Safety is on the line for workers

DURHAM -- Recent articles on poultry processing plant abuses in North Carolina have documented deplorable work conditions that warrant attention in our state and nationally. Unfortunately, situations the articles described are neither new nor isolated. This industry has a long history of occupational safety and health problems that have largely been ignored.

The poultry processing industry uses cheap labor that is often acquired through the hiring of disadvantaged workers who are more likely to accept inadequate work conditions and lower wages. These workers are also less likely to complain or organize. The immigrant workers highlighted in the series provide an illustrative example. But they are only one example.

Our research team at Duke University recently conducted a three-year study of women employed in a large Perdue plant in Lewiston. This plant is in the northeastern part of the state, where there is an African-American majority population. Economic development has lagged behind other areas of North Carolina and job opportunities are few.

We were approached by women living in this area to evaluate concerns workers had about problems with their hands and arms that they felt were related to their work.

THROUGH OUR WORK, WE FOUND THAT WOMEN EMPLOYED IN THE POULTRY PLANT fare considerably worse than other women employed in low-wage jobs in the same area. They have more problems with their hands and arms, which is not surprising based on the nature of their work. They are also more likely to suffer from depression, but their depression does not explain their physical problems. In fact, we found depression in these women to be related to concerns about work hazards and conditions and job insecurity.

As we followed these women over a three-year period with regular interviews and physical exams, we documented the onset of new problems with their hands and arms at alarming rates.

Perdue made no response to our findings until officials there were approached by an N&O reporter following a news release in November 2007. And why should it? When we shared these findings last spring with the N.C. Division of Occupational Safety and Health, concern was expressed. However, we were advised that the agency would need evidence in order to intervene.

In fact, in 2003 the plant received a commendation for no (reported) lost time injuries. This acclamation was in the middle of our study, when we were seeing the onset of new musculoskeletal disorders among these women at rates much higher than those recognized for the industry through the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

These women often accepted their plights, explaining that they had learned that pain was inevitable if you worked in the plant. Others sought help only to have their problems dismissed, or received medications before being sent back to the work line. Sadly, some never sought help because they had seen others lose their jobs after developing medical problems.

In the absence of occupational safety standards, maximal line speeds in these plants are set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the agency officially responsible for ensuring food safety. Since USDA began setting line speeds in 1968, work pace has increased from 20 birds per minute to the current maximal line speed of 91 birds per minute. This is the amount of time the agency thinks its inspectors require to "adequately" check the safety of the carcass.

EVEN THOSE WHO LACK CONCERN ABOUT THE HEALTH OF WORKERS in these plants should be aware that, at current line speeds, the majority of store-bought poultry has been reported by Consumer Reports to be contaminated by bacteria, such as Campylobacter or Salmonella, responsible for millions of sicknesses. each year.

Sen. Edward Kennedy has called for congressional hearings on the safety in this industry in response to the Charlotte Observer articles on poultry plants. North Carolina has its own state-run occupational safety program that does not have to wait for federal mandates to act.

We all should be able to work without fear of injury or illness. Yet individuals facing economic hardship and few work alternatives may not report concerns about occupational safety for fear of reprisal. As concerns increase about recession, the voices of these workers are even less likely to be heard.

(Hester J. Lipscomb is an associate professor in the Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at the Duke University Medical Center.)