Chicago-Land Personal Injury Lawyer - Children

Are Federal Child Labor Laws Strict Enough?

Nick Avgerinos — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:39:49 GMT

This week the Chicago Tribune reported on an incident in which a 17-year-old girl employed in a sandwich restaurant in Palos Heights, IL was closing up the store for the evening at 9:00pm when she was abducted at knifepoint and sexually assaulted. She was the only employee on duty, and was left to close the store alone.

Diane Bush of The Young Worker Safety & Health Network, a group of professionals who advocate safety for teens in the workplace commented, “we’re concerned about having young people work alone at any time, but in particular late at night.”

Federal law restricts teen workers under 16 from working after 7:00pm (except until 9:00pm during the summer). However, there are no such laws for minor workers who are older than 18. The National Consumer’s League, which works with parents and teens to set appropriate work parameters, suggests that minors 16 years and older so not work before 7:00am or after 10:00pm.

While such guidelines would have not helped the Palos Heights teen, they are an important starting off point to consider in making laws stricter for minor workers. Perhaps the solution is restricted evening hours as well as regulations that do not permit teen employers to work alone and unsupervised by an adult in order to ensure their safety.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos

Congress Steps Up for Toy Safety

Nick Avgerinos — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:24:00 GMT

Congress recently announced a mandate for more stringent federal safety requirements for toys. The consumer-friendly legislation was signed by the President. These new standards include a strict “standard for lead; create a searchable database of product complaints filed with the government for consumers to access; require manufacturers to make it easier for consumers to learn about recalled products; increase fines and other penalties for safety violations; and beef up the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission and its budget.” One of the more controversial measures is the specific provision to prohibit all Phthalates, which are used in a wide range of plastics.

In a recent era of widely publicized dangers to the safety of children in toys, cribs, car seats, and other products, Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky praised this new development as “the birth of a new agency that will have much broader authority particularly to keep our children safe.” A ban such as this is a rare action by Congress, and reflects growing research showing that children are exposed to dangerous chemicals, commonly found in the packaging, surfaces, or contents of many products, by simple acts such as “chewing on a rubber duck.”

According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, “it should be a given that toys are not dangerous.” With this new measure, Congress is making a proactive and important effort to keep children safe from unreasonable and dangerous exposure to harmful chemicals and substances, as well as making sure products are mechanically safe.

For more information about consumer safety and children, see the Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reports that inspired Congress’ action, “Kids at Risk” by the Chicago Tribune. There are also valuable resources on Injury Board.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos

BPA and You: A Helpful Warning or Unsubstantiated Danger?

Nick Avgerinos — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:17:00 GMT

A recent hot topic among consumer safety advocates has been the use of the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) in plastic compounds that are clear, hard, and not easily breakable. BPA is used in helmets, CDs, sunglasses, and cell phones as well as in food and beverage products such as water bottles, baby bottles, can coatings, and dental sealants. See link.

Controversy has surfaced due to conflicting studies regarding whether exposure to BPA is harmful in humans, and particularly, if such minimal exposure is harmful at all. In a statement by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), scientists have found that the trace amounts of BPA from bottles and canned foods have not been found to cause toxic effect in animals. Furthermore, considering the low dietary exposure and the fact that BPA has not demonstrated adverse effects when consumed by animals in [higher amounts than] humans would consume, the FDA sees “no reason at this time to ban or otherwise restrict the uses now authorized…[yet will continue with] ongoing review of all available data.”

In a study by The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), nearly 93% of people tested had measurable levels of BPA in their urine, with highest levels in children. A study by The National Toxicology Program noted low-dose BPA exposure in animals led to cancer, genital malformations, and early puberty.

The European Food Safety Administration (EFSA), which permits the banning of chemicals based upon less stringent evidence than is required in the US, has determined that there is no reason based on current conflicting evidence to ban BPA, discrediting some of the studies on mice and rats by citing that people metabolize and excrete BPA from the body more quickly than do rodents.

Whether or not scientific studies, some of which funded by plastics corporations, have pinpointed BPA’s dangers, many manufacturers have made non-BPA plastic products available in response to consumer demand, particularly those used in food containers and bottles for children. A ban of BPA has been considered in California, New York, and in least 10 other states. The proposed California ban, for example, discusses the impact on children 3 and under, and would require all products or food containers designed for such children to contain only trace amounts of BPA.

For more information, also see this Injury Board blog.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick Avgerinos