Objective To use the example of COVID-19 vaccine prioritization for incarcerated workers to call attention to the need to prioritize incarcerated workers’ health. Methods From November to December 2020, we searched publicly available information (e.g. Department Of Corrections websites and press releases) for 53 US prison systems, including all states, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and Puerto Rico. Coders reviewed if states had prison labor policies, if states had COVID-19 specific prison labor policies, the location of work, industries both pre- and during the COVID-19 pandemic, the scope of work, and hourly wage. Findings were compared to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s occupational vaccine prioritization recommendations. Results Every facility has incarcerated individuals working in some capacity with some resuming prison labor operations to pre-pandemic levels. All but one prison system has off-site work locations for their incarcerated population and many incarcerated workers have resumed their off-site work release assignments. Additionally, every state has incarcerated workers whose job assignments are considered frontline essential workers (e.g. firefighters). In at least five states, incarcerated workers are participating in frontline health roles that put them at higher risk of acquiring COVID-19. Yet, no state followed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended vaccination plan for its incarcerated population given their incarcerated workers’ essential worker status. Conclusion The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that incarcerated people be prioritized for vaccination primarily due to the risk present in congregate style prison and jail facilities. Furthermore, our review found that many incarcerated people perform labor that should be considered “essential”, which provides another reason why they should have been among the first in line for COVID-19 vaccine allocation. These findings also highlight the need for incarcerated workers’ health to be prioritized beyond COVID-19.

No abstract

Objectives: Lead investigators in North Carolina found evidence that contaminated spices may contribute to children’s elevated blood lead levels. We compared lead levels in samples of spices and other consumable products by country of purchase to inform consumer safety interventions and regulations. Methods: From February 1, 2011, through October 22, 2020, North Carolina lead investigators sampled spices and other consumable products from 103 homes of children with confirmed elevated blood lead levels. In 2017, the study team purchased 50 products frequently sampled during lead investigations, as a “market basket” sample, from local stores in or near Raleigh, North Carolina. The State Laboratory of Public Health analyzed 423 product samples using mass spectrometry. We extracted environmental sample results from lead investigations from the North Carolina Electronic Lead Surveillance System. Results: The median market basket lead result was 0.07 mg/kg (SD = 0.17); the maximum lead result was 0.88 mg/kg. The median home lead investigation sample result was 0.26 mg/kg (SD = 489.44); the maximum lead result was 6504.00 mg/kg in turmeric purchased in India. Among all samples, products purchased in India had more than triple the median lead levels (0.71 mg/kg) of those purchased in the United States (0.19 mg/kg). Conclusions: Purchasing spices in the United States is an action that consumers can take that may reduce their lead poisoning risk. Regulatory agencies should consider a lead limit of <1 mg/kg as attainable for spices sold in US stores and for ingredients of any foods that may be consumed by children.

No abstract