Sensient Technologies - Controversy

Controversy

Sensient Flavors has recently gotten in the press for alleged employee health violations.

However, employees within the company and outside contractors dispute the claims. They stated that the article was false and misleading and that the employees do wear a protective breathing apparatus. In fact a letter was written by Rabbi Yisroel Y. Homnick, an outside contractor to Sensient Flavors, to the paper regarding this article, but his letter was not printed. The letter was posted inside Sensient for all of the employees to read. It read as follows:

− − "Ordinarily, I would be against the use of half-truths by newspaper reporters, but in the case of the "expose" of Sensient Flavors, I think half-truths would be a marked improvement. As an employee of an "outside contractor" that provides Kosher Supervision for Sensient Flavors' Indianapolis plant, I may be in a unique position to comment on last Sunday's article about plant safety, and yesterday's follow-up. I've been in that plant on an almost daily basis for the past 6 years, much of that time on the manufacturing side of the plant. I converse regularly with the workers, breathe the same air they do, watch the labeling, often popping in unexpectedly and at odd times. Part of my job is playing detective; catching things others miss, and staying aware of 'wind shifts'. Essentially, I'm an "outsider" with "insider" knowledge.

− − Suffice it to say that the plant environment you described in that article is worlds apart from the one I experience daily. And given a choice of believing you or my lyin' eyes, I believe my lyin' eyes. My eyes don't have to sell newspapers, they just need to collect facts.

− − Some of the article's misstatements are easily sniffed out by the discerning reader. Obviously, a plant can't keep out government inspectors without getting shuttered. Obviously, disgruntled ex-workers are poor sources of accurate information. Obviously, a whistleblower protected by the powerful Teamsters Union can't get fired for supposedly coming late once. Obviously, 13 minutes of exposure to a chemical that only one of 50 states has set standards for isn't earth-shattering.

− − My letter is to respond to the less obvious inaccuracies, diversions and manipulations of fact. First, the Big Picture: Sensient is arguably the most safety conscious company I've ever observed. Hot plates and microwaves have warning stickers, the workers are expected to stretch each morning to avoid injury, workers are strongly encouraged (even using cash prizes) to report safety issues, and they're often gathered for impromptu safety meetings to address such issues. As they eat lunch in the plant's break area, safety messages scroll by overhead, and a green light reflecting no time lost to accidents or safety issues shines through the lunchroom window. Much of this affects me directly. I'm expected to wear both shielded safety glasses AND a visor when in the plant. When they kosherize vats with boiling water, it's not enough that the tank is covered with a rubberized blanket so water doesn't spray, and that I must stand well behind a yellow chain - I must also pull down my visor. I was dressed down for once wearing my lab coat into the bathroom, and for once not using soap when I washed my hands. I can't square that almost hyper-vigilance to safety with the supposed flippant disregard for safety the article claims.

− − Now, lets move on to the details. The article talks about the agitator seal blowing on a massive vat of diacetyl. For at least 6 years I've covered the Sensient account, diacetyl has been dispensed from metal cans. Yet nothing in the reporting about this incident reflects that this is ancient history, and it was addressed by switching from bulk purchases to the more expensive individual containers. Parenthetically, when I arrived 6 years ago, the law required that diacetyl be dispensed under a ventilated hood OR while wearing a gas mask - Sensient required BOTH. Since then, they've made a number of other positive changes in their diacetyl dispensing, like putting in flexible hoods, dispensing during off-shifts, using improved gas masks, and having only one or two specially trained people being involved. Does that sound like a company that's sitting on its hands as workers suffer from "bronchitis, shortness of breath, headaches, coughing and wheezing"? (Nor have I seen anyone in the plant with those symptoms since the company disallowed cigarette smoking anywhere on its grounds a few years ago. Nor have I smelled the rotten egg smell of hydrogen sulfide, or had irritations of my eyes, nose, and throat typical of LOW concentrations, despite often spending extended time in the Reactions Area. Hmmm.) The article also talks about a repressive and vindictive environment in which workers are intimidated against reporting safety issues. Tell that to the people who have won cash prizes for reporting safety issues. While I imagine that management would deal harshly with someone who doesn't exhaust internal mechanisms for change before 'going to the papers', I have never seen evidence of that. Additionally, plant workers speak to me with a freeness that belies the supposedly oppressive atmosphere.

− − Most of us that don't walk around the whole day in a football helmet and a plastic bubble understand that safety is a balance. We understand that any job we take entails certain risks to our lives and limbs. But we prefer that to the 9 years decreased life expectancy of the poor, and the funk and hopelessness of unemployment. So, we push for reasonable improvements in safety, and we expect our employers to incrementally add them. Those of us who don't view politics as a team sport understand that there must be a balance between business and government. We don't want Wall Street people partying with those paid to regulate them, nor do we want 2,450-page laws with new regulations. Often, government regulation must check corporate malfeasance - but just as often, individuals and businesses must push back against governmental overreach. I can't get involved in the shoving match between IOSHA/NIOSH and Sensient (though some of the claims of the governmental bodies leave me scratching my head). I am for the safest work environment possible at a reasonable cost of money and time - as I believe both Sensient and IOSHA are. I'm willing to suspend judgment, and allow the claims and counterclaims be evaluated by a hopefully impartial court, and allow the negotiations between IOSHA and Sensient to chisel out a fair timetable for implementing sensible and reasonable safety improvements.

− − However, it looks from here like the Star article has upset that balance, unfairly massing public opinion behind IOSHA's position. Just as journalists need to make sure they don't become corporate shills, they also need to be wary of becoming government tools. The article has already prompted companies like Starbucks and Campbell's to worry about the tarnishing of their corporate image. It would be a terrible shame if the Star's irresponsibility will cause good Hoosier jobs to leave our state, or worse - to disappear altogether. You have a responsibility to set the record straight, before more harm is done to hard-working Indianans."