23 Chemical Hazard Policy Improvements

In the United States, three categories of hazards – Chemical, Mechanical (physical), and mental hazards (or workplace mental health) – can begin to provide a comprehensive overview of the various ways workplaces become detrimental to human health. These categories tie together in various ways, as is clear through a reflection on case studies in workplace injuries. But within the systems that protect workers, these categories exist separately – represented under different jurisdictions and entities. It’s difficult to grasp the whole history of each of these entities, but worth briefly describing each to gain a better understanding of how policy making works in occupational health.

Chemical Hazards – The Toxic Substances Control Act

Chemical hazards in the workplace pose a severe threat to worker safety, ranging from acute poisoning to long-term illnesses like cancer and respiratory disease. Exposure occurs through inhalation, skin contact, or accidental ingestion, particularly in industrial operations reliant on heavy metals. Although widespread recognition of these dangers has arisen in recent years, regulatory protections have historically lagged behind industrial innovation.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 was the United States’ first major attempt to regulate the production, use, and disposal of hazardous chemicals. Designed to give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oversight of industrial chemicals, the TSCA aimed to mitigate risks before substances reached the workplace. The policy’s implementation followed increasing public concerns about PCBs in waterways, Chlorofluorocarbons compromising the ozone layer, and Agricultural chemicals like PBBs affecting food safety and laborer health. It’s initial implementation (under the Ford administration) was the most comprehensive chemical policy in America’s history – it was essential to opening up a dialogue about what chemicals we’re exposed to, daily. However, the law was notably weak, allowing thousands of chemicals to remain in use without comprehensive safety testing.

Notably, this act operated on an assumption termed ‘Thesis 2’ by modern academics. Thesis 2 notes that many substances allotted for commercial use in the 1976 TSCA slipped past any initial testing on an assumption of GRAS (Generally Regarded as Safe). This system is partially responsible for the massive oversight in the TSCA, and is reflective of other regulatory policies like the Food Additives Amendment of 1958. (This concept’s counterpart, ‘Thesis 1’ implies anything is unsafe until tested.)

Until 2016, no significant reforms strengthened the TSCA. Recent reform granted the EPA greater authority to assess and restrict hazardous chemicals. Despite these improvements, enforcement gaps and corporate pushback continue to limit the TSCA’s effectiveness, leaving many workers vulnerable to chemical exposure.

Mechanical Hazards – The Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Mechanical hazards are among the most immediate and visible threats in the workplace, encompassing risks from heavy machinery, falling objects, and repetitive strain injuries. These hazards are especially prevalent in manufacturing, construction, and industrial settings, where workers navigate fast-moving machines and dangerous tools every day. Unlike chemical hazards, which can take years to manifest, mechanical hazards often lead to immediate injuries, from crushed limbs to fatal accidents. As one might assume, mechanical hazards are almost unavoidable for workers dealing with machinery, heavy objects, etc. Thus, laborers in the industrial sector gamble thousands of dollars in medical expenses by simply undertaking daily tasks.

OSHA works to mitigate these hazards through various avenues, but no amount of training, inspection, or regulation can fully do away with such risks. Nonetheless, the following programs are currently the best available resources for workers in dangerous occupational environments.

Initially established in 1972 under Nixon, OSHA was established as a response to increased public awareness of environmental concerns – particularly following Rachel Carson’s influential book Silent Spring which created consumer awareness of the detrimental effects of pesticide usage on both public health and ecological health, and the rise of labor movements associated with Cesar Chavez’s popularity in the late 60s.

Since its inception, OSHA has implemented a series of standards, guidelines, and training programs to help reduce the risks associated with mechanical hazards. One of the most effective tools OSHA provides is the Machine Guarding Standard (29 CFR 1910.212), which requires that machinery be equipped with proper barriers, shields, or automatic shut-off mechanisms to protect workers from moving parts, flying debris, or accidental contact. This standard is perhaps the most important piece of a web of regulations aimed to protect workers, as it maintains the physical components of factory production to the highest degree of safety.

Another crucial initiative is OSHA’s Lockout/Tagout (LOTO) Standard (29 CFR 1910.147), which protects workers from hazardous energy sources when machines are being serviced or maintained. This standard mandates that machinery be powered down and properly tagged to prevent accidental reactivation, a measure that has significantly reduced workplace injuries caused by unexpected machine start-ups. Training programs on LOTO procedures ensure that workers understand how to implement these controls safely and effectively.

Beyond regulatory standards, OSHA also conducts workplace inspections and enforcement actions to ensure compliance with safety protocols. Employers who fail to meet OSHA’s mechanical safety requirements face penalties, including fines and potential shutdowns, emphasizing the importance of proactive safety measures. These inspections are particularly critical in high-risk industries such as construction, where workers are constantly exposed to heavy equipment and hazardous conditions.

In addition to regulatory enforcement, OSHA provides training and education programs to equip workers with the knowledge needed to recognize and respond to mechanical hazards. The OSHA Outreach Training Program, for example, offers 10-hour and 30-hour safety courses covering a wide range of workplace hazards, including machinery safety and proper equipment handling. Management is encouraged to invest in continuous education for their workers, as well-trained employees are more likely to avoid accidents and adhere to safety protocols.

While OSHA’s regulations and programs significantly reduce workplace injuries, they cannot eliminate mechanical hazards altogether. The responsibility ultimately falls on employers and workers to remain vigilant, follow established safety procedures, and prioritize a culture of workplace safety. By enforcing proper machine guarding, implementing lockout/tagout protocols, and investing in ongoing training, organizations can create a safer working environment and minimize the risks associated with mechanical hazards.

Shortcomings of OSHA

While OSHA is perhaps the most effective public institution for ensuring workplace safety, it has certainly felt the effects of the United States’ partisan swings and associated funding cuts. Historically, the agency has not been immune to the conservative ‘deregulation’ agenda that aims to protect corporate interests. Ronald Reagan’s tenure in presidential office is the first evidence of this detrimental phenomenon. Reagan’s ‘trickle-down’ economic plan saw massive cuts to a number of public institutions, OSHA being no exception. During his presidency, OSHA’s staffing and enforcement power were slashed, and its regulatory agenda slowed significantly, creating a ripple effect that weakened labor protections well beyond his time in office. This approach framed safety regulations as burdensome red tape rather than essential protections for American workers.

Following this trajectory, the George W. Bush administration hopped on the ‘Reaganomics’ bandwagon, so to speak – criticizing what it labeled as government overspending in the public sector. Bush’s OSHA leaned more heavily into voluntary compliance programs and partnerships with employers rather than enforcing strict penalties for safety violations. While these measures were packaged as cooperative, business-friendly reforms, they often left workers vulnerable by shifting the burden of safety from government enforcement to employer discretion. The overall effect was a dilution of OSHA’s authority, reinforcing the idea that labor regulations are secondary to economic growth and corporate freedom.

Most recently, Trump’s administration took this concept to a new level, gutting OSHA’s resources, freezing hiring, and rolling back workplace safety rules established in previous administrations. The agency was left chronically understaffed, with fewer inspectors available to conduct workplace investigations across the country. This created a dangerous environment in which the laborer-management relationship went largely unmediated. Worker complaints went unresolved for longer periods, and the agency’s capacity to hold employers accountable was deeply compromised. This erosion of oversight left millions of American workers exposed to unsafe working conditions with few resources.

Herein lies a peculiar exception for the essential service of worker protection in America. The United States has privatized other essential services like healthcare and insurance – which does give way to its own set of critiques (i.e., corporations putting a price on the health and safety of Americans). However, the privatization of such services arguably makes them less susceptible to the political sways inherent in an increasingly divided two-party government. It’s a two-sided coin – but perhaps one which necessitates further discussion. For example, can private corporations provide more efficient services than a government regulatory agency like OSHA if still kept in check by the judicial system (via anti-trust legislation or legal liability)? Would a privatized system maintain a strong enough incentive to prioritize worker safety over profit margins? Or would it simply increase the existing power imbalances between management and laborers? These questions raise important concerns about the sustainability and structure of workplace safety regulation in an era where political instability increasingly defines institutional reliability.

Workplace Mental Health – The National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety

Within the scope of occupational health lie a few crucial and interrelated strains of worker well-being. According to the WHO, “physical, mental, and social well-being” together define the full picture of occupational health. In the United States, much of the attention has traditionally gone to the “physical” component – largely because physical injuries in the workplace produce immediate, visible consequences and often stir more public empathy. The institutional infrastructure protecting workers reflects this tendency. Both the TSCA and OSHA were created with a strong emphasis on preventing chemical exposure, injury, and death. Mental health, in these frameworks, is acknowledged – if at all – only as a secondary benefit of physical safety.

But during the same era of TSCA and OSHA’s emergence, a lesser-known institution was quietly founded with a different mandate. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), established under the CDC, was created as a research-based counterpart to OSHA’s regulatory arm. While OSHA focused on setting standards and enforcing rules through penalties and inspections, NIOSH aimed to develop scientific knowledge and offer practical tools for improving workplace safety. Its emphasis was proactive, rather than reactive. Unlike other public institutions, NIOSH engages with all three domains of occupational health outlined by the WHO – especially mental and social well-being, which remain largely unaddressed in regulatory policy.

Two NIOSH initiatives in particular illustrate the Institute’s broader vision. First, Prevention through Design (PtD) is a program designed to minimize workplace hazards by addressing risks at the design stage – before a worker ever sets foot on the jobsite. PtD encourages engineers, employers, and safety professionals to integrate health considerations into the planning and construction of equipment, workflows, and environments. The goal is to eliminate or reduce hazards structurally, not just manage them after the fact. Though NIOSH does not have the authority to enforce PtD principles, its research and guidelines offer an influential framework for companies interested in embedding safety into their operational logic. Beyond physical protection, PtD fosters a sense of workplace security that can indirectly improve mental well-being by reducing stress and uncertainty.

The second major initiative is Total Worker Health (TWH), perhaps the most comprehensive framework for occupational well-being to emerge from the public sector. TWH expands the scope of worker protection beyond injury prevention to include factors such as job design, organizational culture, work-life balance, and access to mental health resources. It recognizes that health and safety are not limited to what happens on the jobsite but are shaped by broader social and psychological conditions. In this way, TWH treats workers as whole people – not just as bodies subject to risk, but as individuals whose mental and social needs are essential to their long-term well-being.

Together, PtD and TWH represent NIOSH’s distinctive contribution to occupational health policy. While lacking the regulatory bite of OSHA, NIOSH offers something arguably more transformative: a proactive and holistic vision for the future of work – one where mental, social, and physical health have equal value.

While governmental agencies such as OSHA, NIOSH, and the EPA form the backbone of occupational health regulation in the United States, these institutions often face bureaucratic constraints, political interference, and inconsistent funding. Against this backdrop, private actors – particularly labor unions and nonprofit organizations – have played an essential, and often underappreciated, role in protecting workers and advancing the conversation around occupational safety and health.

Labor Unions as Public Advocates

Labor unions have historically been some of the most consistent and effective advocates for occupational health and safety. Their very existence is rooted in a collective demand for better working conditions, fair wages, and human dignity on the job. Long before OSHA was established in 1970, unions were organizing strikes, publishing safety manuals, and pressuring employers to implement safer work environments.

Perhaps the clearest example of union influence can be seen in the coal mining industry. The United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) was a pioneering force in advocating for miners’ safety during the early 20th century, when the U.S. coal industry was notorious for cave-ins, explosions, and black lung disease. The UMWA’s relentless lobbying and public campaigns directly contributed to the passage of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, which laid the groundwork for OSHA’s broader protections a year later.

More recently, unions like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) have expanded the scope of occupational health to include mental health, harassment, and stress-related illnesses. The AFT, for example, has advocated for smaller class sizes and increased mental health resources in schools – not just as educational policy, but as occupational health concerns for overburdened educators. By framing these issues as integral to teachers’ working conditions, they force employers and lawmakers to confront occupational health through a more holistic and socially conscious lens.

Moreover, unions have a practical role in enforcing safety standards on the ground. Through the appointment of union safety representatives, many workplaces have internal watchdogs who can raise red flags about unsafe practices without fear of retaliation. These representatives often collaborate with OSHA inspectors or supplement their work, ensuring a constant layer of accountability that transcends external audits.

Unions also serve as knowledge hubs, offering training programs, legal resources, and workshops for workers to better understand their rights and advocate for themselves. In doing so, they empower individual workers to become agents of safety and well-being in their own right, rather than passive recipients of top-down policy.

Nonprofit Organizations: Private Groups for Workers

In parallel with unions, nonprofit organizations have emerged as critical players in the occupational health ecosystem, particularly in industries where union representation is low or entirely absent. These groups often focus on marginalized worker populations – immigrants, independent contractors (i.e. seasonal farmworkers), domestic laborers – who fall through the cracks of traditional regulatory frameworks.

Organizations like the National Council for Occupational Safety and Health (National COSH) serve as umbrella coalitions that unite local and regional safety advocates. COSH groups conduct worker training, offer legal advocacy, and produce annual reports such as the “Dirty Dozen,” which highlights companies with the worst records on workplace safety. These reports not only raise public awareness but also pressure employers through reputational risk – a form of social accountability that can sometimes succeed where legal action stalls.

Nonprofits also play a vital role in research and policy innovation. Institutions such as the Occupational Health Clinical Centers in New York and the Center for Construction Research and Training (CPWR) develop field-specific interventions based on quantitative studies and worker testimony. Their insights often inform OSHA’s future regulations or serve as best practices that employers can voluntarily adopt. For instance, CPWR has been instrumental in promoting fall-prevention strategies in the construction industry, one of the most dangerous sectors in the U.S.

Perhaps one of the most powerful aspects of nonprofit involvement is their ability to humanize statistics. While agencies tend to focus on compliance metrics and injury rates, nonprofits often collect and share narrative data – stories of workers affected by unsafe conditions, chronic illness, or employer negligence. These stories have emotional resonance that can shift public opinion, influence legislation, and spark grassroots movements.

For example, groups like Make the Road New York and the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC United) work at the intersection of labor justice and immigrant rights, advocating for wage transparency, fair scheduling, and heat protection laws for outdoor workers. Their advocacy efforts have been instrumental in recent legislative victories, such as California’s Heat Illness Prevention Standard, which mandates shade, water, and rest for agricultural workers.

Towards Collaboration

What makes labor unions and nonprofits particularly effective is their ground-level access to the workforce. Unlike government institutions that operate from the top down, these organizations often grow out of the very communities they serve. Their intimacy with on-the-ground realities allows them to be nimble, responsive, and culturally competent. In many cases, their initiatives complement government regulation by filling in gaps, innovating where policy lags, and advocating for populations that bureaucratic systems often overlook.

More and more, there is a growing awareness that collaborative models between public agencies and private advocates may be the most effective path forward. Joint task forces, participatory research projects, and shared training initiatives are already underway in some states. For example, OSHA’s Susan Harwood Training Grant Program has historically funded nonprofits and unions to develop targeted safety education initiatives for vulnerable worker groups.

Such partnerships represent a potential reimagination of occupational health governance – one that moves beyond hierarchical regulation towards a more participatory system. In this model, labor unions and nonprofits are not just outside commentators, but co-creators of safety policy, deeply embedded in the everyday lives of American workers.

What’s next? Improving Legislation for Occupational Health.

Clearly the issue of occupational health is nothing short of multi-dimensional, politically complex, and fluctuating. The American model for worker protection is deeply entrenched in the bipartisan political schema and corporation-laden history of our nation. So, where can we look? If occupational health policy is inseparable from – even conceived by the unique socioeconomic and political nature of our country, can we look to other nations? Policy theorists?

While every political shift, every law passed, is a direct reflection of the cultural context in which it’s conceived, the globalized nature of the world means that knowledge and ideas are shared with such ease and depth of action that any nation-specific policy doesn’t exist as a reality in that nation alone. Although we may not practice the same laws or policies, it is not unreasonable to recommend the adoption of foreign ideologies and should even be expected in a world with so many high-functioning and developed nations. But what does this mean in the context of occupational health?

Looking Forward: Recent Shifts in Momentum

While the historical and institutional context of occupational health policy in the United States is fraught with challenges, there are also significant signs of progress. In recent years, public awareness of workplace safety, mental health, and environmental exposure has grown substantially. Coupled with advances in technology, a renewed interest in public health, and rising pressure from both organized labor and civil society, a series of improvements are reshaping the landscape of occupational health in the U.S.

A Shift Toward Prevention and Holistic Safety

Perhaps the most promising development is a systemic shift from reactive safety enforcement to proactive prevention. This pivot builds on the foundations laid by initiatives such as NIOSH’s forementioned Total Worker Health (TWH) and Prevention through Design (PtD), but has expanded through a growing alliance between regulators, employers, and academic researchers. Employers are beginning to see the economic and ethical value in promoting health beyond the avoidance of injury. A healthier workforce results in greater productivity and stronger morale.

The integration of mental health into occupational safety frameworks is a key feature of this holistic shift. The COVID-19 pandemic served as a catalyst in this regard, forcing employers to confront the mental toll of workplace stress, burnout, and isolation. As a result, mental health is now less of a taboo topic in workplace safety conversations. Employers seem to be increasingly offering employee assistance programs, flexible work arrangements, and onsite mental health resources.

Data and Technology: Revolutionizing Occupational Health

Another area of significant improvement lies in the use of data analytics and wearable technology to identify and mitigate workplace hazards. Occupational health professionals now leverage real-time data from sensors embedded in machinery or wearable devices on employees to monitor factors such as air quality, ergonomic strain, heat exposure, and heart rate. These tools not only enhance immediate responses to danger but allow companies to collect longitudinal data for improving worksite design and processes.

For instance, in warehousing and logistics – one of the most injury-prone sectors – companies have adopted wearable exoskeletons and posture-monitoring devices to reduce musculoskeletal injuries. In chemical-heavy industries, air quality sensors can instantly notify workers and supervisors of gas leaks or dangerous vapor levels, triggering evacuation or ventilation procedures before exposure reaches a critical level.

Additionally, platforms that track injury data, inspection reports, and safety training compliance help employers stay ahead of regulatory requirements. The increasing digitization of compliance systems has also made OSHA inspections more efficient and targeted, allowing the agency to focus on high-risk industries and recurring violators. Tools such as the OSHA Data Initiative allow for public access to injury data, increasing transparency and pressure on employers to maintain safe working conditions.

Legislative Updates

While legislative progress in occupational health has been sporadic due to political polarization, recent developments suggest renewed interest in strengthening regulatory frameworks. The updated TSCA (Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act) of 2016 is one such example. This legislation expanded the EPA’s authority to require safety reviews for new and existing chemicals and increased public transparency in chemical risk assessments. Though not yet perfect, it marked a shift toward more hands-on chemical regulation.

Importantly, recent labor activism has brought occupational health back into the national conversation. Strikes and union campaigns across sectors – including healthcare, education, and transportation – have explicitly prioritized occupational safety, demanding not just better wages but also safer, healthier, and more humane working conditions. This integration of labor rights and health policy offers a clear framework for future reforms.

Expanding Inclusion and Access

One of the most critical improvements in the current system involves expanding protections to vulnerable and historically excluded worker populations. Gig workers, independent contractors, undocumented immigrants, and domestic workers have traditionally been excluded from federal labor protections, including many OSHA provisions. However, advocacy from labor groups and nonprofits has resulted in some promising local-level reforms.

For example, agricultural states including Washington and Oregon have enacted heat and smoke protection laws to safeguard outdoor laborers from the growing dangers of climate change. State-led initiatives like these are gradually forming a conglomeration of expanded protections that may one day prompt federal action.

Building a Culture of Safety

Arguably the most transformative shift underway is the cultural normalization of safety as a core workplace value rather than a bureaucratic obligation. This change is driven by both internal and external factors: internally by growing awareness among employees of their rights and health needs; externally by public pressure, consumer activism, and reputation concerns for businesses.

Today, safety is increasingly seen as part of a company’s brand identity. Certifications like ISO 45001 – an international standard for occupational health and safety management systems – are becoming a selling point in corporate sustainability reports. Investors and clients are also beginning to scrutinize how companies treat their workers, particularly in sectors with global supply chains or public service implications.

In schools, trade programs, and universities, the next generation of engineers, business leaders, and laborers are being trained with a broader understanding of occupational health. Many safety engineering and public health programs now include modules on ethics, mental health, social determinants of health, and organizational psychology – a testament to how the field itself is evolving.

Conclusion: Toward a Safer, Smarter Future

Improvements in America’s occupational health system are neither accidental nor guaranteed – they are the result of sustained advocacy, scientific innovation, and the persistent efforts of workers and organizations refusing to accept injury or illness as the cost of employment. While challenges remain – especially regarding political will, enforcement, and equitable coverage – the landscape is slowly shifting.

The future of occupational health in the U.S. lies not just in passing more laws, but in building resilient, data-informed, worker-centered systems. These systems must prioritize prevention, respond to the needs of all laborers, and treat health – in all its dimensions – as a fundamental right. As technology evolves and societal values shift, so must the ways we understand and ensure safety at work.

Sources

American Federation of Teachers, “History.” https://www.aft.org/about/history

Dixon Valve and Coupling Company, “The Transformation of Workplace Safety.” (2025). https://dixonvalve.com/en/news-and-events/news/transformation-workplace-safety?

Fortuna, Carolyn, “What Can the US Labor Movement Do to Build on Its 2024 Victories?” Clean Technica (2024). https://cleantechnica.com/2025/01/26/what-can-the-us-labor-movement-do-to-build-on-its-2024-victories/

Howard, J., and Hearl, F. “Occupational Safety and Health in the USA: Now and the Future.” Industrial Health 50, no.2 (2012): 80-83.

International Organization for Standardization, “ISO 45001:2018.” (2018). https://www.iso.org/standard/63787.html

Krimsky, S. “The unsteady state and inertia of chemical regulation under the US Toxic Substances Control Act.” PLoS Biology 15, no. 12 (2017): e2002404.

National Council for Occupational Health and Safety, “Building Worker Committees.” https://nationalcosh.org/Building-Worker-Committees

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, “Total Worker Health.”  https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/twh/about/index.html

Occupational Health and Safety Administration, “List of Highly Hazardous Chemicals.”https://www.osha.gov/lawsregs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.119AppA

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, “Establishment Specific Injury & Illness Data (OSHA Data Initiative).” https://www.osha.gov/ords/odi/establishment_search.html

Oregon Occupational Safety and Health, “Oregon OSHA adopts rules protecting workers against high heat, wildfire smoke.” (2022). https://osha.oregon.gov/news/2022/pages/nr2022-11.aspx

Rosner, D., and Markowitz, G. “A short history of occupational safety and health in the United States.” American Journal of Public Health 110, no.5 (2020): 622-628.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Toxic Substances Control Act.” (2024).https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-toxic-substances-control-act

United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Guidance to Protect POTW Workers From Toxic and Reactive Gases and Vapors.” (1992). https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0256.pdf

United Mine Workers of America, “History.” https://umwa.org/about/history/

World Health Organization, “Occupational Health”  https://www.who.int/health-topics/occupational-health

My interest in this topic was spurred by previous research considering farm workers and their exposure to toxic chemicals in the field. Intrigued and devastated by the degree to which farmers are affected by chemicals, I was interested in learning about how laborers in different sectors are affected by the same problem. My chapter morphed into something I wouldn’t have expected as I continued to learn about the depth of occupational health. While the TSCA and the regulation of toxic chemicals was eye opening, I learned about a whole host of issues involving occupational health – including physical and mental health concerns.

This is a topic that has affected me and my family personally, as improper working conditions have led to long-term health consequences for my family members. The ingestion of hazardous chemicals, as well as faulty machinery have caused detrimental health outcomes for people close to me, thus I was very interested to learn more about what government protections were (or rather weren’t) in place to ensure their safety.

While this topic was certainly difficult to read about at times, considering the number of workers that have been affected by hazardous chemicals and other workplace hazards, it was refreshing to learn about what is being done to combat the issues. Particularly as someone who will soon be entering the workforce, I gained some piece of mind to learn about how labor rights groups have pushed back against mistreatment in the workplace and fought for a healthy working environment.