Compliance

New York Considers Labeling
Assembly interested in warning consumers of potentially carcinogenic ingredients in chemicals

New York State’s assembly is considering a bill, A09294, that would require all chemicals containing known or suspected carcinogens to have labels warning users of their dangers. The bill also would require the state consumer protection board to create and distribute a pamphlet informing consumers about the dangers of many household products that contain chemicals that potentially cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.

The bill is fashioned after a similar law in California that requires notification to consumers in product labels regarding known carcinogens listed by that state’s agencies. The purpose of such a law not only is to inform consumers, but also to encourage manufacturers to eliminate such ingredients from their products. Some industry groups representing distributors and manufacturers oppose the law.

The bill currently is under review in the New York Assembly’s Consumer Affairs and Protection Committee.

A Web site hosted by the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies offers a frequently updated list of mold-related legislation from around the U.S.The list provides descriptions of the proposed law’s progress and links to further information.

States that have attempted to enact mold-related laws or to create committees to review mold outbreak concerns include Arizona, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania.

The site also offers summaries of recent court cases involving mold infestation in commercial and residential facilities, links to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports regarding mold and mold remediation and discussions of insurance issues surrounding mold coverage.

There are no disinfectant products currently registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that are permitted to make the claim that they can destroy anthrax spores, according to agency reports.

The EPA even has gone so far as to state that the results of the Sporicidal Test of the Association of Analytical Communities cannot presently be used to claim that a product is effective against anthrax, so even products that are registered as sterilants and sporicidals cannot make such claims.

For more information on anthrax decontamination, visit the EPA’s Web site. This site contains an anthrax link that includes a section on new methods, technologies and chemicals that are being developed to combat the bacteria.

Employers can be liable for the mistakes of their employees charged with recording injuries and illnesses, making proper training and a full understanding of government regulations a necessity.

U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) record-keeping standards require employers to log details about workplace injuries and illnesses, which must be posted annually, and in some cases submitted to OSHA for use in focusing the Administration’s enforcement resources.

In one such case, Emerson Electric Company vs. Secretary of Labor, 19 OSHC (BNA) 1424 (February 2001), the Emerson Electric Co. delegated this duty to a contract nurse who it believed to be a competent record keeper. The nurse failed to properly record injury information in two cases she managed for workers at the company.

Emerson based its defense on the fact that it did not have any knowledge that its nurse omitted information. But because the nurse had the authority to arrange medical evaluations and treatments for Emerson’s employees, the court considered her a supervisory employee.

A previous Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission decision determined that an employee in a supervisory role, even temporarily, is considered to be a supervisor for the purpose of imputing knowledge to an employer; therefore, the judge in the Emerson case held that the nurse’s knowledge of the two cases should be attributed to the company, and the violations against Emerson were affirmed.

This case illustrates that courts can reach their conclusion in such disputes based on actual circumstances and not on the arbitrary labels or levels of responsibility assigned by a company to the party responsible for its record keeping.