ILNews

Sensient settles over use of 'popcorn lung' chemical

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Sensient Flavors LLC will pay a smaller fine in exchange for agreeing to reduce the amount of a chemical it uses at its Indianapolis plant, as part of a settlement it has reached with state regulators.

The agreement, which the state signed off on Friday, settles a federal lawsuit Sensient brought against the Indiana Occupational Safety and Health Administration over intense government scrutiny of health risks at the plant.

The flavorings manufacturer, a subsidiary of Milwaukee-based Sensient Technologies Corp., sued in December 2011 IOSHA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

The 31-page suit, which also named three NIOSH employees and two IOSHA compliance officers, claimed Sensient had been “harassed and intimidated” and “subjected to enormous intrusions” that violated its constitutional rights.

The dispute stemmed from the company’s use of diacetyl, a compound used in microwave popcorn, margarine and other products to create a buttery taste.

Diacetyl has created a firestorm of controversy in recent years, as health regulators and scientists assess its risks. Some U.S. factory workers with prolonged exposure to diacetyl have developed a rare, life-threatening lung condition — dubbed popcorn lung — for which there is no cure.

As part of the settlement, Sensient has agreed to reduce its usage of diacetyl 20 percent and, where feasible, will eliminate its usage of the ingredient altogether by the end of this year.

“IOSHA acknowledges that the administrative and engineering controls represent a good faith effort by Sensient to reduce employee exposures and that these controls will represent a significant cost to Sensient,” IOSHA said in the settlement.

Sensient executive James McCarthy said in a November 2011 letter to NIOSH that his company already has excellent engineering controls to minimize diacetyl exposure. He said additional controls at the Indianapolis plant to meet the proposed standards would cost $4 million to $6 million.

Sensient had faced state fines totaling $323,500 for violating IOSHA standards. The amount, however, has been reduced to $99,000, according to the terms of the settlement. Sensient executives were not available for comment on Wednesday.

Sensient Flavors’ Indianapolis plant, 5600 W. Raymond St., has been in the spotlight since 2008, when the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 135 asked NIOSH to conduct a formal health hazard evaluation. The Teamsters represent more than 100 production and maintenance workers at the plant.

NIOSH, part of the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, still had questions after inspecting the plant in May 2008. But when it requested a second look, the company sued, arguing that no new information had emerged that would entitle it to go through the highly invasive process again.

A federal judge shot down that argument in 2009, asserting that it was premature for the company to sue NIOSH while its investigation was ongoing.

Things turned worse for Sensient the following year. In June 2010, NIOSH publicly released a health-hazard report on the Indianapolis plant that found the prevalence of abnormal lung functioning among employees was several times higher than would be expected in the overall U.S. population.

In its lawsuit filed in December 2011, Sensient said the report was “grossly inaccurate and is based upon process, methodology, findings and conclusions which amount to bad science and a clear abuse of agency discretion.”

The parties agreed to settle, recognizing that “the costs and expenses of proceeding with litigation to resolve this dispute may be substantial and that the outcome of such litigation is uncertain," according to the settlement agreement.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT