Workplace Carcinogens Research Paper
IDRL 308 – Assignment 2
Essay 2 – How well does the mainstream occupational health and safety address the issue of workplace carcinogens? What legal and scientific factors have assisted in recognizing work-related cancers? What factors have inhibited its recognition?
Workplace Carcinogens
In this course we have learned that workplaces can at times expose workers to potentially harmful conditions and hazards. This includes physical, biological, chemical and even psychosocial hazards. In this paper we will be focusing on chemical hazards, specifically carcinogens.
Carcinogens are agents that cause or promote cancer. Certain occupations and industries have higher exposure to carcinogens compared to what the average person is exposed to in …show more content…
their home or community, which can result in higher cancer risk. Workers in partnership with groups such as the Canadian Cancer Society have put pressure on the government to ensure that there is Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) legislation that protects their health. They are focused on eliminating workers exposure to carcinogens whenever possible, and where it is not possible to eliminate, to reduce exposure to the lowest possible level by using less hazardous substances.
Mainstream Faults
Threshold Limit Values (TLV 's) are widely accepted scientifically based limits that provide limits to protect virtually all workers from health impairment over a lifetime of exposure on the job. However the majority of the research on carcinogens and TLV’s are based on research and results from the male norm. This ignores possible alternate affects for women and individuals with pre-existing health issues and genetic diseases. TLV’s also often ignore that workers may have been exposes to carcinogens outside of the workplace (for example if the person smokes) and thus does not take into account non-work related exposure into the threshold limit value’s.
In a paper by Castleman and Ziem (1988), they highlight another issue with TLV’s, explaining that TLV committees use corporate and industry leaders as consultants. Davis (2007) claims that of the 600 chemical TLV’s that are in effect, 100 are based on the opinion of company experts. This is of great concern as corporations have a vested interest in company profits, and are less interested in workers health concerns.
Identifying Work Related Cancers
A review by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that 95% of known human lung carcinogens have been detected in workplace settings. However, there is much debate about how common workplace cancer is. Estimates of the proportion of all cancers caused by occupational factors range from a low of 5% to a high of 20% (Chernomas and Donner, 2004), but because there is no universal safe threshold for exposure to cancer causing agents, it is nearly impossible to identify a definite number of workplace cancer cases. Foster (2011) points out some of the problems with identifying work related cancers:
“The variety of confounding factors makes pinpointing the cause of any cancer difficult. Long latency periods, the interaction of various factors, the challenges in isolating the variables and the difficulties in linking correlation to causation combine to make the work of identifying specific carcinogens extremely difficult. For the past 60 years, the bulk of cancer research has focused on personal lifestyle and genetic factors as causes of cancer (Epstein, 1998). In part, this has been because such factors are more accessible for scientific study; they are more singular and readily isolated for analysis than environmental and/or workplace factors would be.”
He discusses several issues with identifying work related cancers including that exposure to carcinogens does not produce cancer in every individual, and often don’t appear for years after exposure. These inconsistent results make it hard to distinguish if the cancer was caused from workplace exposure, or from other factors like genetic reasons or personal lifestyle. The one thing many if not all experts agree on, is that the more someone is exposed to carcinogens, the greater the risk of them contracting cancer.
Opposing views
Employers, the government, and workers have differing views of the dangers of carcinogens and their role of eliminating workplace cancer, as they are all motivated by vastly different interests.
The Canadian government had little involvement or interest for workers health rights, until the mid 1970’s when a group of mineworkers, with support from their union, reported their severe occupational health problems.
As a result the provincial government ordered an inquiry which led to the Occupational Health & Safety act and a set of laws to protect workers. This event was critical to improving workers health and safety rights, as workers felt that up until this point the government had failed to look after their health concerns. Another critical milestone in the governments role of worker safety was the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) legislation that was passed in 1988. WHMIS legislation is based on three elements. Labels designed to alert the worker but the container contains a potentially hazardous product, material safety data sheets outlining the products potentially hazardous ingredients and procedures receive handling of the product, employee training. Through federal and provincial cooperation WHMIS has been established Canada wide and is based on the fundamental right of workers to know about potential hazards in the workplace. Under current provincial and federal health and safety legislation, individuals have the right to refuse work that exposes them to known and highly suspected carcinogens. The government is not only motivated by the ethics of protecting their people though. When government regulation enforces companies to replace …show more content…
dangerous substances with safer alternatives, workplace related cancer is reduced, which leads to significant savings to our health care system and thus a stronger economy.
Employers are often more focused on company profits than workers health and safety. When forced to use safer (and often more expensive) materials businesses will comply, albeit reluctantly. There are cases where companies are aware of studies that reveal health hazards of chemicals that they use, but do not go public with the information until forced by government law. Often when public concern is raised, companies sponsor their own research by hiring scientists who downplay health concerns in regards to working with dangerous substances. This is both selfish and unethical, but capitalist companies feel it is within their rights to maximize their profit even at the risk of workers health. Davis (2007) explains that companies use tactics such as legal delays for public inquiries of dangerous substances to elongate its use. Companies will claim that a workers illness is based on genetic defects not as a result of workplace exposure. Companies are deterred by the cost and time required for product and policy adjustments to improve worker safety.
Workers have a relatively simple view of the dangers of workplace carcinogens. They believe that exposure to these agents are dangerous and are in favour of eliminating exposure to carcinogens whenever possible. I believe what hinders workers the most, is the limited knowledge they have about the substances they are exposed to, especially in less developed countries and low educated jobs. If workers were better educated on what they are exposed and their legal rights, I believe they would have a more active role in improving workplace health and safety concerns. One group that provides support and education to workers is the Canadian Cancer Society (CCS). The CCS works towards the eradication of cancer and enhancement of the quality of life for people living with the condition. They state that employers must educate and inform workers about their exposure to carcinogens in the workplace and eliminate or reduce exposure to carcinogens by removing them or by choosing an alternative substance so that workers’ exposure to hazardous substances including carcinogens is minimized.
The Role Science Plays
Scientists play an important role in identifying and understanding workplace hazards and provide recommendations on how to control them. However, scientific research can be biased and like many things can be influenced by politics and economics. Scientific research is distorted when corporations sponsor their own research on dangerous substances by hiring scientists whose will provide results with downplayed health concerns. Foster (2011) states that “the information Occupational Health & Safety researchers obtain is often skewed in the type of questions they choose to ask, and the way research results are interpreted or understood is often shaped by assumptions made about causation and correlation”. Corporate and political involvement can conceal scientific findings and discourage regulatory controls, all at the cost of workers health.
conclusion
Making a definite link between workplace exposure to carcinogens and individual cancer cases is extremely hard as it can take several years from first exposure before cancer appears. In addition individual exposed to the same toxic substances often have greatly varied effects. Thus, understanding and eliminating workplace carcinogens is an extremely difficult matter to solve.
Occupational Health and Safety legislation and TLV’s have been implemented to reduce workers exposure to harmful substances, but the research that defines the legislation and safety limits is biased by a mix of objective scientific research, politics and economical interests.
Workplace carcinogens is too important of an issue to leave to governments, employers and scientists to enforce worker safety.
Workers themselves must have an active role to raise public awareness and insist on improvement to workplace conditions.
References
Canadian Cancer Society. Retrieved May 22, 2013 http://www.cancer.ca/en/?region=ab Castleman, B.; Ziem, G. 1988. Corporate Influence on Threshold Limit Values http://www.chemicalinjury.net/PDF2/3%20%20Corporate%20Influence%20On%20TLV%20Values.pdf Davis, D (2007). The secret history of the war on cancer (pp 363-398)
New York: BasicBooks
Foster, J (2011). Industrial Relations 308, Study Guide
Athabasca University
Unit 3 and 4 Notes
Kelloway, K., Francis, L. (2008). Management of Occupational Health and Safety. Nelson Education Ltd.
Lewchuk, W., de Wolff, A., King, A., Polanyi, M. (2006). The hidden costs of precarious employment: health and the employment relationship.
Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press
Zafar, Amina. Mar 22, 2012. Work-related carcinogens need more scrutiny
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2012/03/20/cancer-work-plastic.html
Essay 2 – How well does the mainstream occupational health and safety address the issue of workplace carcinogens? What legal and scientific factors have assisted in recognizing work-related cancers? What factors have inhibited its recognition?
Workplace Carcinogens
In this course we have learned that workplaces can at times expose workers to potentially harmful conditions and hazards. This includes physical, biological, chemical and even psychosocial hazards. In this paper we will be focusing on chemical hazards, specifically carcinogens.
Carcinogens are agents that cause or promote cancer. Certain occupations and industries have higher exposure to carcinogens compared to what the average person is exposed to in …show more content…
their home or community, which can result in higher cancer risk. Workers in partnership with groups such as the Canadian Cancer Society have put pressure on the government to ensure that there is Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) legislation that protects their health. They are focused on eliminating workers exposure to carcinogens whenever possible, and where it is not possible to eliminate, to reduce exposure to the lowest possible level by using less hazardous substances.
Mainstream Faults
Threshold Limit Values (TLV 's) are widely accepted scientifically based limits that provide limits to protect virtually all workers from health impairment over a lifetime of exposure on the job. However the majority of the research on carcinogens and TLV’s are based on research and results from the male norm. This ignores possible alternate affects for women and individuals with pre-existing health issues and genetic diseases. TLV’s also often ignore that workers may have been exposes to carcinogens outside of the workplace (for example if the person smokes) and thus does not take into account non-work related exposure into the threshold limit value’s.
In a paper by Castleman and Ziem (1988), they highlight another issue with TLV’s, explaining that TLV committees use corporate and industry leaders as consultants. Davis (2007) claims that of the 600 chemical TLV’s that are in effect, 100 are based on the opinion of company experts. This is of great concern as corporations have a vested interest in company profits, and are less interested in workers health concerns.
Identifying Work Related Cancers
A review by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that 95% of known human lung carcinogens have been detected in workplace settings. However, there is much debate about how common workplace cancer is. Estimates of the proportion of all cancers caused by occupational factors range from a low of 5% to a high of 20% (Chernomas and Donner, 2004), but because there is no universal safe threshold for exposure to cancer causing agents, it is nearly impossible to identify a definite number of workplace cancer cases. Foster (2011) points out some of the problems with identifying work related cancers:
“The variety of confounding factors makes pinpointing the cause of any cancer difficult. Long latency periods, the interaction of various factors, the challenges in isolating the variables and the difficulties in linking correlation to causation combine to make the work of identifying specific carcinogens extremely difficult. For the past 60 years, the bulk of cancer research has focused on personal lifestyle and genetic factors as causes of cancer (Epstein, 1998). In part, this has been because such factors are more accessible for scientific study; they are more singular and readily isolated for analysis than environmental and/or workplace factors would be.”
He discusses several issues with identifying work related cancers including that exposure to carcinogens does not produce cancer in every individual, and often don’t appear for years after exposure. These inconsistent results make it hard to distinguish if the cancer was caused from workplace exposure, or from other factors like genetic reasons or personal lifestyle. The one thing many if not all experts agree on, is that the more someone is exposed to carcinogens, the greater the risk of them contracting cancer.
Opposing views
Employers, the government, and workers have differing views of the dangers of carcinogens and their role of eliminating workplace cancer, as they are all motivated by vastly different interests.
The Canadian government had little involvement or interest for workers health rights, until the mid 1970’s when a group of mineworkers, with support from their union, reported their severe occupational health problems.
As a result the provincial government ordered an inquiry which led to the Occupational Health & Safety act and a set of laws to protect workers. This event was critical to improving workers health and safety rights, as workers felt that up until this point the government had failed to look after their health concerns. Another critical milestone in the governments role of worker safety was the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) legislation that was passed in 1988. WHMIS legislation is based on three elements. Labels designed to alert the worker but the container contains a potentially hazardous product, material safety data sheets outlining the products potentially hazardous ingredients and procedures receive handling of the product, employee training. Through federal and provincial cooperation WHMIS has been established Canada wide and is based on the fundamental right of workers to know about potential hazards in the workplace. Under current provincial and federal health and safety legislation, individuals have the right to refuse work that exposes them to known and highly suspected carcinogens. The government is not only motivated by the ethics of protecting their people though. When government regulation enforces companies to replace …show more content…
dangerous substances with safer alternatives, workplace related cancer is reduced, which leads to significant savings to our health care system and thus a stronger economy.
Employers are often more focused on company profits than workers health and safety. When forced to use safer (and often more expensive) materials businesses will comply, albeit reluctantly. There are cases where companies are aware of studies that reveal health hazards of chemicals that they use, but do not go public with the information until forced by government law. Often when public concern is raised, companies sponsor their own research by hiring scientists who downplay health concerns in regards to working with dangerous substances. This is both selfish and unethical, but capitalist companies feel it is within their rights to maximize their profit even at the risk of workers health. Davis (2007) explains that companies use tactics such as legal delays for public inquiries of dangerous substances to elongate its use. Companies will claim that a workers illness is based on genetic defects not as a result of workplace exposure. Companies are deterred by the cost and time required for product and policy adjustments to improve worker safety.
Workers have a relatively simple view of the dangers of workplace carcinogens. They believe that exposure to these agents are dangerous and are in favour of eliminating exposure to carcinogens whenever possible. I believe what hinders workers the most, is the limited knowledge they have about the substances they are exposed to, especially in less developed countries and low educated jobs. If workers were better educated on what they are exposed and their legal rights, I believe they would have a more active role in improving workplace health and safety concerns. One group that provides support and education to workers is the Canadian Cancer Society (CCS). The CCS works towards the eradication of cancer and enhancement of the quality of life for people living with the condition. They state that employers must educate and inform workers about their exposure to carcinogens in the workplace and eliminate or reduce exposure to carcinogens by removing them or by choosing an alternative substance so that workers’ exposure to hazardous substances including carcinogens is minimized.
The Role Science Plays
Scientists play an important role in identifying and understanding workplace hazards and provide recommendations on how to control them. However, scientific research can be biased and like many things can be influenced by politics and economics. Scientific research is distorted when corporations sponsor their own research on dangerous substances by hiring scientists whose will provide results with downplayed health concerns. Foster (2011) states that “the information Occupational Health & Safety researchers obtain is often skewed in the type of questions they choose to ask, and the way research results are interpreted or understood is often shaped by assumptions made about causation and correlation”. Corporate and political involvement can conceal scientific findings and discourage regulatory controls, all at the cost of workers health.
conclusion
Making a definite link between workplace exposure to carcinogens and individual cancer cases is extremely hard as it can take several years from first exposure before cancer appears. In addition individual exposed to the same toxic substances often have greatly varied effects. Thus, understanding and eliminating workplace carcinogens is an extremely difficult matter to solve.
Occupational Health and Safety legislation and TLV’s have been implemented to reduce workers exposure to harmful substances, but the research that defines the legislation and safety limits is biased by a mix of objective scientific research, politics and economical interests.
Workplace carcinogens is too important of an issue to leave to governments, employers and scientists to enforce worker safety.
Workers themselves must have an active role to raise public awareness and insist on improvement to workplace conditions.
References
Canadian Cancer Society. Retrieved May 22, 2013 http://www.cancer.ca/en/?region=ab Castleman, B.; Ziem, G. 1988. Corporate Influence on Threshold Limit Values http://www.chemicalinjury.net/PDF2/3%20%20Corporate%20Influence%20On%20TLV%20Values.pdf Davis, D (2007). The secret history of the war on cancer (pp 363-398)
New York: BasicBooks
Foster, J (2011). Industrial Relations 308, Study Guide
Athabasca University
Unit 3 and 4 Notes
Kelloway, K., Francis, L. (2008). Management of Occupational Health and Safety. Nelson Education Ltd.
Lewchuk, W., de Wolff, A., King, A., Polanyi, M. (2006). The hidden costs of precarious employment: health and the employment relationship.
Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press
Zafar, Amina. Mar 22, 2012. Work-related carcinogens need more scrutiny
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2012/03/20/cancer-work-plastic.html