It’s time for U.S. tobacco companies to protect all child tobacco workers

/in , , , , , /by

Reid Maki is the director of child labor advocacy at the National Consumers League and he coordinates the Child Labor Coalition.

In 2014, under pressure from advocacy groups like the Child Labor Coalition and Human Rights Watch (HRW), several tobacco companies operating in the United States announced they would only buy tobacco from growers who agree not to hire children under 16 to work in contact with tobacco plants.

The child rights and human rights groups had been pushing for a ban on all children—aged 17 and below—from harvesting tobacco because of health problems related to nicotine exposure. These negative health impacts were well-documented in Tobacco’s Hidden Children, a report from HRW published in May 2014.

“Children interviewed by Human Rights Watch in North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia frequently described feeling seriously, acutely sick, while working in tobacco farming,” noted HRW. “For example, Carla P., 16, works for hire on tobacco farms in Kentucky with her parents and her younger sister. She told Human Rights Watch she got sick while pulling the
tops off tobacco plants: ‘I didn’t feel well, but I still kept working. I started throwing up. I was throwing up for like 10 minutes, just what I ate. I took a break for a few hours, and then I went back to work.’

Another child worker interviewed by HRW, Emilio R., a 16-year-old seasonal worker in eastern North Carolina, said he had headaches that sometimes lasted up to two days while working in tobacco: “With the headaches, it was hard to do anything at all. I didn’t want to move my head.”

Some children describe the flu-like symptoms of nicotine poisoning as “feeling like I was going to die.”

HRW researchers found that “many of the symptoms reported by child tobacco workers are consistent with acute nicotine poisoning, known as Green Tobacco Sickness, an occupational health risk specific to tobacco farming that occurs when workers absorb nicotine through their skin while having prolonged contact with tobacco plants.” Dizziness, headaches, nausea, and vomiting are the most common symptoms of acute nicotine poisoning. Three-quarters of the children interviewed by HRW in the report noted the onset of health symptoms when they began tobacco work, and many of those symptoms correlated with nicotine absorption.

U.S. child labor law is of no help in dealing with this problem. American law has exemptions for agriculture that allow children who are only 12 to work unlimited hours on farms as long as they are not missing school.

In 2014, the tobacco companies agreeing to protect the youngest child workers seemed like an important step forward. But six years later, we have concerns that the voluntary ban is not working.

Farmworker communities have proven particularly vulnerable to COVID-19. With schools closed for the summer and many parents sick, we fear that the number of children from desperately poor farmworker families who seek jobs on tobacco farms may increase.

Over the last six years, partner organizations in North Carolina have told us that younger children are still working in tobacco fields.

A recent health impacts study on child farmworkers in North Carolina (“Latinx child farmworkers in North Carolina: Study design and participant baseline characteristics” in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, November 28, 2018) by researchers at Wake Forest School of Medicine reported data that suggests children under 16 continue to work in tobacco
fields.

In 2017, the first year Wake Forest researchers interviewed farmworker children—and three years after the tobacco companies’ voluntary age restriction, researchers interviewed 202 children and found 116 had worked tobacco in the week before the interview.

Yes, it’s just one study. But in the absence of federal and state data—which is notoriously poor when it comes to counting child farmworkers—it suggests that, in North Carolina, one of the four prime tobacco-growing states, nearly half of child tobacco workers are under 16. It confirms what we had been hearing anecdotally from farmworker groups in North Carolina: the
tobacco companies’ policy isn’t working.

Children in the United States are not allowed to perform work that has been labeled hazardous by the U.S. Department of Labor. You must be 18 to do dangerous work in all sectors except agriculture. This is an exemption that needs to end. Tobacco has not been labeled as dangerous work, even though everyone agrees that it is. That’s why the tobacco companies in
2014 said young children should not do it.

Children who are under 18 cannot buy cigarettes in a store, yet they are permitted to work 10 or 12 hour days in tobacco fields in stifling heat, breathing nicotine though the air, and absorbing it through their skin. Many children are so desperate to avoid contact with the plants that they work in black garbage backs with holes cut out for their arms and legs.

Efforts to pass federal legislation, the Children Don’t Belong on Tobacco Farms Act, could fix this problem with a total ban on child labor in U.S. tobacco. Unfortunately, versions of the bill, in both the U.S. House and Senate, are not expected to pass any time soon. Child farmworkers, often poor and Latino, are often at the end of congressional priority lists.

American tobacco companies have had six years to try a piecemeal approach that is not working. We need tobacco companies to step up and do the right thing by banning child work in tobacco.

Tips to reduce food waste during the pandemic and beyond

/in , , , /by

By Nailah John, Linda Golodner Food Safety and Nutrition Fellow

The food waste epidemic in America has increased with each generation. Food has become cheaper than ever and we throw out millions of tons of food, while 37.2 million Americans are food insecure, according to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The National Consumers League (NCL) has been an early leader in calling attention to this problem. In 2016, NCL and the Keystone Policy Center hosted a Food Waste Summit, which focused on Food Waste Landscape and how it impacts the consumer. The USDA estimates that we waste 30-40 percent of our food supply. In 2015, the USDA joined the U.S. Environment Protection Agency to set a goal to cut America’s food waste by 50 percent by the year 2030.

NCL helped to launch Further with Food: Center for Food Loss and Waste Solutions in 2017. NCL, along with 12 organizations, joined this online hub to exchange information and solutions towards the national goal of cutting food waste. The initiative focuses on best practices for preventing food loss and waste; providing educational materials; research results and information on existing government, business, and community.

Sadly, during the pandemic, some farmers have resorted to dumping milk and plowing crops under because schools, restaurants, and universities that usually purchase large quantities of food are closed. Dana Gunders, executive Director of ReFED- Rethink Food Waste, recently noted that “people are throwing out less food in their homes, but more food is going to waste throughout the supply chain.” Gunders was recently interviewed on NPR about COVID-19 and food waste.

Gunders offered a number of tips regarding food waste:

  • Consumers are making fewer trips to grocery stores during the pandemic, which makes it easy to adopt better practices that help reduce waste at home. Consumers are planning meals and thinking through what they want to eat and need to buy. Those who meal plan waste less food.
  • Households should do a better job storing food, which helps to reduce food waste. Putting items in correct packages, storing them properly, and freezing what you are not ready to use extends the life of many items. Fresh herbs and asparagus do great in a jar of water in the fridge, and avocados can be stored in the refrigerator once ripe. Fruit does best in a crisper drawer set to “low” or slightly cracked open.
  • “Use by” dates indicate the ideal time to consume the product, but as Dana says, “if you see the words ‘best by’ or ‘best if used by,’ those are foods you can eat well past the date as long as they look fine, taste fine, and smell fine.”

Civil Eats, a daily news source for critical thought about the American food system with a focus on sustainable agriculture, also highlights recommendations for reducing food waste:

  • Revive older food. Soak wilting veggies in ice water to re-crisp them. Un-stale bread, crackers, tortilla chips by toasting them in the oven for 1-2 minutes
  • Instead of throwing away leftovers, think about using them in a new recipe. For example, use your over-ripe bananas to make a tasty banana muffin, banana fritters, or smoothies with milk, ice, or other fruit.

The USDA recommends consumers consider donating food they can’t use to hunger relief organizations, shelters, etc. so that it can be used to feed people in need. And food that is inedible can be recycled into other products such as compost, worm castings, bioenergy, animal feed, bio plastics, and clothing.

USDA and EPA created the food recovery hierarchy (at right) to show the most effective ways to address food waste.

Food waste is always a challenge, but during Covid-19, we can employ some useful strategies. With so many Americans food insecure and people around the world facing dangerous food scarcity, it’s incumbent on all of us to treasure the food our farmers grow, honor it, and use it to feed our families.

NCL leads advocates in urging FDA to protect patient access to critical therapy for preterm birth

/in , , , , /by

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

The National Consumers League and 14 leading health organizations and individual providers have collaborated in sending a letter to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as the agency considers whether to withdraw the only FDA-approved therapy that reduces the risk of preterm birth in women with a history of preterm birth.

Why did we and our fellow advocates decide to send this letter in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic? Several important reasons.

First, preventing preterm birth is always a vital cause—during or without a pandemic. The leading cause of infant death in the United States, premature birth has devastating effects on families and is very costly to our health care system. For babies who do survive, short and long-term complications can accompany preterm birth. For mothers, a history of spontaneous preterm birth is a leading risk factor for recurrent preterm birth, yet providers have only one therapeutic option – hydroxyprogesterone caproate or “17P,” in one branded and five generic forms – to prevent recurrent preterm birth for these at-risk mothers.

Taking away these options—especially in the midst of a pandemic—would be concerning for pregnant women who are at high-risk for preterm birth, including those that reduce their risk of being admitted to the hospital for early delivery.

Secondly, as recent events surrounding both COVID-19 and continued fundamental rights injustices have reminded us, a profound and systemic inequity exists in the United States where institutional racism contributes to health disparities—including preterm birth and infant mortality. COVID-19 has disproportionally impacted African American women, the same population that is most likely to experience preterm birth. The preterm birth rate among U.S. black women is 49 percent higher than the rate among all other women, according to the March of Dimes.

Thirdly, 17P is the only FDA-approved therapy that reduces the risk of preterm birth and has been used for nearly a decade. We are concerned that removing access to the only FDA-approved therapy may deepen maternal and infant health inequities that exist within the U.S.

It is also troubling that if providers cannot access FDA-approved forms of 17P, this may expose pregnant women to compounded medications, which have no labeling to provide guidance on administration, contraindications, or potential side effects.

Removing 17P products in the absence of suitable alternatives would leave patients and providers significantly disadvantaged in the fight against prematurity. While we recognize the FDA is encountering tremendous challenges in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to underscore the public health need for continued access to approved treatment options, and we trust that the agency will consider the patient impact as they evaluate this issue.

To add your voice to the letter to FDA, urging the agency to preserve patient access to the only FDA-approved therapy to reduce the risk of preterm birth, you can sign on here.

The impact of COVID-19 on child labor

/in , , , , , , , /by

By Child Labor Coalition intern Ellie Murphy

Combatting child labor during a global pandemic is a staggering challenge. In countries like Ghana, the Ivory Coast, Bangladesh—and dozens more—school cancellations and lost family income may push children into the labor market. Once in, it may be hard for them to get out and return to school. In the face of this dire emergency, governments, the corporate world, and charitable institutions will need to support vulnerable families during this unprecedented time.

There is a strong correlation between access to education and preventing child labor. “Lack of access to education keeps the cycle of exploitation, illiteracy, and poverty going—limiting future options and forcing children to accept low-wage work as adults and to raise their own children in poverty,” noted the children’s advocacy group, Their World.

With nine in 10 children across the globe prevented from attending school in person, Human Rights Watch notes that interrupting formal education will have a huge impact on children and jeopardize their opportunity for better employment opportunities in the future: “For many children, the COVID-19 crisis will mean limited or no education, or falling further behind their peers.”

Poverty is the single greatest cause of child labor. Because many parents have lost or will lose their jobs, children are facing increased pressure to supplement family incomes. “Children work because their survival and that of their families depend on it, and in many cases because unscrupulous adults take advantage of their vulnerability,” notes the International Labour Organization.

Countries are being impacted by COVID-19 differently, but developing countries are expected to feel more negative consequences than developed countries, according to a report from WorldAtlas.com. Tourism and trade helps fuel many of these economies and the COVID pandemic has devastated both sectors.

Developing countries—primarily in Africa and Asia—already house 90 percent of working children, according to the International Journal of Health Sciences. Economic pressure from the pandemic will likely drive even more children into the workforce.

Before the pandemic, child labor in West Africa was widespread. 2.1 million child laborers were employed by cocoa farms in the Ivory Coast and 900,000 children on cocoa farms in Ghana, according to researchers from Tulane University. Ghana and the Ivory Coast produce about 60 percent of the world’s cocoa—a critical ingredient in chocolate. A recent Voice of America (VOA) article included predications that “there will be increased economic pressures on farming families, and ongoing school closures in Ghana [meaning] children are more likely to accompany their parents to their farms and be exposed to hazardous activities.”

The VOA cited research by the International Cocoa Initiative that analyzed the impacts of income loss on child labor rates in the Ivory Coast and found that a 10 percent drop in income for families in the cocoa industry is expected to produce a 5 percent increase in child labor.

Bangladesh, which had a reported 1.2 million children trapped in the worst forms of child labor in 2015, according to the ILO, is also at risk of seeing child labor increase. Most Bangladeshi workers—87 percent—earn money in the informal economy performing daily labor, unpaid work for their family, or piece-rate work. COVID-19 impacts have left families struggling with a severe drop in income of around 70 percent in many cases. Many adults and children who work making parts of products like garments have seen their income disappear entirely. “Those who depend on daily wages, for example, day labourers, rickshaw pullers, construction workers, street vendors, workers at small informal factories have lost their incomes with the hit of the pandemic,” noted researchers with the Institute for Development Studies. With this dramatic loss of income, it is expected that families will turn to their children to earn more money to buy basic necessities for survival.

In an effort to combat the potential increase in child labor, human rights organizations have urged governments to support families during this crisis—including the use of cash transfer programs. This entails direct cash payments to destitute families. Sometimes there are strings attached to the payments. Families that accept the money must promise to keep children in school and not allow them to enter the labor market. Cash transfers, often involving small amounts of money, have proven effective, in varying degrees, in reducing child labor in many countries.

In the COVID-19 pandemic, even small amounts of money might prevent starvation—or keep children out of the labor market. Save the Children argues that cash transfers help reduce the rate of child mortality, increase access to education, and reduce child abuse. Researchers Jacobus DeHoop and Eric Edmonds recently noted that 133 countries were working on social protection responses that provide financial support to vulnerable families in an effort to combat an increase in child labor during this time. Human Rights Watch has a series of recommendations for governments, including cash transfer payments.

Government efforts alone may not be enough. Companies that employ vulnerable demographics must also respond. Verité, an organization that works to eliminate abusive labor and empower workers, issued a series of recommendations to help companies address COVID impacts. Among the recommendations was a call for companies that work in areas with high rates of child labor to monitor “hot spots” for exploitation and intervene when necessary. Additionally, Verite urged companies to provide benefits for families who experience a loss of a parent due to the pandemic, make work remote when possible, and provide longer sick leaves for employees.

The COVID-19 crisis calls for innovative efforts to protect vulnerable families and children. As Jo Becker, the children’s rights advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, notes “the choices governments make now are crucial, not only to mitigate the worst harm of the pandemic, but also to benefit children over the long term.” By providing families with desperately needed resources during this unprecedented time, it may be possible to help curtail the increase of child labor worldwide.

In the last two decades, the world has seen the number of child laborers drop by nearly 100 million. “We do not want to see those hard-won gains reversed,” said Reid Maki, director of child labor advocacy for the National Consumers League and the coordinator of the Child Labor Coalition. “Concerted and robust action is required.” The actions that those in power take today will have long-lasting impacts that go far beyond COVID-19.

Ellie Murphy is a rising junior at Tufts University, majoring in International Relations and Sociology.

Vaccine hesitancy and the unique challenge of COVID-19

/in , , , , , /by

headshot of NCL Health Policy intern Talia

By NCL Health Policy intern Talia Zitner

Around the globe, researchers and scientists are racing to find a vaccine for the COVID-19 virus. Developing a safe, effective, and affordable vaccine is already a challenging feat, but vaccine hesitancy presents another unique challenge to scientists, government researchers, and community leaders.

“Vaccine hesitancy” refers to the reluctance or refusal to be vaccinated or have one’s children vaccinated against a disease, even if a vaccine is proven to be safe and effective. Vaccine hesitancy poses dangers to both the individual and their community, since exposure to a contagious disease puts the person at risk, and they are far more likely to spread the disease to others if they won’t get vaccinated. Ironically, these communities may be the most vulnerable to COVID-19, and a serious effort must be made to create a sense of comfort around the COVID-19 vaccine once it’s available to the public.

Not to be confused with the vaccine-hesitant, “anti-vaxxers” represent a movement of people who dispute the safety of vaccinations and challenge laws that mandate vaccinations. This is a more insidious movement funded by dubious sources (reportedly, one New York couple has donated millions of dollars to the movement) that deceptively politicize public health measures under the guise of protecting personal liberties.

Public health agencies are trying to get vaccination levels to 95 percent to guarantee herd immunity. Some concerns that are top of mind for consumers include knowing the timeframe for a vaccine, who will have access to it, what it will cost consumers, if anything, and how states will determine methods of enforcing vaccination. The possibility of a COVID-19 vaccine also begs the question of whether vaccination will be mandatory for public schools and government workers.

Perhaps one of the most important projects right now surrounding vaccine hesitancy is the Vaccine Confidence Project (VCP), which is dedicated to “conducting a global study to track public sentiment and emotions around current and potential measures to contain and treat COVID-19.” Using a mix of population surveys and social media tracking, VCP “will investigate perception and sentiment of COVID-19 social distancing measures and potential medical tools globally.” This project will be essential moving forward, as it will continue to inform understanding on how the global population perceives the eventual vaccine.

As of now, VCP reports that only 25 percent of African Americans—a population that has been disproportionately hit by the virus—plan to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Why is this the case? Due to lack of access to hospitals, pharmacies, doctors and clinics in Black communities, failure to expand Medicaid, and other root causes; the COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare the disparities in our health care system.

To ensure herd immunity—which is somewhere north of 90 percent immunity—much work needs to be done, especially with the Black community, to increase confidence when a COVID-19 vaccine is released. At this time, Black leaders such as former U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. Regina Benjamin, and current U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams, are among those leading the charge to encourage public health efforts such as advocating for face-mask usage and collaborating with the National Newspaper Publishers Association (NNPA) Coronavirus Task Force and Resource Center, which provides expertise on the virus and its impact on the Black community.

Another community that will be crucial to prioritize surrounding vaccine hesitancy is the older Americans. The New York Times reported that of the “241 interventional COVID-19 studies undertaken in the United States and listed on clinicaltrials.gov…37 of these trials—testing drugs, vaccines and devices—set specific age limits and would not enroll participants older than 75, 80 or 85 years old. A few even excluded those over 65.” Why would older Americans trust a vaccine not tested for their age groups? Clinical trials will need to include people across all ages, otherwise, this will only increase vaccine hesitation. The vaccine must be safe and effective, and ample outreach must be conducted to ensure vaccine confidence across all demographics.

There are many questions left to be addressed. As we continue to navigate preventive measures for COVID-19, independent researchers and organizations will become increasingly more important to guiding decision making before and after a vaccine is developed.

Vaccine hesitancy is a global problem that will only be compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic. Fostering vaccine confidence will be imperative when the second wave of the virus sweeps the globe, as it inevitably will.

Talia is a Washington, D.C. native, and a rising sophomore at Wesleyan University, where she majors in English. Beyond health, Talia’s interests are in journalism, law, and social justice.

Sweetened with what? Lack of transparency and misleading claims make reducing added sugars confusing

/in , , , , /by

Many of us are probably trying to heed the advice of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reduce our consumption of added sugars. FDA has made “Added Sugars” content per serving a mandatory line on the Nutrition Facts label and has established a Daily Value of 50g of added sugars based on a 2,000 calorie a day diet. FDA’s actions, however, have had some unintended consequences.

The agency’s decision to include “Added Sugars” on the Nutrition Facts label has created a marketing incentive for food and beverage manufacturers to replace added sugars with alternative or substitute sweeteners.  Leading brand name products bear prominent claims such as “No Added Sugars,” “Zero Sugar,” and “Reduced Sugars,” implying that the new product is healthier than the original without disclosing how the sugar has been reduced. As detailed in a recent Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) letter and an industry citizen’s petition filed with the FDA (Docket No. FDA-2020-P-1478), consumers have little idea that when they purchase a no/reduced sugar product, they may be buying a food that contains alternative sweeteners, highly processed, or artificial substances.

Most of us following the FDA’s advice aren’t looking to load up on combinations of new-fangled sweetening agents, sugar alcohols and other synthetic substances. CSPI’s January 9, 2020 letter asks that FDA enforce standards for nutrient content claims related to added or reduced sugar. We support that request.

The petition was filed by the Sugar Association, whose members are clearly concerned about competition from alternative sweeteners. But their complaint to the FDA makes a strong case for transparency by citing products that make no/reduced added sugars on the front label, but fail to disclose that sugars have been replaced by other sweeteners—many unfamiliar, some artificial, and some with known glycemic index effects. For example:

  • Rebel Ice Cream claims “No Sugar Added” but is sweetened with Erythritol, Chicory Root Fiber, Vegetable Glycerin, and Monk Fruit;
  • Kool-Aid Jammers claim “Zero Sugar” but are sweetened with Sucralose and Acesulfame Potassium;
  • Oikos Greek Yogurt claims “No Added Sugar and No Artificial Sweeteners” but contains Stevia and Chicory Root Fiber;
  • Quest Nutrition’s Hero Blueberry Cobbler Bar claims “1g” of sugar but is sweetened with Allulose, Erythritol, Sucralose, and Steviol Glycosides (Stevia);
  • Snack Pack Juicy Gels claim “Sugar Free” but are sweetened with Sucralose;
  • ONE Maple Glazed Doughnut Bar claims “1g” of sugar but is sweetened with Maltitol, Vegetable Glycerin, and Sucralose;
  • Snack Pack Chocolate Pudding Cups claim “Sugar Free” but are sweetened with Sorbitol, Maltitol, Sucralose, and Acesulfame Potassium;
  • Welch’s Fruit Snacks claim “Reduced Sugar” but are sweetened with Chicory Root Fiber and Maltitol Syrup;

The petition, among other steps, urges FDA to require that such substances be clearly disclosed as a “sweetener” in the ingredient list. That step seems reasonable to insure transparency and ensure that consumers know what they are purchasing.

The petition also calls for action against outright misleading claims regarding sugar content. The CSPI letter and industry petition blows the whistle on deceptive claims like these:

  • The reduced sugar version of Skippy peanut butter has 1/3 less sugar than its traditional counterpart but has more calories and fat per serving than the regular version. Despite having 1g less added sugars, the reformulated product provides 20 more calories per 2 tablespoon serving. The claim on the front label is misleading because it implies that the reformulated version is healthier due to the reduction in added sugars when the reformulated version is higher in calories.
  • Welch’s Fruit Snacks Reduced Sugar version claims 25 percent less sugar than the original version. The claim is predicated upon a reduction in the serving size of the reformulated version of the product. The original version has a serving size of 25.5g while the Reduced Sugar version has decreased to 22.7g.
  • Oikos Triple Zero blended Greek Yogurt makes a “0 Added Sugar” claim but has more calories per serving than the company’s regular Greek yogurt. The zero added sugars product, which is sweetened with Stevia Leaf Extract, has 120 calories per serving while the company’s original version has 110 calories per serving.

Statements like these turn the supermarket aisle into a minefield of misleading claims that are not good for consumers who are trying to sort out health values. We urge the FDA to prohibit misleading labeling of alternative sweeteners in processed foods and beverages and to grant the citizens’ petition for greater transparency in food labeling when it comes to these artificial sweeteners.

 

Top of mind: HHS’s reversal of Obama-era transgender nondiscrimination healthcare protections

/in , , , /by

Nissa Shaffi

By Nissa Shaffi, NCL Associate Director of Health Policy

On June 12, the Trump Administration finalized a rule that proposed to revise, and in effect reverse, Obama-era protections offered in Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Section 1557, known as the Health Care Rights Law, prevents discrimination of patients based on “race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability.” In 2016, the Obama Administration expanded the definition of sex to encompass aspects of gender identity as well—extending protections to transgender and gender non-conforming individuals. 

The finalized rule will drastically impact how LGBTQ individuals navigate their health care and health insurance, with regard to nondiscrimination protections. The rule would essentially affect aspects of coverage related to access, cost-sharing, and health plan benefits, specifically, denial of treatment based on someone’s gender transition and/or a provider’s moral or religious beliefs.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a statement following this news expressing that reinstating the original definition of the protections offered would relieve the American people of approximately $2.9 billion in “unnecessary regulatory burdens”. These so-called burdens also include eliminating mandates for regulated entities to provide patients and customers with language accessibility pertaining to health care literature.

Considering the nexus of a global pandemic, civil unrest due to systemic racism, compounded by the epidemic of fatal violence against Black transgender people – the timing of this rule is not only inopportune but exceptionally cruel. The National Consumers League is appalled at the reversal of these protections during a pandemic that is disproportionately impacting vulnerable communities. We urge health insurers and providers to do the right to protect patients by keeping politics out of professional medical judgment when providing services to their patients and customers.

Keeping meatpacking workers safe in the age of COVID-19: A view from the front lines

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

By Nailah John, Linda Golodner Food Safety and Nutrition Fellow

Meatpacking plants across America have become hot spots for COVID-19. Many plants have had to close due to the rapid increase in cases, with hundreds of workers contracting COVID-19 and a tragic number dying from the deadly virus.

Many packing plants have reopened over the past couple of weeks but the question still remains:  what measures have been put in place to address working conditions?

We interviewed someone who has firsthand knowledge of what is happening on the inside.  Robyn Robbins is the director of occupational health and safety at the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW). She has worked for UFCW for the past 24 years and prior to this position she was the Assistant Director for 18 years. UFCW is one of the largest labor unions in America. The Union represents workers in meatpacking, poultry, food processing industry, retail grocery, and healthcare—all considered to be essential workers.

Robbins told us: “Many workers are getting sick and dying, and the industry has a history of exploiting workers.” Indeed, the meat industry does not have an admirable record on protecting workers from hazards long before COVID-19. Meatpacking plants on average can employ up to 5,000 workers under one roof, and the conditions are very challenging.  Workers work closely on production lines, sometimes “shoulder to shoulder,” and the areas where they congregate off the line—such as break rooms and locker rooms—can get crowded.  The virus can spread quite easily under these conditions. And the industry has not done enough to allow workers to socially distance both on the production floor and off, or to notify the union when workers are infected, and who else has been exposed, so that the spread of the virus can be contained.

Even amid the pandemic, the demand for meat and poultry is constant. As a result, meatpacking plants have reopened, albeit not at full capacity.  Robbins noted that OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration)—the federal agency that regulates safety and healt—has taken a backseat and has not done on-site inspections. “There are no safety standards that regulate COVID-19 and no clear requirements or regulations that companies are required to follow and therefore there is no way to force companies to actually take precautionary measures recommended by the CDC to protect workers,” Robbins said. She went onto say that “OSHA is the only Federal government entity that can require companies to do anything to protect workers during this pandemic.”

UFCW local union representatives and stewards are in the plants and work hard to get companies to do the right thing to protect workers through the collective bargaining process. “The challenge is trying to get the companies to space workers out on the production floor, which does require some slowing down of line speeds; some of the companies are doing the right thing by spacing workers out but many are not, and are relying too much on protective equipment and plastic barriers, which have not been proven to offer any protection, when it is really about putting more distance between people,” Robbins told us. Social distancing in break rooms is another challenge. Companies have made some effort to effectively separate tables and are putting tents outside for workers to take breaks in those designated areas. They are also staggering shift times in order to reduce the number of workers in break areas at any one time.

Robbins noted: “not all companies are testing workers when they should be, which is a major problem.” UFCW is calling on meatpacking plants to test workers, but companies are reluctant. “If companies worked more closely with the union, they would collectively be able to come up with strategies to isolate workers, redistribute the work, and be more effective over all in addressing the issues relating to COVID-19 and meatpacking workers.”

UFCW doesn’t agree that reopening of plants should take place where there have been outbreaks and where unsafe working conditions exist, unless the companies have taken the steps necessary to protect workers from exposure to COVID-19. “The companies that did shut down made the right decision to sanitize and clean the plants,” said Robbins. “Some have also started screening workers, set up hand sanitizing stations, providing masks, spacing out common areas, giving workers face shields and putting up plastic barriers on the floor between workers where it is possible – although again, there is no data to show that plastic barriers do anything to stem the spread of the virus.”

But this is still not enough. UFCW wants to see workplaces reconfigured so that workers can be six feet apart, both on the production floor and off. This is crucial for stemming the spread of the virus.

Robbins said sick leave policies vary tremendously. “There are 500 local unions around the country, and the UFCW has been pushing for 14 days’ sick leave, successfully bargaining for this in contracts. Some companies are using a combination of different ways to allow workers to stay home when sick, many suspending their normal sick leave policy and making them more flexible. Some companies use a combination of paid sick days and short-term disability so that workers can stay home to recover and then return to work in a safe way. But not all companies are doing this; a few are even revoking paid sick leave policies that were in place at the beginning of this crisis.  This only will result in sick workers coming to work, because they have to in order to earn a living, and the virus will continue to spread, both inside plants, and outside in their communities.  It is bad corporate policy.”

Due to the thousands of cases of COVID-19 in meatpacking plants and many plants not operating at full capacity, meat shortages may continue. In closing, we so appreciate UFCW representing worker interests and Robyn Robbins’ service on NCL’s Board of Directors.

The death of Zohra Shah is a call for action: Child domestic servants must be protected

/in , , /by

Reid Maki is the director of child labor advocacy at the National Consumers League and he coordinates the Child Labor Coalition.

Sometimes words fail.

This is the case when I read the story, “Couple torture and murder 8-year-old maid for letting parrots free, Pakistan police say”—about the death of Zohra Shah, a servant in the city of Rawalpindi in Punjab. Her employers beat the little girl into unconsciousness because she had accidently let a caged bird, or birds, go free—a startling metaphor for her situation, working as a child slave entrapped in the family’s house.

The police found many marks and bruises on the little girl’s body—some of them not new, including some that suggested to them that she may have been sexually assaulted as well. It isn’t hard to surmise that this Zohra’s life was a living hell.

Not all child servants around the world are abused, but it is fair to say that because they work in people’s homes—often invisibly to the public—they are extremely vulnerable to abuse. The International Labour Organizations estimates that around the world 7.5 million children under 15 work as domestic servants.

According to the report in the online newspaper The Independent, the girl’s uncle had hired her out. ‘“The couple had promised her uncle that they would provide her education and pay a salary of R[upee]s 3000 per month (£16). But they neither gave her education nor paid salary,” a spokesperson said.’

Imagine essentially buying a child for $20 a month to be a live-in maid and then refusing to even pay that paltry sum or allow the child to exercise their universal human right to education. Unfortunately, many children are lured away with promises of wages and schooling that never materialize. Parents who are often in distant rural villages are unable to ever find them or re-establish contact.

Child domestic servants are often excluded from protective child labor laws that internationally set minimum age work laws at 14 or 15, depending upon how developed the country’s economy is. If most children under 14 cannot work, why is there an exception for domestic servants?

Zohra’s death is one of several alarming cases of abuse of child domestic servants that have occurred in Pakistan and other South Asian nations in recent years. The Independent report noted: “A judge and his wife in the capital city of Islamabad were sentenced to one year jail term in 2018 for keeping their ten-year-old maid in wrongful confinement, burning her hand over a missing broom, [and] beating her with a ladle…” In 2019, 16-year-old Uzma Bibi, another domestic servant in Pakistan, was murdered and her employers accused of the crime.

Zohra’s death has sparked outrage in Pakistan and around the world. Pakistani celebrities, including actor Osman Khalid Butt, have called for adding domestic servants to protective minimum age laws. “If we want change beyond #JusticeforZohra, we need to raise our collective voice to amend our child labor laws,” he tweeted. “Child labor is child abuse. We have another case like Zohra Shah. We cannot allow for our outrage to fade till our laws are amended to protect the rights of children, sans any loophole.”

The Child Labor Coalition (CLC) joins this call, urging the government of Pakistan to add domestic work to minimum age protections. The CLC will be holding a World Day Against Child Labor Facebook Live event on June 12, which will feature Evelyn Chumbow, an advocate against child and human trafficking who was lured to the United States to do domestic work as a teenager. She found herself virtually imprisoned and subjected to abuse. It took her years to win her freedom. Please join us at 1:00 pm EDT on June 12 for this compelling event, which will also feature victims of forced marriage and child labor.

The Child Labor Coalition is co-chaired by the National Consumers League and the American Federation of Teachers and consists of 38 child rights, human rights, labor rights and environmental groups, including Beyond Borders, which does excellent work in Haiti protecting domestic workers.

Observing World Food Safety Day: Food safety, foodborne illnesses, and the pandemic.

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

By Nailah John, Linda Golodner Food Safety and Nutrition Fellow

Happy World Food Safety Day! June 7 is a special day designated by the United Nations to draw global attention to the health consequences of contaminated food and water.

The concept of food safety encompasses all practices that are used to keep our food safe and relies on the joint efforts of everyone involved in our food supply. “Everyone” refers to all actors in the food chain, farmers, manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, restaurants, caterers, and many more. Laws and regulations are in place to reduce the risk of contamination under the Food Safety Modernization Act, which is transforming the nation’s food safety system by shifting the focus from responding to foodborne illness to preventing it.

In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CDC estimates that each year 48 million people get sick from a foodborne illness, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die. There are more than 250 types of foodborne diseases, caused by bacteria, viruses, and parasites. Some common foodborne illnesses that are found in our country include:

Norovirus: a contagious virus that causes vomiting and diarrhea. You can get norovirus from:

  • Direct contact with an infected person
  • Consuming contaminated food or water
  • Touching contaminated surfaces, then putting unwashed hands in your mouth

Salmonella: lives in the intestines of people and animals. can come from infection from a variety of sources, including:

  • Eating contaminated food or drinking contaminated water
  • Touching infected animals, their feces, or their environment.
  • The bacteria cause about 1.35 million infections, 26,500 hospitalizations, and 240 deaths in the United States every year.

Clostridium perfringens: a spore-forming bacterium that is found in the environment as well as in the intestines of humans and animals. It is also commonly found in raw meat and poultry, beef, poultry, gravies and dried of pre-cooked foods

  • Infections often occur when foods are prepared in large quantities and kept warm for a long time before serving. Outbreaks often happen in institutions, such as hospitals, school cafeterias, prisons, and nursing homes, or at events with catered food.

Campylobacter: the most common bacterial cause of diarrheal illness in the United States.

  • Causes 1.5 million illnesses each year.
  • caused by eating raw or undercooked poultry or consuming something that has come into contact with raw or undercooked poultry, seafood and untreated drinking water.

Staphylococcus (Staph): a gastrointestinal illness caused by eating foods contaminated with these toxins.

  • symptoms include sudden nausea, vomiting and stomach cramps, diarrhea.
  • Not washing hands if food is contaminated with Staph, the bacteria can multiply in the food
  • Foods that are not cooked after handling, such as sliced meats, puddings, pastries and sandwiches are especially risky if contaminated with Staph.

As we note efforts worldwide to ensure that our human food supply is safe, we would be remiss in 2020 if we did not note the increased food safety concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the CDC, there is currently no evidence to support transmission of COVID associated with food. It is important that consumers wash hands with soap and water for 20 seconds when handling food. The CDC highlights that, because of poor survivability of these coronaviruses on many surfaces, there is likely low risk of spread from food products or packaging. The CDC also reinforces the need to avoid cross-contamination of foods in preparing food safely by keeping raw meat separate from other foods, cooking meat to the recommended temperature, which kills harmful bacteria and ensuring that perishable foods are refrigerated.

It is also important to always rinse fresh fruits and vegetables under running water, including melons and other produce with skins and rinds. Scrub the produce firmly with a clean brush, also remember to clean the lids of canned goods before opening them, says the FDA. Washing produce and cooking meats, fish, and poultry thoroughly is key during this pandemic, especially with so many people preparing their meals at home. Our message to consumers and restaurants and anyone who handles food: as we mark World Food Safety Day, follow these important food safety practices to help prevent foodborne illness and stay healthy and safe during these uncertain times.