On January 7, 2026, the landscape of workplace safety in the United States faced renewed scrutiny as two major developments put the spotlight on the critical importance of clear safety standards and rigorous enforcement. On one front, a coalition of leading construction industry associations, led by the Associated General Contractors (AGC) of America, issued a stern warning against the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) proposal to repeal codified construction illumination requirements. On another, newly revealed OSHA records from an investigation into Archer Daniels Midland’s (ADM) grain processing facility in Fremont, Nebraska, exposed significant gaps in safety awareness and discipline, following a dangerous grain dust explosion.
Both stories, while distinct, underscore a common theme: when workplace safety rules are relaxed or ignored, the consequences can be dire—not only for workers’ health but also for employers’ liability and the broader public trust in regulatory oversight.
According to a letter sent to OSHA’s assistant secretary of labor, David Keeling, the AGC and its coalition partners—including the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, National Asphalt Paving Association, and the National Roofing Contractors Association—argued that removing the base level of required lighting for construction jobsites would increase the risk of slips, trips, and falls. They warned that such a move could saddle contractors with higher insurance costs and expose them to negligence claims if workers were injured on poorly lit sites. The coalition’s stance is clear: “This proposal increases the risk that certain jobsites will be insufficiently lit, leading to a greater incidence of workplace accidents, including slips, trips and falls.”
The coalition’s concerns are not hypothetical. The 2025 Liberty Mutual Workplace Safety Index estimated that slips, trips, falls, and struck-by injuries cost American businesses nearly $25 billion annually. These hazards, according to the coalition, are the most common on construction sites and account for the highest number of fatalities—averaging 371 worker deaths per year over the past decade. “Slips, trips, and falls are by far the most common hazard on a worksite,” the coalition emphasized, noting that small businesses are especially vulnerable.
OSHA’s rationale for repealing the illumination requirements hinges on the rarity of citations for improper lighting in the construction sector. However, the coalition argued that this rarity is precisely because the existing standards are effective and well-understood. Without codified regulations, the industry would have to rely on the American National Standard A11.1-1965, R1970, Practice for Industrial Lighting—a standard that costs $120 to purchase, adding a new financial burden for employers, especially those new to the market. “While we know contractors will continue to rely upon consensus industry standards, the proposal creates uncertainty regarding which standards OSHA inspectors will use for enforcement under the general duty clause,” the associations wrote.
Perhaps most troubling for the coalition is the ambiguity that would result from rescinding the regulations. “The proposed rule says that sufficient illumination is obvious. We believe that, unfortunately, without guidance, the standard is ambiguous and leaves the door open for variability in the approval of jobsites based on subjectivity.” The letter warned that inspectors could enforce disparate ideas of what constitutes sufficient lighting, leading to inconsistent and potentially unfair outcomes. “An employer may think a workspace is sufficiently lit, but an employee with weaker eyesight might have trouble spotting certain hazards.”
The coalition further pointed out that there are currently no legal challenges related to insufficient lighting on worksites—likely because the existing OSHA regulations are clear, which helps prevent disputes. If the regulations are rescinded, they argue, it could invite negligence claims. “The proposed rule, due to the increased lack of clarity, may invite negligence claims if an employee is injured on the jobsite and sues OSHA and the employer for negligence.”
Meanwhile, in Nebraska, the consequences of unclear or poorly enforced safety standards were laid bare in the aftermath of the December 24, 2022, explosion at ADM’s Fremont grain processing plant. The explosion, which was caused by combustible grain dust igniting from a mechanical spark, damaged parts of the facility but, fortunately, resulted in no injuries. However, OSHA investigators found that grain dust had accumulated to about one inch in the room where the fire started—far exceeding the federal safety limit of an eighth of an inch.
Newly obtained OSHA interviews with ADM personnel revealed that top managers at the Fremont plant were unaware of federal safety standards related to grain dust, and few employees had ever been disciplined for unsafe behaviors. The records, acquired through a Freedom of Information Act request by Investigate Midwest, showed that employees had used compressed air to clean dust while machinery was running—a direct violation of safety requirements that significantly increases the risk of explosion. As one OSHA inspector pointedly remarked, “Are you blowing off equipment, with air, while it’s running?” The manager admitted, “When we’re not around, I would say, somebody grabs an air gun and blows off that equipment, that’s something out of my hand.”
The investigation also revealed that between 2018 and 2024, ADM facilities experienced at least eight dust explosions, resulting in one death and 15 severe injuries. The Fremont plant itself had multiple smoldering fires and unsafe dust accumulation practices between 2021 and 2023, far more than previously reported. Despite these incidents, disciplinary action for safety lapses was rare. When asked about enforcing safety practices, one plant supervisor simply replied, “I can’t remember.”
In response to the 2022 fire, ADM agreed to pay a fine of about $41,000 and hired a new maintenance contractor in early 2023 to improve safety conditions at the Fremont plant. Yet the OSHA records suggest that systemic issues remain, particularly regarding the awareness and enforcement of safety standards among senior management. During one interview, when asked about the effectiveness of the plant’s housekeeping program intended to keep the facility free of combustible dust, the top manager described it as “subjective.” Pressed further, he admitted, “I don’t honestly know how to answer that.”
ADM, a Fortune 500 company with hundreds of processing facilities in North America, did not respond to requests for comment regarding the OSHA findings or its safety protocols. According to Purdue University researchers, only two other companies had more than one dust explosion between 2018 and 2024, highlighting ADM’s troubling record in this area.
Both the construction industry’s pushback against OSHA’s proposed lighting rule changes and the revelations from the ADM investigation highlight a central truth: clear, enforceable safety standards are not bureaucratic red tape but essential safeguards for workers’ lives. Whether it’s the risk of a missed hazard in a dimly lit construction zone or the accumulation of combustible dust in a grain processing plant, the margin for error is razor thin. As these stories show, the costs of ambiguity—measured in injuries, fatalities, and financial penalties—are simply too high to ignore.
