safety research safety in the food processing...

E

20 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY NOVEMBER 2003 www.asse.org

Safety ResearchSafety Research

Safety in theFood Processing

IndustryAn observational assessment of hazards

from the state of WashingtonBy Martin Cohen, Catherine Connon and Barbara Silverstein

EXPOSURES AND HEALTH OUTCOMES DUE tohazards in the food processing industry are numerous andvaried. In the state of Washington, approximately 2,700state-fund workers’ compensation (WC) claims are accept-ed each year in the food processing industry, with anannual direct cost of $11 million. Many of these claimsinvolve sprains, cuts and contusions. As part of a largerstudy of worker health and safety and work organization(sidebar, pg. 21), this group of researchers assessed haz-ards and controls related to machinery; slips on work sur-faces; noise; chemical and biological agents; forklifts; andmusculoskeletal disorder risk factors and hazards in 19food processing facilities.

Exposures and health outcomes due to hazardsduring the processing of grain and vegetable, poul-try, red meat, seafood, eggs and dairy products aremany and varied. Several studies have investigatedwork-related cancer (Alavanja, et al; Johnson, et al);allergies (Cartier, et al); dermatitis (Bauer, et al;Cohen); musculoskeletal disorders (Bao, et al;Chiang, et al); respiratory diseases (Nieuwenhuijsen,et al; Lenhart and Olenchock; Zuskin, et al; Smith, etal; CDC); infectious diseases (Anderson, et al; Corryand Hinton); and acute trauma injuries [OSHA;NIOSH(b)] in these industry sectors.

However, systematic reviews have been conduct-ed of hazards in the food processing industry.Hazards have been described in meat packing plants(Campbell) and by NIOSH for all industries[NIOSH(b)]. In the Food and Kindred Productsindustry [Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)codes 2011 to 2099] nationwide, NIOSH foundapproximately 3,600 people exposed to egg whites,57,500 to wheat flour, 3,000 to sulfur dioxide and8,600 to dead shellfish. Also, relevant specific haz-ards have been studied across industries, such as theconsequences of shiftwork (Smith, M.J., et al) andexposure to cold environments (Sinks, et al).

The food processing industry has one of the high-est work-related injury and illness rates in the state ofWashington. In the years between 1994 and 1999, thestate’s WC claim rate for state-fund companies in thefood processing industry was 18.8 claims per 100 full-time equivalents (FTE) (Bonauto, et al); this is 32-per-cent higher than the claim rate for all industriescombined (12.8 claims/100 FTE) for a similar timeperiod (Silverstein and Kalat). Between 1994 and 1999,

Martin Cohen, Sc.D., CIH, is an industrial hygienist with the Safety and HealthAssessment and Research for Prevention (SHARP) Program within the Washington

State Dept. of Labor and Industries in Olympia. In addition, he is the programmanager for the NIOSH-funded Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation (FACE)

Program in Washington and an affiliate assistant professor at the University ofWashington. Cohen holds an Sc.D. in Environmental Health/Exposure Assessment

from the Harvard School of Public Health.

Catherine Connon, Ph.D., is a research investigator with the SHARP Programwithin the Washington State Dept. of Labor and Industries. In addition, she is the

project lead for the Healthy Workplaces Project and an affiliate clinical facultymember for the School of Nursing at the University of Washington. Connon holds

a Ph.D. in Nursing, with an emphasis in environmental and occupational health,from the University of Washington.

Barbara Silverstein, Ph.D., MPH, CPE, is research director of theSHARP Program within the Washington State Dept. of Labor and Industries. Her

major areas of research have been identification and control of work-relatedmusculoskeletal disorders, comparison of surveillance methods and intervention

studies to control these disorders. Silverstein holds an MPH in Epidemiologyand Environmental and Industrial Health and a Ph.D. in Epidemiologic Science,

both from the University of Michigan.

www.asse.org NOVEMBER 2003 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY 21

$4,000 per claim. Sixty-eight percent of these claimsinvolved sprains (5,593), cuts (3,317) and contusions(2,251). Many of these injuries resulted from overexer-tion (e.g., lifting), being struck by or against objects(e.g., boxes), and falls (e.g., slipped on floor, fell onstairs). These figures underestimate the true numberof injuries because they do not account for those thatoccurred at self-insured companies (Silverstein andKalat), nor do they include the likely unreportedwork-related injuries and illnesses (Biddle, et al).

As part of a larger study, walkthrough hazardassessments were conducted in 19 food processingfacilities located within the state. The purpose ofthese assessments was to better understand the haz-ards, controls and barriers to controlling hazardswithin the industry. This article summarizes the haz-

a total of 16,367 state-fund WC claims came from thestate’s food processing industry. These claims cost$65.9 million—an average of $11 million each year or

Goals of HealthyWorkplaces InitiativeThe overall goal of the Healthy Workplaces ini-tiative, of which this assessment was part, wasto reduce work-related injuries and illnesses inan industry. Our hypotheses were:

1) Workplaces with high financial and orga-nizational health will have a high level ofemployee safety and health.

2) The way a workplace is organized deter-mines financial and worker health.

3) Identifying “best practices” in the healthi-est workplaces and promoting those practicesthroughout the industry will improve safetyand health.


Industries). These criteria were used so that employerscould learn whether jobs on their sites may be of con-cern under the future rule. To identify caution andhazard zone jobs, a checklist was completed for eachprocess/subprocess studied. Each process was alsovideotaped for later ergonomic assessment. Controlsfor materials handling, workstation setup/design,repetitive work and tools were also noted.

Where possible, the team assessed the control ofacute trauma injury hazards by observing guarding(machine and general area), maintenance, house-keeping, materials handling, PPE, lockout/tagoutand confined space procedures. These hazards wererated based on the observers’ assessment of controlof the potential for the hazard to cause injury. Scaleswith “poor,” “fair,” “good,” “excellent” or “notapplicable” were used.

Chemical and biological exposures were assessedby evaluating 1) various characteristics of the source,such as the exposure process and factors affecting themagnitude of the source; 2) potential for worker expo-sure; 3) toxicity of the material; and 4) controls used toreduce the exposure (engineering, administrative andPPE). The team also observed how employees workedwith the materials. This method was adapted frommaterials developed by LaMontagne, et al. Somescreening air samples were taken for dust (using theThermoMIE Personal Data Ram 1000, Bedford, MA);carbon monoxide (Metrosonics pm7700, Oconomo-woc, WI); and other gases (Metrosonics pm7700,Oconomowoc, WI) where appropriate.

Other physical hazards, including noise, tempera-ture extremes and radiation, were assessed by notingcharacteristics of the source, controls in place to poten-tially reduce exposure and how the worker interfacedwith the hazard. Where appropriate, the team meas-ured noise (Metrosonics, dB-3100, Oconomowoc, WI)and temperature/humidity (Extech Instruments,Humidity/temperature pen 445580, Waltham, MA).

Data were entered directly into computer-basedforms while making observations in a manner similarto that reported previously (Cohen and Cotey). Fieldstaff used handheld computers (HP, iPAQ, Palo Alto,CA) running Windows CE v 2.0 (Microsoft, Redmond,WA). Forms were developed using Visual CE v5.1(Syware, Cambridge, MA). Each type of hazard hadits own forms module. Data collected were down-loaded to an MSAccess database, where observations

ards and controls observed inWashington’s food processingindustry, and offers recommen-dations for additional controls.

Study MethodsThe industry sectors chosen

for study were selected by three-digit SIC codes. These included:meat products (SIC 201); dairyproducts (SIC 202); canned,frozen and preserved foods (SIC203); grain mill products (SIC204); bakery products (SIC 205);beverages (SIC 208); and sea-

food and other products (SIC 209). To gather prelimi-nary company information—such as financial status,organizational health, and employee health and safe-ty—a telephone-based survey of all companies withinthe chosen sectors was conducted. Results of this sur-vey are reported elsewhere and are summarized in thesidebar at left (Connon, et al).

The phone survey was used to identify a varietyof workplaces for site visits. The target was to con-duct 36 site visits, distributed evenly among the dif-ferent industry sectors and company sizes, althoughno site visits were made to the grain mill productssector. The site visit team consisted of a manager/worker interviewer, an industrial hygienist, anergonomist and a safety engineer. The site visit strat-egy and assessment tools were pilot-tested at onefood processing facility. Activities other than thehazard assessment were conducted during the sitevisits; they are reported elsewhere and are summa-rized in the sidebar below (Connon, et al).

Exposure Assessment MethodsDuring the onsite opening conference with the

company representative, the team gathered informa-tion on the facility’s processes. Following this meet-ing, the team briefly toured the production facility toobserve processes, material flow and hazard expo-sures. After preliminary observations and discus-sions with management, three to five processes werechosen for observation; these areas were selectedbased on initial hazard assessments, as well as inputfrom management. Only jobs performed on the dayof the site visit were assessed.

Observational tools (checklists andforms) were used to assess potential phys-ical (safety, thermal, radiation, noise andmusculoskeletal), chemical and biologicalhazards in the workplace, as well as poten-tial controls. Full copies of these forms areavailable elsewhere (Connon, et al). Formswere completed by work process andsometimes by subprocess.

Presence of musculoskeletal risk factorswas assessed using the Washington StateErgonomics Rule (WAC 296-62-051) “cau-tion zone” and “hazard zone” checklists formanual handling, postural, repetitive andother hazards (WA State Dept. of Labor &

Results ofTelephone SurveyA telephone survey of 142 eligiblefood processing companies found:

•Companies that had higher“organizational health” also hadlower workers’ compensationclaims rates.

•Companies with higher “orga-nizational health,” on average, paidhigher employee wages.

Other On-Site ActivitiesOther activities conducted on site included:

•Surveys of workers to determine their job duties, per-ception of hazards and workplace organizational factors,health symptoms, and job stress.

•A review of safety and health programs and materials.•A manager interview covering productivity, commit-

ment to safety, policies and practices, perceptions of vari-ous hazards and workplace organizational factors, andsuccessful strategies used to reduce or eliminate work-related injuries and illnesses.


were joined andsummarized bywork process. Fig-ures 1 and 2 provideexamples of theseforms. The types ofdata entry fieldsused included pull-down lists, checkboxes (yes or no),radio buttons (selectone of multiple op-tions), boxes forwriting text or enter-ing numbers, andtime stamps. Navi-gational buttonswere used to effi-ciently move be-tween screens.

Study ResultsA total of 19 sites

from various indus-try sectors were vis-ited (Table 1). For the most part, the sitessvisited were relatively small, with onlythree of the 19 companies having morethan 100 employees. Assessment resultshave been compiled into tables listing theexposure, potential consequences of ex-posure, current controls, potential controlsand the industry in which the observa-tions were made (Tables 2 through 7). Thehierarchy of controls was used when mak-ing recommendations for controls.

MachineryNumerous machine guarding hazards

were observed during the site visits. Theyoccurred primarily in equipment thattransported and processed materials.Typical transport mechanisms includedpallet jacks, forklifts, conveyor belts andtote dumps. Typical processing equip-ment included that used to clean, cut, stir,sort and package materials. Table 2 liststypical machine guarding hazards andcontrols. Strategies used to reducemachinery hazards ranged from enclosingentire machines or guarding pinch pointsto training or the use of sacrificial “pushsticks” with band saws.

SlipsMost facilities had slip hazards. These

hazards are caused by having liquidand/or solid materials on the floor in workareas where the flooring does not provideadequate friction, given the contaminant(e.g., water, grease, animal parts, flour).Materials got onto the floor via mechanismssuch as spraying, dripping/flowing and

Company DescriptionsIndustry Number of(SIC Code)* Products Manufactured Production Workers

201 Sausage product 20201 Egg products 50201 Sausage 2201 Meat >100202 Milk 20202 Milk 8203 Fruit juice 44203 Frozen vegetables >100203 Frozen entrees 19203 Juice and syrup 30203 Potato products 60205 Gourmet cookies 14208 Wine 23208 Wine 18208 Wine 5208 Beer 1209 Processed fish 3209 Fresh/frozen seafood >100209 Crab 12

*SIC codes: 201: Meat Products; 202: Dairy Products; 203: Canned, Frozen and Preserved Foods;205: Bakery Products; 208: Beverages; 209: Seafood and Other Products.

Table 1Table 1

Figure 1Figure 1

First ProcessDescription Form

Figure 2Figure 2

MSD Assessment, FirstManual Handling Form


vibrating; and/or 3) movement of a fluid (liquids orair). Excessive noise came from pumps, motors,compressors, vibrating tables, conveyors and pro-cessing equipment. Table 4 summarizes some noiseexposure scenarios. Measured noise exposures onthe workfloor were routinely greater than 85 dBA.

Most facilities relied on hearing protection toreduce exposure, although not all workers and super-visors used PPE when needed. Given these compli-ance concerns, it is preferable to reduce the noise levelat its source or to isolate the noisy operation. Somefacilities attempted to use methods other than PPE;these included purchasing quieter equipment; enclos-ing noisy equipment in its own room; and usingenclosed or semi-enclosed processing booths.

discarding of material. Table 3 illustrates some sliphazards observed. Potential consequences of slipsranged from twisted or strained ankles and backs tosevere head trauma, depending on how a workermight slip and what s/he might strike upon falling.

Companies used a range of solutions to reduceslip hazards, including barriers to keep product andwater off of the floor; epoxy flooring with a roughsurface; plastic stair treads designed for use on off-shore oil platforms; and slip-resistant footwear.

NoiseMany sites had noisy operations in all or part of

their facilities. The three primary sources of noisewere: 1) objects striking one another; 2) something

Examples of Exposures to Machines Lacking GuardingPotential

Exposure Consequences Current Controls Potential Controls SIC*

Table 2Table 2

Unguarded totedump.

No guard onfilm feeder forpackagingmachine.Unguardeddough mixers.

Sanitizing pro-cessing equip-ment in motion.

Final set ofunguardedrollers on aseries of rollersdesigned tosqueezematerial.Unguardedeight-footdiameter spin-ning productinspectionstation.

Band sawsused to cutfrozen product.

Crushing injuriesto leg or body.

Crushing injuryto the hand.

Crushing injuries tothe hand and arm.

Crushing, amputa-tion, entrainment.

Crushing orentraining a handor clothing.

While removingproduct debris, aworker could bestruck by the spin-ning arms and pos-sibly be entrainedfor a short distance.Amputation of afinger or hand.

Kept a watch on thearea near the totedump; used a chainto reduce access.No controls.

Safety interlocks.

Guards wereremoved to allow forcleaning. Reliance onworker awareness.Intermediary rollersspun in oppositedirections, which pre-vented foreign objectsfrom being pulledinto those rollers.

Emergency stop sys-tem was present thatwould shut downthe station when abar was struck.

No controls.

Develop a physical barrier to prevent access;use a light curtain with an interlock to stop thedump’s motion if something crosses it; use astrobe light to indicate the dump’s use.Place a guard in front of the feeder.

Place a guard over the opening of the mixingbowl, although this will prevent workers fromeasily testing the dough.Use in-place sanitization. Extensively trainworkers in the operation of each specific piece ofequipment.

A guard could be developed that would limitaccess to the end rollers and also allow workersto perform their jobs.

An enclosure could be developed that wouldallow workers to inspect the product and mini-mize the entrainment hazards, similar to anotherline. This would also reduce the noise levels inthis area. A “deadman’s switch” could also beused for this application.

It is difficult to guard this operation, but it maybe possible to develop a jig to guide the productinto the blade. Newer equipment may haveguarding solutions that could be adapted tothese saws.

201, 203,209

205

205

203

201

201

209

*SIC codes: 201: Meat Products; 202: Dairy Products; 203: Canned, Frozen and Preserved Foods; 205: Bakery Products; 208: Beverages; 209: Seafoodand Other Products.


electric forklifts inside the facility. Also, at some sites,ventilation was used to remove contaminants gener-ated in the processing of materials. Generally, noexposure controls were used in the processing offood products that have potential or known aller-gens (e.g., crab, egg, flour).

ForkliftsForklifts in workplaces pose potential hazards

from two different perspectives: 1) as a safety hazardto the operator and others in the area; and 2) as ahealth hazard due to the fact that combustion enginemodels may produce carbon monoxide. Table 6 listssome observed hazards, potential consequences ofexposure, current controls and potential controls.

To reduce acute trauma exposures, companiesdeveloped pedestrian and truck corridors within theirfacilities and provided extensive forklift operatortraining. As noted, some facilities used only electric

Chemical & Biological AgentsDuring the site visits, most facilities did not use

hazardous chemicals in the processing of the food.However, in some facilities, the plant or animal mate-rial being processed could potentially cause illness inexposed workers. All facilities used chemicals forcleaning and sanitizing equipment and surfacesthroughout the day and at the end of a shift; some sitesalso used ammonia in their coolant systems. Theseprocesses pose two potential routes of worker expo-sure: inhalation of the contaminant and skin contact.Table 5 lists some hazards, potential consequences ofexposure, current solutions and potential solutions.

Aside from automated mixing/dilution systemsand in-place sanitization, exposure to chemical andbiological agents was largely controlled by PPE.Some facilities used product substitution to reduceexposures. For example, some had changed the formof a sterilant to a solid rather than a gas or used only

Examples of Exposures to Slips on Walking SurfacesExposure Current Controls Potential Controls SIC*

Table 3Table 3

Water and plantmaterial on the floor.

Flour spilled ontothe floor.Frozen plant materialspilled onto floorwhile being trans-ported in large toteswith forklift trucks.Floors greasy fromanimal fat.

Water used to coolproduct pumps thatwere on the floor, andallowed to flow freelyout of the pumpsonto the floor.Frozen animal partson the floor from atrimming operation.Grease from process-ing animal parts onthe floor in the pro-duction areas as wellas the breakroomand other nonproduc-tion areas.

Rough concrete floorwas used along withslip-resistant boots.Rough concretefloor in use.Rough concretefloor in use.

Slip-resistant flooringmaterial used.

Slip-resistant quarrytiles used in this area.

Rough concretefloor in use.

Rough concrete floorin use in productionareas.

More resources could be put toward preventing materialsfrom getting on the floor in the first place.

Better transfer methods could be developed and slip-resistantshoes used. Spills should be cleaned up immediately.Alternate transfer methods should be used to prevent materi-als from spilling onto the floor. Slip-resistant footwear wouldnot help in this situation.

The machine dispersing the grease should be shielded to pre-vent the grease from contacting the floor. The floors should becleaned with a strong grease-removing cleaner, although thismay introduce other hazards. Slip-resistant footwear could beeffective in this situation if the shoes were kept clean.The coolant water should be properly routed via an inline drainor a floor drain without exposing workers to the slip hazard.Slip-resistant footwear would be feasible in this location.

A custom-shaped waste receptacle could be developed to pre-vent waste materials from getting on the floor. Slip-resistantfootwear would not be effective for this hazard.Reduce the amount of grease transported through the facility.More aggressive flooring materials should be used in nonpro-duction areas, in combination with a more effective cleaningprocedure. Slip-resistant footwear may be effective in this sit-uation, but would need frequent cleaning.

203

205

203

201

201

209

201



3) used vacuum lifts to move product from theconveyor line to the pallet;

4) used scissor lifts that raised and lowered prod-uct to eliminate manual lifts from below knee-level;

5) implemented a job rotation policy to reduce theamount of time a worker spent lifting.

Several companies also had safety committeesactively working to address these risk factors.

DiscussionBy spending one day at food processing facilities,

the interdisciplinary team of safety and health special-ists identified diverse physical, chemical and biologi-cal hazards. Companies used a combination ofengineering controls, administrative controls and PPEto eliminate or reduce work-related exposures. Sitesvisited used a combination of manufactured solutions(e.g., machines with built-in guarding) and facility-developed solutions (e.g., machine guarding fabricat-ed on site). Some of the control strategies reducedmultiple hazards simultaneously. These included:

•A product inspection line was covered to preventworkers from putting their hands into the movingmechanism and to reduce noise produced by the line.

•Many facilities had equipment sanitizationrequirements and used automated mixing and dis-

forklifts to reduce carbon monoxide exposures; othershad preventive maintenance programs and used car-bon monoxide detectors and general ventilation.

Musculoskeletal DisordersSimilar musculoskeletal risk factors were found

at most facilities, but the potential for jobs to becomehazardous varied considerably. Heavy, frequentand/or awkward lifting, particularly during loadingand unloading of pallets, was one of the most com-monly observed physical risk factors. The team fre-quently observed highly repetitive motions, often incombination with awkward postures. Many siteshad an assembly line layout, where workers per-formed tasks repeatedly, at a specified pace, with lit-tle opportunity to change their postures. Table 7 listsobserved hazards, potential consequences of expo-sure, current solutions and potential solutions.

In several facilities, musculoskeletal risk factorswere reduced using the hierarchy of controls with theadded benefit of increased productivity. To reducehazards associated with lifting materials, some sites:

1) redesigned conveyor systems to reduce manu-al handling of the product;

2) used automatic “depalletizers” to unloadempty containers onto the conveyor;

Examples of Exposures to NoiseExposure Current Controls Potential Controls SIC*

Table 4Table 4

Dumped frozen productinto a steel vessel.

Box processing line creatednoise as the boxes moveddown the line.Vibrating table used to helpbreak up and convey frozenproduct to an inspection table.

A number of noisy pumps,blowers and compressorslocated in the facility.Elevated noise levels causedby the conveying and productwashing equipment in atransfer room.Loud processing line due toa metal bar striking anothermetal piece approximately400 times per minute.

Band saws used to cutfrozen products.

Workers processed dustymaterial in an enclosed areawith a great deal of noiseproduced by moving airused for ventilation.

The task was performed by oneperson in an out-of-the-way loca-tion while wearing ear muffs.Earplugs were used.

The table cycled on and off, whichwould reduce the noise exposureover time. Also, workers stood innoise-absorbing booths and usedearplugs.Much of the noisy equipment waslocated in generally unoccupied“soundproof” rooms.Product washer enclosed, whichgreatly reduced noise exposures.Earplugs worn by some workersin the area.Operator used earplugs.

Operators used earplugs.

Workers in this area used earplugs.

Consider using a sound-absorbing mate-rial on the back of the vessel to dampenthe noise.Consider dampening the “box pusher’s”mechanism to reduce the noise level.

Place the vibrating table on special floormounts to decrease the amount of noisegenerated.

When new equipment is purchased, itsnoise emissions should be evaluatedalong with other performance measures.Earplug use should be enforced.

Nonmetal materials could reduce thenoise made by the striking mechanism.Enclosing the processing line couldreduce the noise and may also reducethe machine hazards.Enclosing any or part of the saws’ motorswould help to reduce the amount ofnoise reaching workers’ ears.The ventilation system in this area shouldbe redesigned to be inherently quieter.

203

203

203

203

201

201

209

201



conditions or maintenance operations, workers wereregularly exposed to various machinery hazards.Also, several more subtle machinery hazards wereleft unguarded, meaning the sites were relying onworker attentiveness to prevent injury.

In addition, some sites that had safety and healthpolicies did not necessarily operate in a manner con-sistent with achieving their goals. One study foundthat companies which were successful at preventingand managing work-related disability had rigorousaccident investigations, investigated near-hit inci-dents, and had a management team that was respon-sive and timely in implementing corrective solutionsto identified problems (Habeck, et al). Another studyshowed a relationship between “safety diligence”(acting on stated safety goals, responsiveness toaddressing safety issues) and workdays lost due towork-related injury, where companies with bettersafety diligence and better safety training had fewerlost workdays—17 percent and 13 percent fewer,respectively. However, these researchers found nostatistically significant differences in WC claim ratesbetween companies that had diligent safety prac-tices and safety training and those that did not(Habeck, Hunt and VanTol 126).

Many sites relied on worker behavior to preventwork-related injury and illness, often via use of PPE.For such practices to be effective, the worker mustuse the assigned PPE—and use it correctly. Onestudy found that management considered worker

pensing equipment. This reduced both chemicalexposures and the amount of lifting required for thejob. In-place sanitization (automatically pumping insanitizer and water without a worker contacting thematerials) was also used in several locations, whichfurther reduced chemical exposures.

•One company had a slip management programthat included providing workers with a large rebatetoward the purchase of slip-resistant footwear; thismay not only reduce the probability of slips, it mayalso foster positive employee perceptions of man-agement. The program was successful because slip-resistant shoes were used in combination with aslip-resistant floor.

•By housing much of the loud mechanical equip-ment (blowers, compressors and motors) in a sepa-rate room, one company decreased the noise level onthe workfloor, which also may have increased work-ers’ ability to communicate about production issues.

The team’s broader goal for site visits was to iden-tify successful strategies that firms used to control oreliminate hazards in order to share those strategiesindustrywide. The hope is to determine whether anyof these controls might reduce work-related injuries,decrease WC claim rates or reduce lost work timereported by companies that use these strategies.

Although companies controlled many hazards,uncontrolled hazards still existed. For example,many obvious machinery hazards were controlledduring routine operations. However, during upset

Examples of Exposures to Chemical & Biological AgentsPotential


Table 5Table 5

Exposure tocaustic sanitiz-ing agents.

Flour exposurefrom mixingdough.

Sulfur dioxidegas used to san-itize storagevessels.

Diatomaceousearth, whichcontains silica,used as filteringaid to removesediments fromfluids.Dust levelsfrom an animalproduct werevery high in thereceiving area.

Severe skin rashesand respiratoryirritation.

To sensitive indi-viduals, exposuremay cause an asth-matic reaction.Acute respiratoryirritation and respi-ratory distress.

Exposure over longperiods of timemay cause silicosis.

Respiratory disease,including hypersen-sitivity pneumonitisand asthma.

Automated mixers/dispensers were usedalong with manyautomated sanitizingprocesses.No controls.

Some facilities useda solid form of theproduct that releasedsulfur dioxide oncontact with water.Respirators used.Respirators used.

The area was venti-lated and workersused dust masks.

Longer gloves may be used to protect againstexcessive splashing.

Use a local exhaust ventilation system to removeairborne flour while pouring flour.

The solid form of the product may be a goodsolution, but requires further study to ensureworkers are not ultimately exposed to the gasproduct.

A synthetic filtration aid or an enclosed transfersystem could be used to move the diatomaceousearth from storage to the filtration units.

Ventilation system should be redesigned and therespiratory protection program evaluated andupgraded.

205

205

208

208

201



this strategy may also reduce exposure to muscu-loskeletal disorder risk factors.

Chemical/biological contaminants. Several facil-ities were processing allergenic materials withoutexposure controls. Only a few managers reportedknowing about health problems among their work-ers due to exposure to these materials. It may be thata “healthy worker effect” is operating, where work-ers with allergies find other jobs in the company orleave all together (Choi).

Forklifts. Forklift use was ubiquitous in theindustry. The control of acute trauma injuries wasaddressed via operator training, rather than by iso-lating trucks from pedestrian traffic or using othermeans to move material. Most larger companieswere aware of carbon monoxide hazards and eitherused electric forklifts or had preventive maintenanceprograms and fixed-station carbon monoxide moni-tors. The smaller companies visited generally usedpropane-powered trucks and had no preventivemaintenance program.

Although not strictly defined as food processing,many associated industry sectors have had a largenumber of carbon monoxide poisoning incidents(Lofgren 290). Between the wholesale trade of freshfruit and vegetables, the production of deciduoustree fruits and crop preparation services for market,approximately 47 carbon monoxide poisoning inci-dents were reported in Washington for the years 1994and 1995. Many of these incidents involved multipleworkers, with one involving nearly 100 workers.

Musculoskeletal disorders. Management seemedto be relatively well aware of risk factors for the devel-opment of musculoskeletal disorders, but followthrough on controls was not as good. Often, hazardswere abated when the process was redesigned for pro-cessing efficiency; in many cases, however, the newlayout or process introduced new hazards.

attitudes, use of PPE and worker participation mostimportant in ensuring workplace safety and health.

It also showed that housekeeping and machinehazards were the most common hazards investigat-ed by the Joint Health and Safety Committee(Shannon, et al 262). In this study, even though com-panies tended to rely on workers’ use of PPE, work-er involvement in safety and health processesseemed to be lacking. In addition, inconsistent man-ager compliance with stated safety policies andgoals was observed. For example, in some facilities,the management representative did not wear hear-ing protection in high-noise areas or did not followdesignated walking pathways.

Other ObservationsSlips. Sites were aware of slip hazards and vari-

ous controls were used to reduce these hazards;however, it appeared that there was an acceptancewithin the industry to have materials on the floor—along with the implicit residual hazard. Keep inmind that between 1994 and 1999, nearly nine per-cent of the state’s state-fund WC claims from thefood processing industry (1,447 of 16,367 claims)were due to falls on the same level (although not allof these claims were from slips on surfaces).

Noise. Frequently, companies relied on use ofhearing protection to control noise exposure insteadof attempting to control noise at its source or toinstall absorptive materials in the work environ-ment. Short of purchasing quieter equipment, manyfacilities had potential opportunities to reduce noiselevels by enclosing or shielding equipment, or byusing noise-absorbent surfaces near workstations.Because of sanitization requirements, employersmay not wish to add more surfaces to the workplace,especially ones that may be porous. Job rotation isanother way to potentially reduce exposure to noise;

Examples of Exposures to Hazards from Forklift TrucksPotential


Table 6Table 6

Poorly tunedforklift drivenaround facility.

Forklift deliv-ered a large binof raw materialto a worker’sstation, andcame withintwo feet of theworker whilehis back wasturned.Considerableforklift trafficin the facility.

Carbon monoxidepoisoning, loss ofconsciousness, pos-sibly death.Crushing betweenlarge bin and work-station, amputationof limb, internalinjuries or death.

Being struck by orrun over by a fork-lift could lead tofractures, crushinginjuries or death.

Minimal ventilation.

No controls.

Well-lit area withforklift truck honkinghorn as it approachedhigh traffic areas. Alltrucks used backupalarms.

Use electric trucks, increase ventilation and keepforklift trucks well-tuned.

Bin could be delivered with a conveyor or to aslightly different location using the truck.Receiving worker needs to have eye contact withthe forklift driver.

Use another method to transfer materials, suchas conveyors. Designate and enforce the use offorklift and pedestrian pathways.

201, 208

209

201



few upset conditions; such situations could greatlyincrease worker exposure to agents of interest. Inaddition, maintenance activities were not assessed;this may have allowed the team to observe more fall,confined space and machinery-related hazards.

The generalizability of this study’s findings is lim-ited as well. The study used a convenience sample ofcompanies that volunteered to have a site visit aftercompleting the telephone interview. This may intro-duce bias in the findings in that those sites willing toparticipate may have been those with better safetyand health practices and attitudes. Also, because thestudy approach was industrywide, companies visited

Study LimitationsThe site visits were limited in scope and com-

prised only one visit per facility. Also, the team gen-erally was not able to observe seasonal workers (e.g.,those processing fresh fruit and vegetables) at somesites because the visits were conducted betweenJanuary and March.

The typical site visit occurred between 9 am and4 pm. This generally precluded the team fromobserving most of the sanitization process; doing somay have provided more insight into the chemicaland physical hazards associated with that process.By having such few and short visits, the team saw

Examples of Exposures to Lifting & Repetitive MotionPotential Current Potential

Exposure Consequences Controls Engineering Controls SIC*

Table 7Table 7

Awkward postures whilerepetitively performing aforceful activity.

Lifting heavy bags of wasteproduct.Lifting large, heavy hand-fuls of dough to an over-head bucket.Lifting heavy boxes fromconveyor belt, stackingthem on a pallet from anklelevel to above shoulderlevel.Pallet jacks used to movelarge, heavy bins of product.

Unloading palletized prod-uct onto conveyor.

Product fed onto tubes forstorage and shipping. Thethumb used rapidly andrepeatedly to feed productonto the tube.

Workers were sorting prod-uct while wearing loose-fit-ting gloves.

Workers were lifting casesof product from one loca-tion to another.

Workers were required tohang product on overheadhooks at a fast pace.

Shoulder, wrist andback disorders.

Shoulder and backdisorders.Shoulder, wrist andforearm disorders.

Shoulder and backdisorders.


Shoulder disorders.

Thumb, hand,wrist and forearmdisorders.

Hand, wrist andforearm disorders.


Shoulder andelbow disorders.

No controls.

Job rotation andinfrequent lifts.No controls.

No controls.

None present.

A scissor-lift wasused to keep the topof the pallet betweenwaist and shoulderlevel.A tube extender wasdeveloped thatreduced the amountof motion requiredby the worker,although some expo-sure still existed.No controls.

A vacuum lift wasinstalled to assist theworkers in lifting theboxes.The line wasredesigned to allowworkers to hangproduct at elbow-height.

Alter the workstation design and/oralter the method in which the productis processed so that it requires lessforce to complete the task.Install a conveyor system.

A hoist is commercially available tolift and dump a mixing bowl.

Box weight could be lowered, jobrotation could be used, or a lift assistcould be implemented.

An electric pallet jack would reducethe force required to push and pullthe bins.An assist device should be investigat-ed to reduce the amount of reachingrequired by the worker when unload-ing the pallet.

A new method could be found tomount the product onto the tubes.

Provide a variety of glove sizes so aclose, but not too tight fit is achieved.This will also reduce the likelihood ofa glove catching on a piece of movingmachinery.None.

Much of the repetition in this job couldbe reduced by using more workers onthe line, rotating workers or slowingproduction.

201

203

205

201

201

201

201

201

208

201



Connon, C., et al. “Healthy Workplaces: Food ProcessingIndustry Final Report.” Olympia, WA: SHARP Program, WA StateDept. of Labor & Industries, 2001. <http://www.lni.wa.gov/sharp/publications.htm>.

Corry, J.E. and M.H. Hinton. “Zoonoses in the Meat Industry:A Review.” Acta Vet Hung. 45(1997): 457-479.

Habeck, R.V., H.A. Hunt and B. VanTol. “Workplace FactorsAssociated with Preventing and Managing Work Disability.”Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin. 42(1998): 98-143.

Habeck, R.V., et al. “Successful Employer Strategies forPreventing and Managing Disability.” Rehabilitation CounselingBulletin. 42(1998): 144-161.

Heinrich, H.W., et al. Industrial Accident Prevention. 5th ed.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980.

Johnson, E.S., et al. “Cancer Mortality Among White Males inthe Meat Industry.” Journal of Occupational Medicine. 28(1986): 23-32.

LaMontagne, A.D., et al. “An Exposure Prevention RatingMethod for Intervention Needs Assessment and EffectivenessEvaluation.” Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene.18(2003): 523-534.

Lenhart, S.W. and S.A. Olenchock. “Sources of RespiratoryInsult in the Poultry Processing Industry.” American Journal ofIndustrial Medicine. 6(1984): 89-96.

Lofgren, D.J. “Occupational Carbon Monoxide Poisoning inthe State of Washington, 1994-1999.” Applied Occupational andEnvironmental Hygiene. 17(2002): 286-295.

Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., et al. “Exposure-Response Relations ofAlpha-Amylase Sensitisation in British Bakeries and Flour Mills.”Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 56(1999): 197-201.

NIOSH(a). “General Laborer Electrocuted in North Carolina,FACE 86-32.” Washington, DC: NIOSH, FACE Program, 1986.<http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/face/In-house/full8632.html>.July 3, 2002.

NIOSH(b). “National Occupational Exposure Survey: 1981 to1983.” Washington, DC: NIOSH, 2002. <http://www.cdc.gov/noes>. Jan. 10, 2003.

OSHA. OSHA Inspection of Imperial Food Products Inc.Washington, DC: OSHA, 1991. <http://155.103.6.10/cgi-bin/est/est1xp?i=018479204>. June 28, 2002.

Raterman, S. “Methods of Control.” In Fundamentals ofIndustrial Hygiene, 4th ed. Itasca, IL: National Safety Council, 1996.

Shannon, H.S., et al. “Workplace Organizational Correlates ofLost-Time Accident Rates in Manufacturing.” American Journal ofIndustrial Medicine. 29(1996): 258-568.

Silverstein, B. and J. Kalat. “Work-Related MusculoskeletalDisorders of the Neck, Back and Upper Extremity in WashingtonState, 1992-2000.” Olympia, WA: SHARP, WA State Dept. of Laborand Industries, 2002.

Sinks, T., et al. “Surveillance of Work-Related Cold InjuriesUsing Workers’ Compensation Claims.” Journal of OccupationalMedicine. 29(1987): 504-509.

Smith, A.B., et al. “Occupational Asthma From Inhaled EggProtein.” American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 12(1987): 205-218.

Smith, M.J., et al. “Health and Safety Consequences of ShiftWork in the Food Processing Industry.” Ergonomics. 25(1982): 133-144.

WA State Dept. of Labor and Industries. Ergonomics. Wash-ington Administrative Code (WAC) 296-62-051. Olympia, WA: WAState Dept. of Labor & Industries, 2000. <http://www.lni.wa.gov/wisha/rules/generaloccupationalhealth/HTML/ergowac.htm>.June 28, 2002.

WA State Dept. of Labor and Industries. WISHA Ergonom-ics Homepage. <http://www.lni.wa.gov/wisha/ergo/Default.htm>. Jan. 10, 2003.

Zuskin, E., et al. “Immunological and Respiratory Changes inSoy Bean Workers.” International Archives of Occupational andEnvironmental Health. 63(1991): 15-20.

AcknowledgementsThe authors thank the following individuals for many hoursof field work and planning in this study: Arelene Stebbins,Tom Sjostrom, Ninica Howard, Rom Rwamamara, MichaelFoley, Christy Curwick, Steve Whittaker, Stephen Bao,Peregrine Spielholz and David Bonauto.

were from six of the industry’s sectors. This createsdifficulties in making generalizations because of dif-ferences in processes, equipment, job tasks, hazardsand control measures across the different sectors.

ConclusionThe site visits revealed that some hazards have

been adequately addressed in this industry sector, buta large number still require solutions other than PPEand training. Often, these strategies were used as thefirst—and last—line of defense against exposure withno further investigation into ways to reduce exposures(Raterman 532). This may be a shortsighted approachthat is partially responsible for the common sentimentthat most work-related injuries are caused by “unsafeacts” (Heinrich, et al 58). Reliance on fallible humanbeings to enact a control only leads to the conclusionthat these injuries are due to unsafe acts.

From a broader perspective, the problem is not oneof the person or the machine, but of the system. Acompany must look upstream and resolve SH&Eissues at the highest levels. It must also use a “top-down” approach to communicate and manifest itscommitment and responsiveness to addressing SH&Eissues. Until a company is proactive in assessing andcontrolling hazards at their source, it cannot ade-quately address worker safety and health before aninjury or illness occurs. �

ReferencesAlavanja, M.C., et al. “Cancer Mortality in the U.S. Flour

Industry.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 82(1990): 840-848.Anderson, D.C., et al. “Psittacosis Outbreak in Employees of a

Turkey-Processing Plant.” American Journal of Epidemiology.107(1978): 140-148.

Bao, S., et al. “An Electromyography Study in Three HighRisk Poultry Processing Jobs.” International Journal of IndustrialErgonomics. 27(2001): 375-385.

Bauer, A., et al. “Development of Occupational Skin DiseasesDuring Vocational Training in Baker and Confectioner Apprent-ices: A Follow-Up Study.” Contact Dermatitis. 39(1998): 307-311.

Biddle, J., et al. “What Percentage of Workers With Work-Related Illnesses Receive Workers’ Compensation Benefits?” Journalof Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 40(1998): 325-331.

Bonauto, D., et al. SHARP Program. Olympia, WA: WA StateDept. of Labor and Industries; not yet at press.

Campbell, D.S. “Health Hazards in the Meatpacking Industry.”Occupational Medicine. 14(1999): 351-372.

Cartier, A., et al. “Occupational Asthma in Snow Crab-Processing Workers.” Journal of Allergy Clinical Immunology.74.3Pt.1(1984): 261-269.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). “FixedObstructive Lung Disease in Workers at a Microwave PopcornFactory—Missouri, 2000-2002.” Morbidity and Mortality WeeklyReport. 51(2002): 345-347.

Chiang, H.C., et al. “Prevalence of Shoulder andUpper-Limb Disorders Among Workers in the Fish-Processing Industry.” Scandinanvian Journal of Work andEnvironmental Health. 19(1993): 126-131.

Choi, B.C. “Definition, Sources, Magnitude, EffectModifiers and Strategies of Reduction of the HealthyWorker Effect.” Journal of Occupational Medicine.34(1992): 979-988.

Cohen, M. and M. Cotey. “The Use of a Hand-Held Computer for Field Data Entry.” AppliedOccupational and Environmental Hygiene. 12(1997):792-796.

Cohen, S.R. “Dermatologic Hazards in the PoultryIndustry.” International Journal of Occupational Medicine.16(1974): 94-97.

Your FeedbackDid you find this articleinteresting and useful?Circle the correspon-ding number on thereader service card.

RSC# Feedback20 Yes21 Somewhat22 No

safety research safety in the food processing...

Documents