Yesterday, June 12th, marked World Day Against Child Labor. For this occasion I highlight the plight of young children employed to work in the tobacco agribusiness in the United States. It is estimated, by Deutsche Welle, that 500,000 children labor in this market; most are exposed to hazardous conditions ranging from exposure to high levels of nicotine and pesticides, farm implements, and long working hours among others. Variances in the standard federal child labor standards permit tobacco growers to employ children–some of whom are under twelve years in age.
After decades of public objection and later government restrictions on advertisements, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to minors for reasons not limited to just health and nicotine dependency, the cultivation of “green tobacco” by children exposes them often to immediately hazardous levels of nicotine at often unconscionably young ages.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) in 2013 published an extensive study into the child labor practices of the tobacco growers industry in four states: North Carolina; Kentucky; Tennessee; and Virginia. According to this study one hundred and forty one children participating in the tobacco harvests of 2012 and 2013 were interviewed by HRW. Ages of these children ranged from seventeen to as young as seven.
According to this study, “nearly three quarters of those interviewed reported sudden onsets of serious illnesses—including nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, headaches, dizziness, skin rashes, difficulty breathing, irritations to their eyes and mouths—while working in the fields of tobacco plants and barns with dried tobacco leaves and tobacco dust. Many of these symptoms are consistent with acute nicotine poisoning.”
Duties assigned to children in tobacco cultivation and harvesting included seed planting, topping, thinning undesirable leaves, applying pesticides, harvesting leaves by hand or with machinery, cutting plants with sharpened tobacco knives, storage and removal of cured leaves from barns, and stripping and sorting dried leaves.
Resulting from these exposures, often from unprotected skin and lax safety policies, children suffer often from a condition known as Green Tobacco Sickness. This illness is an occupational disease caused by workers absorbing nicotine through their skin after prolonged exposure to the plants. These symptoms, references earlier, are identified by Public and Occupation health officials. The long term effects are currently unknown though other studies on the usage of tobacco products (such as smoking) in adolescents may have links to complications in brain development. Public health research indicates that non-smoking workers in tobacco agriculture have similar levels of nicotine in their bodies as do smokers in the general population.
The study contained interviews consistent with their findings generally, where child workers reported being sprayed by pesticides applied to rows nearby causing illnesses contemporaneously. To mitigate this environment the children often would bring plastic garbage bags with them that they could fashion into ad-hoc raingear to resist spray landing on their clothes and skin—though this did not protect necessarily their hands and faces.
Due to the nature of tobacco cultivation and harvesting occurring within the summer months, the combination of high levels of heat and long hours of labor puts great amount of stresses on children that often culminate with heat stroke and dehydration. Compliance with break time standards is widely varied with some farms providing a reasonable break period for workers and others mandating that workers continue almost without pause.
The introduction of labor contractors, those who sell labor for a fixed price to farmers and where the workers are actually the employees of the contractor, has provided an opportunity for exploitation. Since these contractors retain earnings based on the margin between the revenue from the farm and the labor costs they endure, the temptation to extract more earnings often becomes high; especially in light of the fact that most workers are of an economic underclass that is less likely to report labor abuses and especially in the case of children having not the life experience or foreknowledge of what constitutes a proper and healthy working environment.
Compounding the problem is that current U.S. child labor laws permit children to labor in tobacco farms with liberal policies that permit very young children to work simply with parental permission to do so. It is often the case where this parental permission is granted by parents who also work on these farms where low wages create a need and temptation for parents allowing their children to work to supplement household incomes. Small farms are given the most leeway to employ young children. Agriculture is permitted by federal law to employ children as young as twelve with parental permission but with these small farms children under twelve may labor with parental consent. In all other industries the employment of children under fourteen is prohibited, and children fourteen to fifteen may only be employed in certain jobs with a limited number of hours each day.
The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour for work in tobacco farms. Some employers caused children to be paid on a piece basis which can in some respects be exploited to motivate children to perform more productively than what is reasonable for their abilities. HRW reported children interviewed expressed that they are often confused as to the actual wage they are paid and some stating they were actually paid less than the minimum permitted. Contractors were said to stoop to the level of charging children for necessities such as water and for inaccurate recording of work performed.
Internationally, treaties ratified by the United States might actually be in conflict with current federal child labor laws and their applicability to the tobacco farming industry. HRW addresses this as follows:
International Standards on Child Labor
via Human Rights Watch
In recognition of the potential benefits of some forms of work, international law does not prohibit children from working. The International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention, which the US has ratified, obligates
countries to prohibit certain types of work for children under age 18 as a matter of urgency, including work that is likely to jeopardize children’s physical or mental health, safety or morals (also known as hazardous labor). The ILO leaves it up to governments to determine which occupations are hazardous to children’s health. Several countries, including major tobacco producing countries such as Brazil and India, prohibit children under 18 from performing work in tobacco farming. Based on our field research, interviews with health professionals, and analysis of the public health literature, Human Rights Watch has concluded that no child under age 18 should be permitted to perform any tasks in which they will come into direct contact with tobacco plants of any size or dried tobacco leaves, due to the health risks posed by nicotine, the pesticides applied to the crop, and the particular health risks to children whose bodies and brains are still developing.
The ILO Worst Forms of Child Labor
Recommendation states that certain types of work in an unhealthy environment may be appropriate for children ages 16 and older “on the condition that the health, safety and morals of the children concerned are fully protected, and that the children have received adequate specific instruction or vocational training in the relevant branch of activity.” Because exposure to tobacco in any form is unsafe, Human Rights Watch has determined, based on our field investigations and other research, that as a practical matter there is no way for children under 18 to work safely on US tobacco farms when they have direct contact with tobacco plants of any size or dried tobacco leaves, even if wearing protective equipment. Though protective equipment may help mitigate exposure to nicotine and pesticide residues, rain suits and watertight gloves would not completely eliminate absorption of toxins through the skin and would greatly increase children’s risk of suffering health related illnesses. Such problems documented by Human Rights Watch in the US seem likely to extend to tobacco farms outside the United States
HRW called upon the tobacco product manufactures and tobacco leaf companies to provide statements of their policy to address the issue of child labor. The NGO queried “companies that source tobacco from the states we visited. Eight of those companies manufacture tobacco products (Altria Group, British American Tobacco, China National Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco Group, Japan Tobacco Group, Lorillard, Philip Morris International, and Reynolds American), and two are leaf merchant companies (Alliance One International and Universal Corporation).”
In the months prior to the release of this report, HRW sent letters to each company and requested a response along with a request to meeting with company officials to discuss the issue. The HRW report stated the following regarding these exchanges:
Nine companies responded to Human Rights Watch and stated that they took steps to prohibit child labor in their supply chains. Only China National Tobacco did not respond to Human Rights Watch’s letter or repeated attempts to secure a meeting with company executives.
All of the tobacco manufacturing companies and leaf supply merchants that replied to Human Rights Watch expressed concerns about child labor in their supply chain. Only a few of the companies have explicit child labor policies in place. The approaches to child labor in the supply chain varied from company to company, as detailed below. Human Rights Watch correspondence with these companies is included in an appendix to this report, available on the Human Rights Watch website.
Of the companies approached by Human Rights Watch, Philip Morris International (PMI) has developed the most detailed and protective set of policies and procedures, including training and policy guidance on child labor and other labor issues which it is implementing in its global supply chain. PMI has also developed specific lists of hazardous tasks that children under 18 are prohibited from doing on tobacco farms, which include most tasks in which children come into prolonged contact with mature tobacco leaves, among other hazardous work.
Several companies stated that in their US operations they required tobacco growers with whom they contract to comply with US law, including laws on child labor, which, as noted above, do not afford sufficient protections for children. These companies stated that their policies for tobacco purchasing in countries outside of the US were consistent with international law, including with regard to a minimum age of 15 for entry into work under the ILO Minimum Age Convention, with the exception of certain light work, and a prohibition on hazardous work for children under 18, unless national laws afford greater protections. However, most companies did not specify the tasks that they consider to constitute hazardous work. Under these standards, children working in tobacco farming can remain vulnerable to serious health hazards and risks associated with contact with tobacco plants and tobacco leaves. A number of companies stated that they had undertaken internal and third party monitoring of their supply chains to examine labor conditions, including the use of child labor, as defined within the scope of their existing policies.
100 years later are we still doing enough?
To commemorate World Day Against Child Labor it is time to perhaps seek a reassessment of the need to employ children in an occupation that studies have shown is hazardous to their health, especially during their development. We as a society have said no to the notion of children consuming nicotine as end users but we have been mostly blind to the poisonous effect of the substance on children participating in its cultivation. Yet with inconsistent oversight by tobacco companies of their farm suppliers, it is likely that opposition from the tobacco states will result in protective child labor laws. The indifference to the subject by Congress is often due to lack of demands from their constituents and heavy lobbying efforts by the tobacco industry. It is not likely these children will see improvement in their young lives as long as they are employed in an industry that in many ways is shown to be detrimental to their wellbeing.
Since approximately ninety percent of the tobacco produced in the United States comes from these four tobacco states, it is probable that they industry still will survive the additional cost of a tobacco leaf that is harvested by an adult or machine instead of a child but it is unlikely tobacco agribusinesses will want you to believe such a reality.
A true measure of a society is how well it treats its most vulnerable.
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
229 thoughts on “The Tobacco Industry And Child Labor”
@ BarkinDog
1, June 15, 2015 at 10:09 pm
“Outlaw tobacco. We outlaw meth.”
Yes, BD, as the War on (Some) Drugs has been such a resounding success, in terms of trashing the Constitution and filling US prisons to overflowing, it’s sound advice to recommend outlawing tobacco, as well.
Do you advocate outlawing alcohol again, too? We know how much damage alcohol causes, both physically and mentally to millions of people, so do you think we ought to give Prohibition another whirl?
You may want to read up on how some other countries, such as Portugal, are dealing with drug addiction.
The US already has more people per capita in prison than any other country in the world, including China, Russia, and Iran.
Outlawing tobacco would be right up there in the perspicacity derby with bringing back Prohibition.
Loading...
@ Karen S
1, June 15, 2015 at 9:53 pm
“Ken – I thought Paul asked a good question, so I answered it. Your personal attack on me was unhinged, considering I have stated multiple times that children should be protected from hazards like pesticide and nicotine poisoning. My position is pretty clear. I do not need to undergo some sort of test to prove myself to anyone.”
Karen — The only thing I “attacked” was your disingenuous attempt to lend credence to one of Schulte’s disingenuous questions, and by implication to defend his effort to discredit the HRW survey.
His question regarding HRW’s retroactive survey, as described in Darren’s post, made no sense except as a feeble attempt to discredit the survey and its authors.
That you continue to defend that question, particularly after you’ve had a chance to see it in the context of his other questions and comments, makes it pretty clear that you’re having trouble rising above being disingenuous.
Here’s another example of your being less than honest, assuming you don’t have a problem regarding reading with comprehension: “I am more interested in reading about solutions than in being called names, frankly.”
Either you don’t read very well, or you’re still having trouble being honest, as nowhere in my last post did I call you any “names.” I exclusively addressed your behavior.
Now, if you identify with that behavior to the extent that you can’t imagine yourself improving on it,
and you therefore take my criticism of your behavior as an attack on your person, then you very definitely have a personal problem, which I hope for your sake you’ll be able to overcome as soon as possible.
Loading...
Outlaw tobacco. We outlaw meth. Here are some stats:
Based on smoking habits in the population and the proportion of cancer cases attributable to smoking, the researchers estimated that 125,799 lung, bronchus and trachea cancer deaths, representing 80 percent of the total, were linked to smoking. So were 50 percent of deaths from esophagus tumors and 45 percent of deaths from bladder malignancies.
The researchers also credit smoking with 17 percent of kidney cancer deaths, 20 percent of stomach cancer deaths, 22 percent of cervical cancer deaths and 24 percent of liver and bile duct cancer deaths in 2011.
One limitation of the study is that the survey and interview participants were generally more educated and less racially diverse than the U.S. population as a whole, the researchers acknowledge in JAMA Internal Medicine.
Loading...
Ken – I thought Paul asked a good question, so I answered it. Your personal attack on me was unhinged, considering I have stated multiple times that children should be protected from hazards like pesticide and nicotine poisoning. My position is pretty clear. I do not need to undergo some sort of test to prove myself to anyone.
There is no requirement on this blog to state whether I agree or disagree with every single statement made.
Among my family and friends I often get on my organic soapbox. Some of them eat organic, and some do not. Some joke that milk tastes better with all the hormones, and do not believe that any pesticide on produce is harmful. So when I hear anyone’s initial reaction of skepticism to such a study, I would borrow a phrase from one of my Jewish friends, “Manish de na” (sp) – “Why is today different from any other day?” If I got hysterical every time someone had that position, I would need a fainting couch every time I interacted with anyone who eats conventional food.
I find it more constructive to either explain my position in an effort to change someone’s mind (and I did state my position several times on this matter), or just recognize that not everyone will agree with me. Not everyone needs to agree in order to effect this type of change, however. Besides, perhaps Paul would be more open to the possibility of the dangers of pesticide and dermal nicotine exposure if dissenting opinions were discussed more calmly. Perhaps he has changed his mind, perhaps not. With my strong opinions, if I required my friends to agree with me on all things, I would be a lonely person.
Aside from that, he did have a good point wondering why the children did not receive medial care. I offered one explanation, but we would have to look at the actual study to find out the parameters. He ALSO made a good point that organic tobacco still needs to be picked, and poses the exact same risk of dermal nicotine absorption. In my opinion we should prevent children from working in tobacco fields for the reasons discussed above, but we’re still in a pickle about how to protect adults. I do not know the latest advances in agricultural protective clothing; I know that some are breathable, but breathable in high humidity would be difficult. Nor do I know if mechanical harvest is an option yet.
I am more interested in reading about solutions than in being called names, frankly.
Loading...
please
Loading...
Karen S
1, June 15, 2015 at 12:05 pm
“So I assume that the researchers gave the kids a survey questionnaire asking if they had ever experienced these symptoms and when in relation to the harvest, past tense.”
“Otherwise, Schulty is entirely correct – the researchers would have been liable with a callous disregard if they had recognized current symptoms of acute nicotine poisoning, a dangerous condition, and just did nothing about it.”
This is one of the most disingenuous attempts at a defense of callous indifference that I’ve ever witnessed.
You “assume” that “the researchers gave the kids a survey questionnaire asking if they had ever experienced these symptoms and when in relation to the harvest, past tense.” [emphasis added]
Yet, you say that IF the study had not been retrospective, then “Schulty” is [not would have been] entirely correct.” [emphasis added]
With this utterly specious and dishonest attempt at defending Schulte’s callous comments, you’ve not only, of course, failed miserably to justify his feeble-minded attempt to discredit the study and dismiss the effects of tobacco farming on children, but you’ve denigrated your own credibility in the process.
Good job. 🙂
From Darren’s post:
“Human Rights Watch (HRW) in 2013 published an extensive study into the child labor practices of the tobacco growers industry in four states: North Carolina; Kentucky; Tennessee; and Virginia. According to this study one hundred and forty one children participating in the tobacco harvests of 2012 and 2013 were interviewed by HRW. Ages of these children ranged from seventeen to as young as seven.”
From Schulte’s posts:
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 13, 2015 at 10:37 am I think the only thing about this article that bothered my was the possible and I say possible cheating of the kids on their pay. Even that is iffy. The same problems the kids have with tobacco dust they have with wheat dust or corn dust, etc. I have worked a wheat harvest and I know how dirty and how hot you can get. How dusty it gets. How you are covered with wheat hulks and you spend all day itching. Farming is not for special snowflakes. [emphasis added]
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 13, 2015 at 2:32 pm
Nick – all farmers exploit children (usually their own). [emphasis added]
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 13, 2015 at 2:44 pm
According to this study, “nearly three quarters of those interviewed reported sudden onsets of serious illnesses—including nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, headaches, dizziness, skin rashes, difficulty breathing, irritations to their eyes and mouths—while working in the fields of tobacco plants and barns with dried tobacco leaves and tobacco dust. Many of these symptoms are consistent with acute nicotine poisoning.”
Now why the devil didn’t these people take these kids to a doctor if they were that concerned about them?
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 13, 2015 at 3:28 pm
Elaine – these lily-white liberals run this study but cannot spend the money to take the kids to the doctor? They cry crocodile tears about the kids but cannot spend a dime on their health care? [emphasis added]
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 13, 2015 at 3:30 pm
Statistically speaking it is a not even a blip on the radar.
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 13, 2015 at 3:36 pm
PC is DEAD!!!!
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 13, 2015 at 3:46 pm
Elaine – list the none (sic) lily white liberals who were part of the study group.
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 13, 2015 at 3:57 pm
Karen – organic tobacco still has to be picked. 🙂
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 14, 2015 at 11:23 pm
Ken Rogers – I think when you see someone sick you take them to the hospital. However, it is easier to pretend the kids are sick then [sic] to actually find out if they are sick. [emphasis added]
Loading...
Ken Rogers – unless you are a doctor, pleas to not diagnosis.
Loading...
Prairie – Paul is probably referring to my grain and milk soapbox when I was having a one-sided debate with Isaac.
Paul – that is exactly why the government shouldn’t mandate what health foods we should eat through sin taxes or any other kind of social engineering. The definition of “health food” changes too often, anyway!
Loading...
Paul C. Schulte,
Not sure what you’re referring to in my comment or what you’re getting at.
I was talking about the logic behind the government proposing a federal soda tax since the government is now footing a third of the population’s medical bills.
Loading...
Oh and “everyone” should be replaced with “some” people.
Loading...
Oh, and I forgot to add to my previous post that symptoms of CURRENT nicotine poisoning would require a trip to the hospital for blood tests to confirm serum concentration and other data for the study.
So I think this study was based on a questionnaire. Dermal absorption certainly does happen, so I think this is a valid, serious concern for workers of all ages, but especially children.
I would like to see a follow up study on the percentage of children who went on to become smokers. Did repeated dermal exposure make them addicted? Or did it not happen often enough to add that serious side effect?
Loading...
Prairie Rose – you make an excellent point. It gets the government’s toe in the door.
And anyone who’s ever worked in government can tell you how different areas have come under the government’s pursue through a series of bureaucratic decisions. For instance, the ditch you’ve graded at the end of your field to take advantage of topography becomes listed as a waterway because it drains rainwater from your land, and falls under the EPA’s jurisdiction, requiring permits.
Loading...
Everyone is ridiculing Paul’s question why the researchers did not seek medical attention for the kids, but he asked a good question.
If the kids were currently exhibiting symptoms, they WOULD have to take them to seek emergency medical care. A researcher would not be allowed to ignore serious, possibly fatal symptoms of drug poisoning in a child and send him on his way because of the liability. If it was an FDA clinical trial, there would be other rules, but clearly this was a study on occupational hazards.
So I assume that the researchers gave the kids a survey questionnaire asking if they had ever experienced these symptoms and when in relation to the harvest, past tense.
Otherwise, Schulty is entirely correct – the researchers would have been liable with a callous disregard if they had recognized current symptoms of acute nicotine poisoning, a dangerous condition, and just did nothing about it. Think about it. If a child suffered harm, or died, and a researcher identified it as poisoning and neither informed the parents nor sought medical attention for the child, there would be hell to pay.
Loading...
“The health conscious want to tax the unhealthy to force them to change their own decisions.”
Taxing what foods people put into their mouths is a logical outcome of the government paying for people’s healthcare. What people put into their mouths, in particular foods laden with sugar and high fructose corn syrup, can seriously negatively affect health, causing very expensive health problems that the government has to pay for (diabetes, heart disease, etc.).
If the government pays for people’s healthcare, then it is in the government’s best interest to reduce those costs if possible, hence the taxes.
Please note: I am only pointing out the logic. I am very health conscious, but I am not expressing approval of taxation or the ACA. People should get to decide what they put in their mouths and be responsible for the consequences; unfortunately, as a nation we have handed over to the government, by and large, the responsibility for paying for the consequences. One-third of the population was covered by government-funded health insurance in 2013. (https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/demo/p60-250.pdf)
Loading...
Prairie Rose – the problem is the health conscious often do not know what they are talking about. Note the conflicting studies overs the last several years.
Loading...
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 14, 2015 at 11:23 pm
“Ken Rogers – I think when you see someone sick you take them to the hospital. However, it is easier to pretend the kids are sick then (sic) to actually find out if they are sick.”
With this comment, you’ve once again demonstrated that you’re nobody’s fool, Herr Schulte.
The “Oh, I’ve got a tummy ache and can’t work today” malingerers who aren’t retching their guts out, have to be separated from those children with quantifiable nicotine blood levels whose productivity might be compromised by their staggering about the farm and puking on the tobacco plants.
And how else to effect such triage except by taking both groups to the hospital whenever their “symptoms” manifest?
Inasmuch as there are only 10,000+ tobacco farms in the US, some of which probably don’t even employ children, how difficult would it be for Darren and Human Rights Watch to personally medically separate the tobacco-leaf sick from the malingering chaff?
The fact that they are not doing so is additional evidence (as if any were needed) that they are trying to pile up the nicotine-poisoned bodies, in order to generate public sympathy for their real objective, the abolition of “demon tobacco.”
Hats off to you and Nick Spinelli for exposing yet another example of duplicitous, pathological altruism.
Loading...
To my good buddy, Kenny Rogers, “Well, you got to know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em.”
Loading...
@ Paul C. Schulte
1, June 13, 2015 at 2:44 pm
“According to this study, ‘nearly three quarters of those interviewed reported sudden onsets of serious illnesses—including nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, headaches, dizziness, skin rashes, difficulty breathing, irritations to their eyes and mouths—while working in the fields of tobacco plants and barns with dried tobacco leaves and tobacco dust. Many of these symptoms are consistent with acute nicotine poisoning.’ ”
“Now why the devil didn’t these people take these kids to a doctor if they were that concerned about them?”
I’ve given your question more thought, and in doing so, remembered the liberal agenda that Nick Spinelli had unmasked with a brilliant piece of deductive detective work:
@ Nick Spinelli
1, June 13, 2015 at 12:47 pm
“And Squeek, are you seeing the real agenda here? There are these reasons who (sic) the obvious remedy will not work. I have spent my entire professional career seeking the truth. If this was about children then ‘Children’ would have led off the title. We say what is most important to us, first. We do what is most important to us, first. And, if it were about children this would have included children working in the myriad other agricultural fields where pesticides and herbicides are used. This is about banning evil tobacco.”
There it was, staring all of us in the face all that time, but it took the highly-trained, truth-seeking Nick Spinelli to deduce Darren’s true agenda from the title of his essay, “The Tobacco Industry and Child Labor.”
In thinking about your own drilling-down-to-bedrock question, “Now why the devil didn’t these people take these kids to a doctor if they were that concerned about them?”, I also remembered Benjamin Netanyahu’s unmasking observation, “They want to pile up as many civilian dead as they can. They use telegenically dead Palestinians for their cause. They want the more dead, the better.” https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/21/netanyahus-telegenically-dead-comment-original/
And then it all came together for me regarding Darren’s real agenda, the banning of tobacco, as Nick Spinelli brilliantly pointed out, and why the authors of the study didn’t take those poisoned kids to a doctor: Human Rights Watch and Darren Smith want to pile up as many poisoned children as they can, for their cause, the banning of tobacco.
If this isn’t proof-positive of the diabolical depravity of the liberal agenda, what in God’s name would be?
Loading...
@Isaac
Hmmm. Let’s see, YOU said,
“The primary difference between the Parliamentary systems of Great Britain, Canada, and other countries and the US system is the lack of flexibility of the American system due to the polarization of only two parties as well as the sacred permanence of something that should be changing with the times.
One way to break the log jam that the American system of government has become might be to separate completely the political bias of the Presidency and elect a person based entirely of their arguments without any connection to either the Democrats or the Republicans. Then the two parties would run the country based on who voted into power their representatives. This would move the present system in the direction of a Parliamentary system while keeping the role of President, albeit with refined powers and significance.”
I replied with a brief essay about why a parliamentary system in the U.S. might have some drawbacks. To which you snootily replied,
squeeky
The discussion with Aridog pertained to funding elections in Canada. You must be a student of Karen. So, four foot-six.
Huh??? You specifically opined about a parliamentary system in the U.S. I responded to that. Sooo, to YOUR “four foot-six” comment, I reply, “Fish.”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Note. There is an old joke which goes:
Q. How many surrealists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A. Fish.
Loading...
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 13, 2015 at 10:52 pm
“Ken Rogers – I did not watch the stuff but did they say what steps they took to help the children with their medical problems?”
My guess is that these outside agitators and pathological altruists would use the excuse that there are 10,014 tobacco farms in the US, so it would be “difficult” for the study’s authors to personally and repeatedly take every tobacco-poisoned child to a doctor. You know how bleeding-heart libruls rationalize everything they don’t do.
Ken Rogers – I think when you see someone sick you take them to the hospital. However, it is easier to pretend the kids are sick then to actually find out if they are sick.
Loading...
DBQ – “What I choose to eat is no one’s concern and certainly not the government’s to try to force me to eat what they consider to be a good diet.” Amen, sister. Plus, your diet made me hungry!
Government has no business deciding what people eat. Nanny state laws like that absurd soda tax are against its mandate and common sense. I don’t know why people want so badly to be taken care of at this level, with no responsibility for themselves, that they would start down the slippery slope of sin taxes.
Loading...
squeeky
The discussion with Aridog pertained to funding elections in Canada. You must be a student of Karen. So, four foot-six.
Yesterday, June 12th, marked World Day Against Child Labor. For this occasion I highlight the plight of young children employed to work in the tobacco agribusiness in the United States. It is estimated, by Deutsche Welle, that 500,000 children labor in this market; most are exposed to hazardous conditions ranging from exposure to high levels of nicotine and pesticides, farm implements, and long working hours among others. Variances in the standard federal child labor standards permit tobacco growers to employ children–some of whom are under twelve years in age.
Resulting from these exposures, often from unprotected skin and lax safety policies, children suffer often from a condition known as Green Tobacco Sickness. This illness is an occupational disease caused by workers absorbing nicotine through their skin after prolonged exposure to the plants. These symptoms, references earlier, are identified by Public and Occupation health officials. The long term effects are currently unknown though other studies on the usage of tobacco products (such as smoking) in adolescents may have links to complications in brain development. Public health research indicates that non-smoking workers in tobacco agriculture have similar levels of nicotine in their bodies as do smokers in the general population.
The introduction of labor contractors, those who sell labor for a fixed price to farmers and where the workers are actually the employees of the contractor, has provided an opportunity for exploitation. Since these contractors retain earnings based on the margin between the revenue from the farm and the labor costs they endure, the temptation to extract more earnings often becomes high; especially in light of the fact that most workers are of an economic underclass that is less likely to report labor abuses and especially in the case of children having not the life experience or foreknowledge of what constitutes a proper and healthy working environment.
@ BarkinDog
1, June 15, 2015 at 10:09 pm
“Outlaw tobacco. We outlaw meth.”
Yes, BD, as the War on (Some) Drugs has been such a resounding success, in terms of trashing the Constitution and filling US prisons to overflowing, it’s sound advice to recommend outlawing tobacco, as well.
Do you advocate outlawing alcohol again, too? We know how much damage alcohol causes, both physically and mentally to millions of people, so do you think we ought to give Prohibition another whirl?
You may want to read up on how some other countries, such as Portugal, are dealing with drug addiction.
The US already has more people per capita in prison than any other country in the world, including China, Russia, and Iran.
Outlawing tobacco would be right up there in the perspicacity derby with bringing back Prohibition.
@ Karen S
1, June 15, 2015 at 9:53 pm
“Ken – I thought Paul asked a good question, so I answered it. Your personal attack on me was unhinged, considering I have stated multiple times that children should be protected from hazards like pesticide and nicotine poisoning. My position is pretty clear. I do not need to undergo some sort of test to prove myself to anyone.”
Karen — The only thing I “attacked” was your disingenuous attempt to lend credence to one of Schulte’s disingenuous questions, and by implication to defend his effort to discredit the HRW survey.
His question regarding HRW’s retroactive survey, as described in Darren’s post, made no sense except as a feeble attempt to discredit the survey and its authors.
That you continue to defend that question, particularly after you’ve had a chance to see it in the context of his other questions and comments, makes it pretty clear that you’re having trouble rising above being disingenuous.
Here’s another example of your being less than honest, assuming you don’t have a problem regarding reading with comprehension: “I am more interested in reading about solutions than in being called names, frankly.”
Either you don’t read very well, or you’re still having trouble being honest, as nowhere in my last post did I call you any “names.” I exclusively addressed your behavior.
Now, if you identify with that behavior to the extent that you can’t imagine yourself improving on it,
and you therefore take my criticism of your behavior as an attack on your person, then you very definitely have a personal problem, which I hope for your sake you’ll be able to overcome as soon as possible.
Outlaw tobacco. We outlaw meth. Here are some stats:
Based on smoking habits in the population and the proportion of cancer cases attributable to smoking, the researchers estimated that 125,799 lung, bronchus and trachea cancer deaths, representing 80 percent of the total, were linked to smoking. So were 50 percent of deaths from esophagus tumors and 45 percent of deaths from bladder malignancies.
The researchers also credit smoking with 17 percent of kidney cancer deaths, 20 percent of stomach cancer deaths, 22 percent of cervical cancer deaths and 24 percent of liver and bile duct cancer deaths in 2011.
One limitation of the study is that the survey and interview participants were generally more educated and less racially diverse than the U.S. population as a whole, the researchers acknowledge in JAMA Internal Medicine.
Ken – I thought Paul asked a good question, so I answered it. Your personal attack on me was unhinged, considering I have stated multiple times that children should be protected from hazards like pesticide and nicotine poisoning. My position is pretty clear. I do not need to undergo some sort of test to prove myself to anyone.
There is no requirement on this blog to state whether I agree or disagree with every single statement made.
Among my family and friends I often get on my organic soapbox. Some of them eat organic, and some do not. Some joke that milk tastes better with all the hormones, and do not believe that any pesticide on produce is harmful. So when I hear anyone’s initial reaction of skepticism to such a study, I would borrow a phrase from one of my Jewish friends, “Manish de na” (sp) – “Why is today different from any other day?” If I got hysterical every time someone had that position, I would need a fainting couch every time I interacted with anyone who eats conventional food.
I find it more constructive to either explain my position in an effort to change someone’s mind (and I did state my position several times on this matter), or just recognize that not everyone will agree with me. Not everyone needs to agree in order to effect this type of change, however. Besides, perhaps Paul would be more open to the possibility of the dangers of pesticide and dermal nicotine exposure if dissenting opinions were discussed more calmly. Perhaps he has changed his mind, perhaps not. With my strong opinions, if I required my friends to agree with me on all things, I would be a lonely person.
Aside from that, he did have a good point wondering why the children did not receive medial care. I offered one explanation, but we would have to look at the actual study to find out the parameters. He ALSO made a good point that organic tobacco still needs to be picked, and poses the exact same risk of dermal nicotine absorption. In my opinion we should prevent children from working in tobacco fields for the reasons discussed above, but we’re still in a pickle about how to protect adults. I do not know the latest advances in agricultural protective clothing; I know that some are breathable, but breathable in high humidity would be difficult. Nor do I know if mechanical harvest is an option yet.
I am more interested in reading about solutions than in being called names, frankly.
please
Karen S
1, June 15, 2015 at 12:05 pm
“So I assume that the researchers gave the kids a survey questionnaire asking if they had ever experienced these symptoms and when in relation to the harvest, past tense.”
“Otherwise, Schulty is entirely correct – the researchers would have been liable with a callous disregard if they had recognized current symptoms of acute nicotine poisoning, a dangerous condition, and just did nothing about it.”
This is one of the most disingenuous attempts at a defense of callous indifference that I’ve ever witnessed.
You “assume” that “the researchers gave the kids a survey questionnaire asking if they had ever experienced these symptoms and when in relation to the harvest, past tense.” [emphasis added]
Yet, you say that IF the study had not been retrospective, then “Schulty” is [not would have been] entirely correct.” [emphasis added]
With this utterly specious and dishonest attempt at defending Schulte’s callous comments, you’ve not only, of course, failed miserably to justify his feeble-minded attempt to discredit the study and dismiss the effects of tobacco farming on children, but you’ve denigrated your own credibility in the process.
Good job. 🙂
From Darren’s post:
“Human Rights Watch (HRW) in 2013 published an extensive study into the child labor practices of the tobacco growers industry in four states: North Carolina; Kentucky; Tennessee; and Virginia. According to this study one hundred and forty one children participating in the tobacco harvests of 2012 and 2013 were interviewed by HRW. Ages of these children ranged from seventeen to as young as seven.”
From Schulte’s posts:
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 13, 2015 at 10:37 am
I think the only thing about this article that bothered my was the possible and I say possible cheating of the kids on their pay. Even that is iffy. The same problems the kids have with tobacco dust they have with wheat dust or corn dust, etc. I have worked a wheat harvest and I know how dirty and how hot you can get. How dusty it gets. How you are covered with wheat hulks and you spend all day itching. Farming is not for special snowflakes. [emphasis added]
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 13, 2015 at 2:32 pm
Nick – all farmers exploit children (usually their own). [emphasis added]
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 13, 2015 at 2:44 pm
According to this study, “nearly three quarters of those interviewed reported sudden onsets of serious illnesses—including nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, headaches, dizziness, skin rashes, difficulty breathing, irritations to their eyes and mouths—while working in the fields of tobacco plants and barns with dried tobacco leaves and tobacco dust. Many of these symptoms are consistent with acute nicotine poisoning.”
Now why the devil didn’t these people take these kids to a doctor if they were that concerned about them?
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 13, 2015 at 3:28 pm
Elaine – these lily-white liberals run this study but cannot spend the money to take the kids to the doctor? They cry crocodile tears about the kids but cannot spend a dime on their health care? [emphasis added]
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 13, 2015 at 3:30 pm
Statistically speaking it is a not even a blip on the radar.
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 13, 2015 at 3:36 pm
PC is DEAD!!!!
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 13, 2015 at 3:46 pm
Elaine – list the none (sic) lily white liberals who were part of the study group.
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 13, 2015 at 3:57 pm
Karen – organic tobacco still has to be picked. 🙂
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 14, 2015 at 11:23 pm
Ken Rogers – I think when you see someone sick you take them to the hospital. However, it is easier to pretend the kids are sick then [sic] to actually find out if they are sick. [emphasis added]
Ken Rogers – unless you are a doctor, pleas to not diagnosis.
Prairie – Paul is probably referring to my grain and milk soapbox when I was having a one-sided debate with Isaac.
Paul – that is exactly why the government shouldn’t mandate what health foods we should eat through sin taxes or any other kind of social engineering. The definition of “health food” changes too often, anyway!
Paul C. Schulte,
Not sure what you’re referring to in my comment or what you’re getting at.
I was talking about the logic behind the government proposing a federal soda tax since the government is now footing a third of the population’s medical bills.
Oh and “everyone” should be replaced with “some” people.
Oh, and I forgot to add to my previous post that symptoms of CURRENT nicotine poisoning would require a trip to the hospital for blood tests to confirm serum concentration and other data for the study.
So I think this study was based on a questionnaire. Dermal absorption certainly does happen, so I think this is a valid, serious concern for workers of all ages, but especially children.
I would like to see a follow up study on the percentage of children who went on to become smokers. Did repeated dermal exposure make them addicted? Or did it not happen often enough to add that serious side effect?
Prairie Rose – you make an excellent point. It gets the government’s toe in the door.
And anyone who’s ever worked in government can tell you how different areas have come under the government’s pursue through a series of bureaucratic decisions. For instance, the ditch you’ve graded at the end of your field to take advantage of topography becomes listed as a waterway because it drains rainwater from your land, and falls under the EPA’s jurisdiction, requiring permits.
Everyone is ridiculing Paul’s question why the researchers did not seek medical attention for the kids, but he asked a good question.
If the kids were currently exhibiting symptoms, they WOULD have to take them to seek emergency medical care. A researcher would not be allowed to ignore serious, possibly fatal symptoms of drug poisoning in a child and send him on his way because of the liability. If it was an FDA clinical trial, there would be other rules, but clearly this was a study on occupational hazards.
So I assume that the researchers gave the kids a survey questionnaire asking if they had ever experienced these symptoms and when in relation to the harvest, past tense.
Otherwise, Schulty is entirely correct – the researchers would have been liable with a callous disregard if they had recognized current symptoms of acute nicotine poisoning, a dangerous condition, and just did nothing about it. Think about it. If a child suffered harm, or died, and a researcher identified it as poisoning and neither informed the parents nor sought medical attention for the child, there would be hell to pay.
“The health conscious want to tax the unhealthy to force them to change their own decisions.”
Taxing what foods people put into their mouths is a logical outcome of the government paying for people’s healthcare. What people put into their mouths, in particular foods laden with sugar and high fructose corn syrup, can seriously negatively affect health, causing very expensive health problems that the government has to pay for (diabetes, heart disease, etc.).
If the government pays for people’s healthcare, then it is in the government’s best interest to reduce those costs if possible, hence the taxes.
Please note: I am only pointing out the logic. I am very health conscious, but I am not expressing approval of taxation or the ACA. People should get to decide what they put in their mouths and be responsible for the consequences; unfortunately, as a nation we have handed over to the government, by and large, the responsibility for paying for the consequences. One-third of the population was covered by government-funded health insurance in 2013. (https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/demo/p60-250.pdf)
Prairie Rose – the problem is the health conscious often do not know what they are talking about. Note the conflicting studies overs the last several years.
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 14, 2015 at 11:23 pm
“Ken Rogers – I think when you see someone sick you take them to the hospital. However, it is easier to pretend the kids are sick then (sic) to actually find out if they are sick.”
With this comment, you’ve once again demonstrated that you’re nobody’s fool, Herr Schulte.
The “Oh, I’ve got a tummy ache and can’t work today” malingerers who aren’t retching their guts out, have to be separated from those children with quantifiable nicotine blood levels whose productivity might be compromised by their staggering about the farm and puking on the tobacco plants.
And how else to effect such triage except by taking both groups to the hospital whenever their “symptoms” manifest?
Inasmuch as there are only 10,000+ tobacco farms in the US, some of which probably don’t even employ children, how difficult would it be for Darren and Human Rights Watch to personally medically separate the tobacco-leaf sick from the malingering chaff?
The fact that they are not doing so is additional evidence (as if any were needed) that they are trying to pile up the nicotine-poisoned bodies, in order to generate public sympathy for their real objective, the abolition of “demon tobacco.”
Hats off to you and Nick Spinelli for exposing yet another example of duplicitous, pathological altruism.
To my good buddy, Kenny Rogers, “Well, you got to know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em.”
@ Paul C. Schulte
1, June 13, 2015 at 2:44 pm
“According to this study, ‘nearly three quarters of those interviewed reported sudden onsets of serious illnesses—including nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, headaches, dizziness, skin rashes, difficulty breathing, irritations to their eyes and mouths—while working in the fields of tobacco plants and barns with dried tobacco leaves and tobacco dust. Many of these symptoms are consistent with acute nicotine poisoning.’ ”
“Now why the devil didn’t these people take these kids to a doctor if they were that concerned about them?”
I’ve given your question more thought, and in doing so, remembered the liberal agenda that Nick Spinelli had unmasked with a brilliant piece of deductive detective work:
@ Nick Spinelli
1, June 13, 2015 at 12:47 pm
“And Squeek, are you seeing the real agenda here? There are these reasons who (sic) the obvious remedy will not work. I have spent my entire professional career seeking the truth. If this was about children then ‘Children’ would have led off the title. We say what is most important to us, first. We do what is most important to us, first. And, if it were about children this would have included children working in the myriad other agricultural fields where pesticides and herbicides are used. This is about banning evil tobacco.”
There it was, staring all of us in the face all that time, but it took the highly-trained, truth-seeking Nick Spinelli to deduce Darren’s true agenda from the title of his essay, “The Tobacco Industry and Child Labor.”
In thinking about your own drilling-down-to-bedrock question, “Now why the devil didn’t these people take these kids to a doctor if they were that concerned about them?”, I also remembered Benjamin Netanyahu’s unmasking observation, “They want to pile up as many civilian dead as they can. They use telegenically dead Palestinians for their cause. They want the more dead, the better.”
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/21/netanyahus-telegenically-dead-comment-original/
And then it all came together for me regarding Darren’s real agenda, the banning of tobacco, as Nick Spinelli brilliantly pointed out, and why the authors of the study didn’t take those poisoned kids to a doctor: Human Rights Watch and Darren Smith want to pile up as many poisoned children as they can, for their cause, the banning of tobacco.
If this isn’t proof-positive of the diabolical depravity of the liberal agenda, what in God’s name would be?
@Isaac
Hmmm. Let’s see, YOU said,
I replied with a brief essay about why a parliamentary system in the U.S. might have some drawbacks. To which you snootily replied,
Huh??? You specifically opined about a parliamentary system in the U.S. I responded to that. Sooo, to YOUR “four foot-six” comment, I reply, “Fish.”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Note. There is an old joke which goes:
Q. How many surrealists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A. Fish.
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 13, 2015 at 10:52 pm
“Ken Rogers – I did not watch the stuff but did they say what steps they took to help the children with their medical problems?”
My guess is that these outside agitators and pathological altruists would use the excuse that there are 10,014 tobacco farms in the US, so it would be “difficult” for the study’s authors to personally and repeatedly take every tobacco-poisoned child to a doctor. You know how bleeding-heart libruls rationalize everything they don’t do.
http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0125.pdf
I don’t know, what do you and Nick think?
Ken Rogers – I think when you see someone sick you take them to the hospital. However, it is easier to pretend the kids are sick then to actually find out if they are sick.
DBQ – “What I choose to eat is no one’s concern and certainly not the government’s to try to force me to eat what they consider to be a good diet.” Amen, sister. Plus, your diet made me hungry!
Government has no business deciding what people eat. Nanny state laws like that absurd soda tax are against its mandate and common sense. I don’t know why people want so badly to be taken care of at this level, with no responsibility for themselves, that they would start down the slippery slope of sin taxes.
squeeky
The discussion with Aridog pertained to funding elections in Canada. You must be a student of Karen. So, four foot-six.