No longer safe on the job: Gutting NIOSH condemns workers to danger

Claudio Dente

Submitted photo

Tell Us What You Think

Do you agree that the recent gutting of NIOSH puts American workers and businesses at risk?

Drop us a line at AzOpinions@iniusa.org and tell us what you think in 300 words or less. Be sure to include your name and city in your email.

I’ve spent my career ensuring American workers have the protection they need to stay safe on the job. When I started, safety gear was simple and often uncomfortable. Over the years, I’ve seen considerable improvements in design and technology.

In 2014, I bought a business in Kansas dedicated to making high-quality respirators and other personal protective equipment PPE. My company supplies everything from safety glasses to advanced reusable respirators, which are used in industries ranging from healthcare and firefighting to construction, metalwork and food service.

Respiratory protection is one of the most essential types of PPE. A suitable respirator can mean the difference between life and death, especially when workers are exposed to dangerous dust, fumes or chemicals. A properly fitted respirator can prevent someone from getting a deadly disease or suffering a life-changing injury.

I am concerned about the recent shutdown at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health — NIOSH. For more than 50 years, NIOSH has been the gold standard for testing and certifying respirators in the U.S. 

Without NIOSH, companies cannot get new respirators approved for use. We cannot make or market safer, more comfortable or effective products. Even worse, it opens the door for untested, uncertified and often foreign-made masks to flood American workplaces. These products may look the same, but they do not meet the standards that protect workers.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, NIOSH played a critical role. It fast-tracked the approval of new respirators, including reusable ones. These new masks were safer, more comfortable, and much better for the environment than disposable ones.

It also caught and removed hundreds of counterfeit masks sold as real protection, but they did not work. NIOSH’s work saved countless lives.

NIOSH did more than test masks. It provided research, training and practical resources like the NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. This guide has been a go-to resource for safety officers and workers for decades. It tells you what kind of respirator you need for each type of job and your exposure level, whether you’re working with silica dust, lead or dangerous chemicals like xylene. Without NIOSH and its pocket guide, how should safety professionals know what protection is needed? The truth is, they can’t.

The shutdown  doesn’t just put workers at risk; it hurts American businesses. 

Many companies have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in developing products and building up their manufacturing. Those investments are on hold, and there is no way to get new respirators certified. They can’t compete with foreign companies that don’t have to meet the same high standards. We know what happens when we rely on imports: prices increase, and fake products slip through. American workers deserve better.

The government knows the dangers that workers face. Whether it’s in hospitals, on construction sites, in grain silos, auto body shops or welding and metal shops, respiratory hazards are everywhere. By shutting down NIOSH, the government has left American workers exposed and condemned many to serious injury or death. Employers can’t meet OSHA rules, and construction, abatement and manufacturing projects may be challenging to proceed if they want to prioritize worker safety. 

If there were problems with how NIOSH ran, the answer should have been to fix them, not to eliminate the only agency standing between workers and deadly hazards. 

Editor’s note: Claudio Dente is a member of the American Medical Manufacturers Association Advisory Board. He wrote this for InsideSources.com. Please send your comments to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.