The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) publishes advice for professional Hygienists to assist them in applying their art to the workplace, particularly with the publication of Threshold Limit Values (TLVs(r)) and the supporting documentation. However, in the absence of better advice, this information is very influential internationally in the legal standard setting of exposure limits, and various organisations litigate against the ACGIH, as tighter exposure limits affects business. The latest challenge has recently been successfully defended. This email on May 12 2008 outlines the unsuccessful challenge to the ACGIH:
On behalf of the ACGIH(r) Board of Directors, I am very pleased to inform you of the successful defense of the lawsuit brought against your association by the International Brominated Solvents Association (IBSA), the National Mining Association (NMA), Aerosafe Products, Inc., and Anchor Glass Container Products, Inc.
In a summary judgment ruling issued on May 6, 2008, a federal judge in the United States District Court in Macon, Georgia dismissed the last of four counts of the lawsuit against ACGIH(r). Three counts had been previously dismissed in March, 2005. The remaining count against ACGIH(r) for violations of Georgia’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), O.C.G.A. §10-1-372, was dismissed by Judge Hugh Lawson in a ruling that represents a major victory for ACGIH(r) and, particularly, the occupational and environmental health community. The count sought to prevent ACGIH(r) from publishing its Threshold Limit Values (TLVs(r)) on the basis that they are “false and deceptive because they are not supported by credible science,” and that “they disparage the goods, services or business of another by false or misleading representation of fact.”
In its ruling, the Court stated that “ACGIH(r), a non-profit association comprised of a group of scientists that adopts workplace safety exposure levels, is more like an entity designed to promote ideas than one that engages in deceptive advertising in an effort to derive a financial benefit.” Further, the Court “remains unconvinced that the cause of action created in the UDTPA should be able to stifle ACGIH(r)’s dissemination of its opinions as to what exposure levels of certain substances are in fact safe.” The Court then granted ACGIH(r)’s Motion for Summary Judgment and denied the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
This ruling confirms our long-held position that ACGIH(r) has the right to publish its scientific opinions that help provide for a safer workplace. Occupational and environmental health professionals need to know they can rely on the information and guidance provided by ACGIH(r). After almost four years of enormous expenditure of ACGIH(r) financial and human resources in defending against this litigation, we view this as great news for the association’s members, for the continued freedom of expression of scientific opinion, and for the entire occupational and environmental health profession.
Although this was a lawsuit directed against the TLVs(r) and ACGIH(r), I view this as a form of attack on the whole profession of industrial hygiene. It illustrates an attempt to weaken the scientific underpinnings of the profession in which we practice. We must continue to be vigilant against such directed actions that can, ultimately, decrease the health and safety protection of workers in the occupational environment.
I also want to acknowledge and thank the many ACGIH(r) members and leaders who were directly involved in defense of the lawsuit, and had to endure many depositions and hearings, for their dedication and perseverance throughout this three and a half year process.
As with any district court ruling, the plaintiffs may pursue an appeal of the Court’s order. If IBSA, NMA, or any of the other plaintiffs elect to file an appeal, ACGIH(r) will continue a vigorous and thorough defense of its position. We are confident that the Court of Appeals would affirm ACGIH(r)’s right to express its scientific opinions and that ACGIH(r) would once again prevail.
Sincerely,
Lawrence M. Gibbs, CIH
ACGIH(r) Chair
