ACOEM: Embarrassing Themselves Yet Again

[Guest guest]

Confined Space

News and Commentary on Workplace Health & Safety, Labor and Politics

Saturday, September 02, 2006

_PERMALINK_

(http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2006/09/acoem-embarrassing-themselves-yet.html\

) Posted 6:18 PM by Jordan

(http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=5218538 & postID=115723812755686465)

(http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=5218538 & postID=115723812755686465 & qui\

ckEdit=true)

ACOEM: Embarrassing Themselves Yet Again

It's almost Labor Day, and once again that time of year for the American

College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) to drive me crazy.

ACOEM is the professional organization representing the country's physicians

and other health care professionals who in the field of occupational and

environmental medicine.

Every year, as an organization representing physicians whose main field of

activity is the workplace, ACOEM identifies a topic for its " Labor Day

Checklist " which is designed to provide " 'quick tips' to assist both employers,

employees, and the general public in improving the health and safety of workers

and the workplace. " Two years ago, I _blasted them_

(http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2004/03/acoem-jumps-on-bandwagon-misses.html)

for making obesity

their Labor Day checklist.

It was true, I pointed out, that being fat is not very healthy for anyone,

and thinner workers are better, healthier workers. And it's certainly not a

bad thing to educate people about how to eat better. But, I wrote,

That shouldn't be the central focus of an association that is first and

formost " _devoted to prevention and management of occupational and

environmental

injury, illness and disability_ (http://www.acoem.org/general/vision.asp) . "

Especially, with all of the other exclusive workplace problems that ACOEM

could have been bringing to the nation's attention:

We have an epidemic of _immigrant worker_

(http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_spewingforth_archive.html#107922040\

623049285) death, injury and

illness. _Asbestos-related illness_

(http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_spewingforth_archive.html#107845209\

230460564) remains a serious nationwide

problem, and millions of workers face harmful exposure to toxic chemicals

about which we know very little. Year after year, OSHA " enforces " the same

forty

year old chemical standards for a tiny fraction of the chemicals used in this

country. Meanwhile, OSHA, the only government agency charged with enforcing

safe workplace conditions is rapidly turning into a poorly funded business

consulting association while thousands of workers die every year from perfectly

preventable " accidents. "

Last year, ACOEM's checklist focused on the _hazards of airline travel_

(http://www.acoem.org/news/news/default.asp?NEWS_ID=257) -- bloodclots, food

poisoning, and dry eyes -- most certainly threats that subset of workers who fly

a lot, though nothing that seems to ever make OSHA's top ten (or top 1,000)

list of things that kill workers. Somehow, that " checklist " failed to make it

onto my radar screen (or anyone else's as far as I could tell.) Hazards faced

by _flight attendants_

(http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2005/09/flight-attendants-sue-faa-over-osha.ht\

ml) and _ground crews_

(http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2006/08/airport-ground-crews-grind-em-up-and.h\

tml) , on the other hand,

might have had more impact.

Now, let's fast-forward to Labor Day 2006. This year's theme is

" _Controlling Cancer In The Workplace_

(http://www.acoem.org/news/news/default.asp?NEWS_ID=291) . " Aha! I thought,

they're back on the track of real workplace hazards.

Look at the epidemic workers who are still dying of asbestos-related cancers

and other carcinogens that they were exposed to decades ago. Look at all the

farm workers who are being exposed to cancer causing pesticides, high-tech

workers being exposed to poorly tested, high tech chemicals, hospital workers

being exposed to " chemo " drugs, and the hundreds of known or suspected

carcinogens that haven't been regulated by OSHA.

According to the _National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health_

(http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/cancer/) ,

Based on well-documented associations between occupational exposures and

cancer, it is estimated that approximately 20,000 cancer deaths and 40,000 new

cases of cancer each year in the U.S. are attributable to occupation.

Millions of U.S. workers are exposed to substances that have tested as

carcinogens in animal studies.

Less than 2% of chemicals in commerce have been tested for carcinogenicity.

Hazards Magazine has an excellent _report_

(http://www.hazards.org/cancer/report.htm) on occupational cancer that includes

a handy list of occupational

carcinogens from a September 2005 University of Massachusetts Lowell _report_

(http://www.sustainableproduction.org/cancer-summary.shtml) that illustrates

the scope of the problem (click to make it larger),

(http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5823/164/1600/cancer.3.jpg)

So imagine my surprise horror when I read further about ACOEM's checklist,

which, it turns out

was developed in conjunction with the CEO Roundtable on Cancer, which has

developed the CEO Cancer Gold Standardâ„¢ (_http://www.cancergoldstandard.org/_

(http://www.cancergoldstandard.org/) ), a series of cancer-related

recommendations for employers to fight cancer.

An then there was this:

The identification of occupational cancers and the reduction of occupational

cancer rates in the United States due to uncontrolled exposures has been a

major public health success and how to do it is well known, but more remains

to be done,†said ACOEM President Tee L. Guidotti, MD, MPH, FACOEM.

Yeah, well I'd wager there are more than a few workers out there who might

not share that optimism.

On the other hand, we can probably all agree to this (at least with the

exception of the last phrase):

“Cancer remains a leading cause of lost productive and otherwise vital

years, including among younger workers. We know that many cancers are not

recognized as arising out of work because they occur years after exposure,

often

after retirement. We need to recommit ourselves to prevent cancer and to make

work as safe as it can be, and this year’s _Checklist_

(http://www.acoem.org/pdfs/2006LaborDayChecklist.pdf) is a first step†he

continued.

But check out the actual checklist that purports to deal with cancer in the

workplace. Under " prevention, " we have (in the following order): don't smoke,

get more exercise and eat better. Then there are recommendations to get

checkups (early detection), get access to quality care and clinical trials ( " To

be certain that you receive the best available care should a cancer diagnosis

become a reality, " ) and last (and apparently least), " reduce exposure to

workplace carcinogens. " And why, you may ask, is reducing exposure to workplace

carcinogens not listed in the " prevention " category, instead of being tossed

in at the end, more or less as an afterthought?

The answer to that question may lie in the checklist's " General Guidance, "

to learn about and implement the _CEO Cancer Gold Standardâ„¢_

(http://www.cancergoldstandard.org/) . At first superficial glance, based on the

individuals

highlighted on the home page and the " _Accredited Companies_

(http://cancergoldstandard.org/index.php?option=com_content & task=view & id=110 & Ite\

mid=93) , " the

CEO Cancer Gold Standardâ„¢ seems to be some kind of spawn of the

pharmaceutical

industry.

But let's look deeper.

The CEO Cancer Gold Standardâ„¢ defines what CEOs and their organizations can

do to prevent cancer, to detect it early, and to ensure access to the best

available treatment for those who are diagnosed with cancer. (emphasis added)

" For those who are diagnosed with cancer. " So much for prevention. The CEO

Cancer Gold Standardâ„¢ is apparently only for the losers of the great cancer

lottery.

But not so fast. Clicking _a bit deeper_

(http://cancergoldstandard.org/index.php?option=com_content & task=view & id=13 & Item\

id=26) , we find that they are,

in fact, concerned with " risk reduction. " In fact, the first three " pillars "

of The CEO Cancer Standardâ„¢ are those three same cancer fighting Musketeers

that we just read about: smoking, eating and exercising, followed by early

detection and access to quality care. Only one thing missing: reducing exposure

to workplace carcinogens. Also missing from the " _Resources_

(http://cancergoldstandard.org/index.php?option=com_content & task=view & amp;amp;am\

p;amp;id=15 & Item

id=28) " page are any mention of OSHA, NIOSH or EPA. How could the CEO's

have missed them? I'm shocked, SHOCKED.

Alls of which brings me back to pretty much the same conclusion that I wore

two years ago, only replacing " obesity " with " tobacco use (and exercise and

nutrition.) "

Again, I'm not saying that discouraging smoking and encouraging better diets

and exercise are bad things. In fact, they're good things to advocate and

they're not necessarily inconsistent with the rest of ACOEM's mission, to

promote the " health and productivity of workers, their families, and

communities. "

But the question is whether this is where ACOEM should be putting its

emphasis, particularly on Labor Day. There is not shortage of institutions --

public and private -- promoting the war against smoking or the benefits of

excersize and good nutrition, whereas almost no one (with the exception of

labor

unions and a handful of health and safety activists and enterprising reporters)

is making any serious attempt to focus the public's attention on the

continuing carnage in America's workplaces, the continuing threat of workplace

cancer, the attempt of corporate America and their Republican allies in

Congress to

_take any information about chemicals causing cancer off of Material Safety

Data Sheets_ (http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2006/06/industry-pushes-che

mical-gag-rule-to.html) .

Instead of spending their time and resources telling people they smoke too

much and don't eat well, occupational physicians, organized by ACOEM, could

use this opportunity to call attention to real threats in the workplace, and

the sick, injured and dead workers that almost no one else in this country

seems to know or care about. For a workplace health organization like ACOEM to

just melt into the throngs and choose smoking and diet as the main focus of

their anti-cancer campaign this Labor Day is once again, as one occupational

physician put it two years ago, " an embarrassment to occupational medicine. "

What a wasteâ„¢.

[Guest guest]

Carl,

Did you know that the ACOEM has written THE worker's comp guidelines here in

CA? There is an appellate case that was just lost regarding doctors, who

did not treat according to the guidelines before they were even implemented,

not getting paid. The courts ruled that a doctor should not get paid based on

the guidelines that were not even written.

What this is really all about, is giving ACOEM the cemented power to write

the treatment protocol for injured workers. As you can imagine, these

guidelines do not address chronic illnesses. Workers are just out of luck if

they

are sick from something ACOEM says should not be treated and is therefore not

the responsibility of the insurer.

Environmental illnesses, such as mold exposure within a school....forget it.

It will be no time at all, until these guidelines spill over into everyday

treatment protocols and insurance payments. Much has been written about how

poor these guidelines really are. Yet, that does not seem to matter.

Schwartznegger is calling this " Worker's Comp Reform "

http://www.workcompcentral.com/signup/news/a ...

tm? & article=t100z02u1496230915

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

Interesting point about how OCCUPATIONAL medicine (ACOEM) is

intruding into non-occupational situations. Occupational and non-

occupational are two very different beasts. This is not unlike

Industrial Hygiene relying on industrial information and experience

when making determinations about non-industrial situations. The

wonderful information for one setting and be harmful in the other.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> Confined Space

> News and Commentary on Workplace Health & Safety, Labor and Politics

>

> Saturday, September 02, 2006

> _PERMALINK_

>

(http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2006/09/acoem-embarrassing-themselves-yet.html\

) Posted 6:18 PM by Jordan

> (http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=5218538 & postID=115723812755686465)

>

(http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=5218538 & postID=115723812755686465 & qui\

ckEdit=true)

>

> ACOEM: Embarrassing Themselves Yet Again

>

>

> It's almost Labor Day, and once again that time of year for the American

> College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) to drive me crazy.

> ACOEM is the professional organization representing the country's physicians

> and other health care professionals who in the field of occupational and

> environmental medicine.

>

> Every year, as an organization representing physicians whose main field of

> activity is the workplace, ACOEM identifies a topic for its " Labor Day

> Checklist " which is designed to provide " 'quick tips' to assist both

employers,

> employees, and the general public in improving the health and safety of

workers

> and the workplace. " Two years ago, I _blasted them_

>

(http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2004/03/acoem-jumps-on-bandwagon-misses.html)

for making obesity

> their Labor Day checklist.

>

> It was true, I pointed out, that being fat is not very healthy for anyone,

> and thinner workers are better, healthier workers. And it's certainly not a

> bad thing to educate people about how to eat better. But, I wrote,

>

> That shouldn't be the central focus of an association that is first and

> formost " _devoted to prevention and management of occupational and

environmental

> injury, illness and disability_ (http://www.acoem.org/general/vision.asp) . "

> Especially, with all of the other exclusive workplace problems that ACOEM

> could have been bringing to the nation's attention:

>

> We have an epidemic of _immigrant worker_

>

(http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_spewingforth_archive.html#107922040\

623049285) death, injury and

> illness. _Asbestos-related illness_

>

(http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_spewingforth_archive.html#107845209\

230460564) remains a serious nationwide

> problem, and millions of workers face harmful exposure to toxic chemicals

> about which we know very little. Year after year, OSHA " enforces " the same

forty

> year old chemical standards for a tiny fraction of the chemicals used in this

> country. Meanwhile, OSHA, the only government agency charged with enforcing

> safe workplace conditions is rapidly turning into a poorly funded business

> consulting association while thousands of workers die every year from

perfectly

> preventable " accidents. "

> Last year, ACOEM's checklist focused on the _hazards of airline travel_

> (http://www.acoem.org/news/news/default.asp?NEWS_ID=257) -- bloodclots, food

> poisoning, and dry eyes -- most certainly threats that subset of workers who

fly

> a lot, though nothing that seems to ever make OSHA's top ten (or top 1,000)

> list of things that kill workers. Somehow, that " checklist " failed to make it

> onto my radar screen (or anyone else's as far as I could tell.) Hazards faced

> by _flight attendants_

>

(http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2005/09/flight-attendants-sue-faa-over-osha.ht\

ml) and _ground crews_

>

(http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2006/08/airport-ground-crews-grind-em-up-and.h\

tml) , on the other hand,

> might have had more impact.

>

> Now, let's fast-forward to Labor Day 2006. This year's theme is

> " _Controlling Cancer In The Workplace_

> (http://www.acoem.org/news/news/default.asp?NEWS_ID=291) . " Aha! I thought,

they're back on the track of real workplace hazards.

> Look at the epidemic workers who are still dying of asbestos-related cancers

> and other carcinogens that they were exposed to decades ago. Look at all the

> farm workers who are being exposed to cancer causing pesticides, high-tech

> workers being exposed to poorly tested, high tech chemicals, hospital workers

> being exposed to " chemo " drugs, and the hundreds of known or suspected

> carcinogens that haven't been regulated by OSHA.

>

> According to the _National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health_

> (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/cancer/) ,

>

> Based on well-documented associations between occupational exposures and

> cancer, it is estimated that approximately 20,000 cancer deaths and 40,000

new

> cases of cancer each year in the U.S. are attributable to occupation.

>

> Millions of U.S. workers are exposed to substances that have tested as

> carcinogens in animal studies.

>

> Less than 2% of chemicals in commerce have been tested for carcinogenicity.

> Hazards Magazine has an excellent _report_

> (http://www.hazards.org/cancer/report.htm) on occupational cancer that

includes a handy list of occupational

> carcinogens from a September 2005 University of Massachusetts Lowell _report_

> (http://www.sustainableproduction.org/cancer-summary.shtml) that illustrates

> the scope of the problem (click to make it larger),

> (http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5823/164/1600/cancer.3.jpg)

>

> So imagine my surprise horror when I read further about ACOEM's checklist,

> which, it turns out

>

> was developed in conjunction with the CEO Roundtable on Cancer, which has

> developed the CEO Cancer Gold StandardTM (_http://www.cancergoldstandard.org/_

> (http://www.cancergoldstandard.org/) ), a series of cancer-related

> recommendations for employers to fight cancer.

> An then there was this:

>

> The identification of occupational cancers and the reduction of occupational

> cancer rates in the United States due to uncontrolled exposures has been a

> major public health success and how to do it is well known, but more remains

> to be done, " said ACOEM President Tee L. Guidotti, MD, MPH, FACOEM.

> Yeah, well I'd wager there are more than a few workers out there who might

> not share that optimism.

>

> On the other hand, we can probably all agree to this (at least with the

> exception of the last phrase):

>

> " Cancer remains a leading cause of lost productive and otherwise vital

> years, including among younger workers. We know that many cancers are not

> recognized as arising out of work because they occur years after exposure,

often

> after retirement. We need to recommit ourselves to prevent cancer and to make

> work as safe as it can be, and this year´s _Checklist_

> (http://www.acoem.org/pdfs/2006LaborDayChecklist.pdf) is a first step " he

continued.

>

> But check out the actual checklist that purports to deal with cancer in the

> workplace. Under " prevention, " we have (in the following order): don't smoke,

> get more exercise and eat better. Then there are recommendations to get

> checkups (early detection), get access to quality care and clinical trials

( " To

> be certain that you receive the best available care should a cancer diagnosis

> become a reality, " ) and last (and apparently least), " reduce exposure to

> workplace carcinogens. " And why, you may ask, is reducing exposure to

workplace

> carcinogens not listed in the " prevention " category, instead of being tossed

> in at the end, more or less as an afterthought?

>

> The answer to that question may lie in the checklist's " General Guidance, "

> to learn about and implement the _CEO Cancer Gold StandardTM_

> (http://www.cancergoldstandard.org/) . At first superficial glance, based on

the individuals

> highlighted on the home page and the " _Accredited Companies_

>

(http://cancergoldstandard.org/index.php?option=com_content & task=view & id=110 & Ite\

mid=93) , " the

> CEO Cancer Gold StandardTM seems to be some kind of spawn of the

pharmaceutical

> industry.

>

> But let's look deeper.

>

> The CEO Cancer Gold StandardTM defines what CEOs and their organizations can

> do to prevent cancer, to detect it early, and to ensure access to the best

> available treatment for those who are diagnosed with cancer. (emphasis added)

> " For those who are diagnosed with cancer. " So much for prevention. The CEO

> Cancer Gold StandardTM is apparently only for the losers of the great cancer

> lottery.

>

> But not so fast. Clicking _a bit deeper_

>

(http://cancergoldstandard.org/index.php?option=com_content & task=view & id=13 & Item\

id=26) , we find that they are,

> in fact, concerned with " risk reduction. " In fact, the first three " pillars "

> of The CEO Cancer StandardTM are those three same cancer fighting Musketeers

> that we just read about: smoking, eating and exercising, followed by early

> detection and access to quality care. Only one thing missing: reducing

exposure

> to workplace carcinogens. Also missing from the " _Resources_

>

(http://cancergoldstandard.org/index.php?option=com_content & task=view & amp;amp;am\

p;amp;id=15 & Item

> id=28) " page are any mention of OSHA, NIOSH or EPA. How could the CEO's

> have missed them? I'm shocked, SHOCKED.

>

> Alls of which brings me back to pretty much the same conclusion that I wore

> two years ago, only replacing " obesity " with " tobacco use (and exercise and

> nutrition.) "

>

> Again, I'm not saying that discouraging smoking and encouraging better diets

> and exercise are bad things. In fact, they're good things to advocate and

> they're not necessarily inconsistent with the rest of ACOEM's mission, to

> promote the " health and productivity of workers, their families, and

communities. "

>

> But the question is whether this is where ACOEM should be putting its

> emphasis, particularly on Labor Day. There is not shortage of institutions --

> public and private -- promoting the war against smoking or the benefits of

> excersize and good nutrition, whereas almost no one (with the exception of

labor

> unions and a handful of health and safety activists and enterprising

reporters)

> is making any serious attempt to focus the public's attention on the

> continuing carnage in America's workplaces, the continuing threat of

workplace

> cancer, the attempt of corporate America and their Republican allies in

Congress to

> _take any information about chemicals causing cancer off of Material Safety

> Data Sheets_ (http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2006/06/industry-pushes-che

> mical-gag-rule-to.html) .

>

> Instead of spending their time and resources telling people they smoke too

> much and don't eat well, occupational physicians, organized by ACOEM, could

> use this opportunity to call attention to real threats in the workplace, and

> the sick, injured and dead workers that almost no one else in this country

> seems to know or care about. For a workplace health organization like ACOEM

to

> just melt into the throngs and choose smoking and diet as the main focus of

> their anti-cancer campaign this Labor Day is once again, as one occupational

> physician put it two years ago, " an embarrassment to occupational medicine. "

>

> What a wasteTM.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Where did the ACOEM come out on the Bush administration's 'emergency'

suspensions of workplace safety rules after 9-11, Katrina, etc.?

(Which meant that first responders often HAD to work without proper

PPE or risk losing their jobs, pensions, etc. *Many* now are getting

lung diseases, cancer, etc.)

(This was all to 'save corporations and the government money'!)

Whether ACOEM objected to that (now permanent?) 'policy' would seem to

be a litmus test of their ability to stand for people vs. their

functioning as a corporate tool of denial..

(What a great way to discourage people - esp. people with families,

from becoming public servants or emergency workers as well..*grrrr*)

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

Sadly, " Worker's Comp Reform " has been the destruction of the W/C system.

The baby was all but thrown out with the bath water. I fear what is going to

continue to happen to many because of this.

Unfortunately, a QME seminar I took only last year for my CEUs in W/C was

not very informative about any activism taking place in this area.

I had heard somewhere about an unidentified monied group who was challenging

the changes. Do you know anything more about this?

Due to the issues in my own life, I have not kept up as well as I should.

As far as my own activism-this has been directed towards fighting for the

rights of homeowners living in homeowner associations. Homeowners living in

these associations have had their rights systematically stolen from them by the

prior governor, Gray when the -Stirling Act was written and

implemented here in California that affects common interest developments.

Those living in condominiums affected by toxic mold that have attempted to

expose these problems, have been harassed, threatened, strong armed and bullied

by association attorneys, management companies, property managers and board

members who have all acted as an army against an owner that attempts to

expose any thing that threatens the property values. Renters actually have

more

rights than these homeowners. I was actually told about this site by another

member of , a prior condo owner who has been embroiled in her

own battle against her HOA over toxic mold.

I would like to work towards changing the law where both landlords and

associations would become responsible for notifying residents of a known toxic

mold problem affecting these dwellings. Especially for condominiums, where the

owners are often held responsible for repairs due to damage from common

areas. The only protections afforded residents are upon the sale and or in the

rental agreement. Once residing in these dwellings especially with adjoining

walls-there is no legal obligation to report a problem with toxic mold that

residents may be affected by.

In a message dated 9/5/2006 9:23:33 AM Central Standard Time,

snk1955@... writes:

Carl,

Did you know that the ACOEM has written THE worker's comp guidelines here in

CA? There is an appellate case that was just lost regarding doctors, who

did not treat according to the guidelines before they were even implemented,

not getting paid. The courts ruled that a doctor should not get paid based

on

the guidelines that were not even written.

What this is really all about, is giving ACOEM the cemented power to write

the treatment protocol for injured workers. As you can imagine, these

guidelines do not address chronic illnesses. Workers are just out of luck if

they

are sick from something ACOEM says should not be treated and is therefore

not

the responsibility of the insurer.

Environmental illnesses, such as mold exposure within a school....forget it.

It will be no time at all, until these guidelines spill over into everyday

treatment protocols and insurance payments. Much has been written about how

poor these guidelines really are. Yet, that does not seem to matter.

Schwartznegger is calling this " Worker's Comp Reform "

_http://www.workcomphttp://www.whttp://www.wh_

(http://www.workcompcentral.com/signup/news/a) ...

tm? & article=article=<WBR>t10article

Sharon