Secrets behind the mask
[ Clarification: An article in the August 9 issue of U.S. News, "Secrets Behind the Mask," examined the performance record of a disposable respirator mask manufactured by 3M Co. A subsequent review of the article by the editors of the magazine, requested by 3M, disclosed several significant shortcomings and inaccuracies.
U.S. News referred to a test performed by 3M to measure the fit of the 8710 mask, a key element in determining its effectiveness. The article stated that "the results shattered 3M's claim that one size fits all, as fully a third of the subjects failed to get a good fit," and that the test yielded erroneous results, "telling workers the mask was fitting properly, when in reality, it wasn't." Those conclusions were based on a faulty reading of significant tests of the mask's fit. The report of the test results in question concluded that "it is possible to get false rejection of good fit, but no false acceptance of poor fit was experienced." The magazine failed to characterize those results properly.
With regard to lawsuits filed by plaintiffs against 3M seeking damages as a result of alleged malperformance of the 8710 mask, the article failed to offer a fully balanced presentation of the issues raised by the cases. The article should have noted 3M's assertion that many claimants did not wear the 3M mask exclusively and used masks from other companies as well and, in some cases, worked in hazardous environments with no mask protection at all. As a result, the possibility that some plaintiffs were subjected to "unprotected exposure" to hazardous workplace atmospheres, and became vulnerable to contamination, should have been seriously considered. Upon review, U.S. News is unaware of any clear evidence of causal connection between any particular person's injuries and a failure of a 3M mask. In litigation, of the seven cases brought to trial by plaintiffs alleging deficiencies in the performance of the 8710 mask, juries found in favor of 3M in six; the seventh is on appeal by 3M. In light of these facts, the article's subhead--"How a promising device designed to protect workers left many fighting for their lives" --was insupportable and unfair.
U.S. News stated that 3M "failed to meet government standards" for the 8710 respirator mask. Upon review, we believe this statement was misleading without additional information and context. 3M did meet government standards in securing its initial approval of the 8710 mask, in 1972, and maintained its certification by the government the entire time the mask was on the market. The federal government changed the procedures used to test respirator masks in 1974. 3M's 8710 mask (and other dust respirators then on the market, according to 3M) was unable to pass the new test because of the procedural changes. Regulators were aware of this and affirmatively extended the government certification of 3M's product thereafter. While 3M's 8710 mask did not pass the government's revised performance test for some period, it was inappropriate to say, without further clarification, that the 8710 mask "failed to meet government standards."
advertisement
