compared to the existing Worker Protection Standard, and key aspects were analyzed in relation to existing science on farm labor hazards, as well as historic occupational health, labor and immigration policy. RESULTS: US law historically has left farm workers largely unprotected. These exclusions and delays have been tolerated in part thanks to the myth of the independent family farmer, but more significant is the stingy nativism that presumes to benefit from immigrant labor without assuming any responsibility to protect the humans who provide it. In the first half of the 1970s, workers lobbied for robust protections, but rule making was impeded by lack of data and by the disproportionate influence of agricultural employers who sought minimal regulation. In 1974, the EPA passed the first Worker Protection Standard for farm workers. Key aspects of the proposed revision include stronger protections against drift and re-entry exposures, better information provision and training, and increased protections for workers under 16 years. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed changes represent an improvement over existing legislation, but do not go far enough. The revision should be strengthened along lines suggested by farm workers themselves, and other labor laws must also be amended to give the men, women, and children who work in the fields of this country full rights and protections.
Authors: Geoffrey M Calvert; Jennifer Karnik; Louise Mehler; John Beckman; Barbara Morrissey; Jennifer Sievert; Rosanna Barrett; Michelle Lackovic; Laura Mabee; Abby Schwartz; Yvette Mitchell; Stephanie Moraga-McHaley Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: Federico Castillo; Ana M Mora; Georgia L Kayser; Jennifer Vanos; Carly Hyland; Audrey R Yang; Brenda Eskenazi Journal: Annu Rev Public Health Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 21.981