Occupational exposure to toxic chemicals is a serious issue, and companies are expected to abide by various regulations to ensure their workers’ are protected in accordance with current requirements and standards. Of course, companies don’t always comply with these rules and regulations, but even those who do may still be putting their employees at risk due to unknown toxicities.
Previously, we began discussing the topic of glyphosate toxicity and how the EPA regulates pesticides. As we noted, the EPA regulates pesticides by establishing and enforcing residue tolerance levels. As we’ve noted, many are concerned at present about the EPA’s stance on glyphosate, saying that the tolerance level is currently set to high and that consumers are therefore at risk.
The number of toxic chemicals the average American is exposed to on a regular basis would probably surprise many people. Toxic chemicals can be found in our food, in our water, in household cleaning chemicals and other household items, on the job, in consumer products, and in the air we breathe. Most of the time, the chemical exposure we get is relatively small. Even small, repeated exposure can add up to cause problems, though.
We’ve been looking in our last couple posts at the topic of water fluoridation, and whether water fluoridation can ever become the subject of toxic tort litigation. As we’ve noted, water fluoridation is legal, but it could be challenged on the basis of a municipality failing to follow the proper procedure related to water fluoridation.
In our previous post, we began looking at the issue of water fluoridation. As we noted, water fluoridation is largely unquestioned in the United States, even if certain studies have raised public health concerns about the practice.
Water fluoridation is something most people don’t think about most of the time. We know that fluoride is placed in our water, but we give little thought to how it might be affecting us, other than that it is helping us to avoid dental cavities.
Previously, we began looking at the concerns raised by the use of certain flame retardants in textiles and other consumer products, exposure to which may result in long-term health problems. The federal Toxic Substances Control Act does regulate the use of flame retardants in industry, and is currently evaluating several “problem formulation” chemicals used in flame retardants, including chlorinated phosphate esters, cyclic aliphatic bromides, and tetrabromobisphenol A.
In a previous post, we looked at a lawsuit filed by a water company against over 30 carpet manufacturers in Alabama and Georgia for the companies’ alleged knowing release of chemicals into the Coosa and Consauga rivers, leading to economic loss for the water company due to environmental and public health issues.
We’ve been looking in recent posts at the use of expert witnesses in toxic tort litigation. As we’ve noted, expert testimony can be critical to identifying and explaining the scientific and biological facts central to a case. Selecting an appropriate expert can help build up a case, but it is important to work with an expert who has a good record.
Last time, we began looking at the use of expert testimony in toxic tort litigation. As we noted, expert testimony may be necessary to establish the scientific and biological aspects of liability. As we noted last time, expert witnesses cannot just be anybody that claims expertise, but they must be qualified and approved by the court in toxic tort litigation.