Researchers from the World Health Organisation (WHO) has calculated the death toll due to the use of chemical substances. In 2004, chemical substances caused 4.9 million deaths (or 8 per cent of total mortality); when related ill-health is factored in, the number of years of life lost reached 86 million (5 per cent of the total).

Annette Prüss-Ustün, Carolyn Vickers, Pascal Haefliger and Roberto Bertollini. Knowns and unknowns on burden of disease due to chemicals: a systematic review, Environmental Health, volume 10, number 9, 2011, doi:10.1186/1476-069X-10-9. Risks 499.

Reemoving carcinogens and reducing exposures to carcinogens is preferable and possible, a paper in the New England Journalof Medicine has concluded. It notes that of the 80,000 chemicals in products on the US market – many of which are imported – only 200 have been adequately tested for carcinogenicity. Since 1971, the International Agency for Research on Cancer has evaluated the cancer-causing potential of only around 900 agents and processes and identified 165 as carcinogenic or probably carcinogenic to humans with 249 as possibly carcinogenic although WHO and IARC estimates indicate the global fraction of cancers due to toxic environmental exposures could be between 7 per cent to 19 per cent. A prevention approach linked to stronger environmental laws and regulation is highlighted.

David Christiani. Combating the environmental causes of cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 364: pages 2266-2268, 3 March 2011.

A report from the European environmental advocacy group HEAL calls for the “primary prevention” of cancers, including occupational cancers. It notes: “Primary prevention is about stopping cancer before it starts. Primary ‘environment’ and ‘occupational” prevention could be defined as reducing if not eliminating involuntary exposure to harmful chemicals by removing carcinogens and other chemicals linked to cancer, such as endocrine disruptors, as well as physical agents, from the environment and the workplace. It is separate from early detection, such as breast cancer screening, which is often included in the term “prevention”. Because primary ‘environmental and occupational’ prevention involves eliminating people’s exposure to harmful industrially-manufactured chemicals and physical agents, it is predominantly a matter of government policy and business responsibility. Nevertheless, educating individuals about harmful environmental and occupational exposures is very important. It can help people make better informed choices about use of daily consumer products that can contribute to cancer risks, and about work exposures. Building citizens’ awareness also contributes to generating support for changes in governmental policy and business practices.”

Reducing cancer through environmental policy change, Health and Environment Alliance position paper (HEAL), March 2011.

Significantly higher rates of lung cancer deaths – sometimes double what would be expected – occurred in US women who worked in more than 40 occupations between 1984 and 1998. The large scale occupational health surveillance study published in the February 2011 edition of the American Journal of Industrial Medicine is the broadest analysis of occupation, industry and lung cancer among US women to date.

Cynthia F Robinson and others. Occupational lung cancer in US women, 1984-1998, American Journal of Industrial Medicine, volume 54, issue 2, pages 102–117, February 2011 [abstract]. Environmental Health News.

A Las Vegas firefighter has been told by the Nevada Supreme Court she is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits under the presumption that she developed breast cancer through exposure to carcinogens at work.

City of Las Vegas v Robin Lawson, Nevada Supreme Court [pdf]. Courthouse News Service. Risks 489.

Regulations and incentives are needed to encourage a shift away from toxic chemicals, a group of Swedish business leaders, academics and environmental organisations have said. The call, in a co-signed article in Dagens Industri, the country’s largest financial newspaper, says it is a misconception that a lack of technically sound alternatives are the barrier to the transition towards a toxic free world.

ChemSec news report. Risks 486.

The paper concludes that occupational cancer reduction programmes can be highly cost-effective and quickly recover their costs. The authors found that 761 people are estimated to have new occupational cancers each year and 2,700 people already lived with the diseases. Direct medical costs totalled 15,682,000 Canadian dollars each year. Indirect costs totalled 64.1 million Canadian dollars a year. Prevention and control of carcinogen exposure are mooted.

Orenstein MR, Dall T, Curley P, Chen J, Tamburrini AL, Petersen J. (2010) The economic burden of occupational cancers in Alberta. Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Canada.

The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) has refused to extend the list of prescribed industrial diseases linked to occupational lead exposure. IIAC’s review of the evidence followed press coverage of a highly critical November 2009 Hazards magazine report. Hazards noted: “Thousands of UK workers are being exposed to levels of lead that can cause serious chronic health problems including cancer, major organ and brain damage. Using never before published data, Hazards reveals that the UK’s ‘safe’ lead exposure standard is placing these workers at risk of kidney and heart disease, brain damage, cancer and other serious disorders.” In its November 2010 report, IIAC noted: “Concerns were expressed in the media in 2009 that a number of conditions, thought to be associated with occupational exposure to lead, were not covered in the list of prescribed diseases for which people can claim Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit.

Having reviewed the evidence on lead exposed workers and fertility, only a slight effect on male fertility was shown, and little evidence was found relating to the effect on female workers. Despite substantial evidence of a potential association between lead exposed workers and the overall risk of developing cancer, evidence relating to specific cancer sites was small. The council was unable to make recommendations for changes to the list of prescribed diseases for which people can claim Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit.” Lead was last reviewed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2006. It concluded: “Inorganic lead compounds are probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A).” Lead has been linked to brain, central nervous system, kidney and other cancers.

Exposure to lead: effects on fertility and cancer, IIAC position paper 28, 23 November 2010. Also see: Dangerous lead, Hazards special report, November 2009.

Common workplace chemicals have been linked to an increased risk of male breast cancer. The research, published in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine, found male breast cancer incidence was particularly increased in motor vehicle mechanics, who were twice as likely to develop the disease.

Sara Villeneuve, Diane Cyr, Elsebeth Lynge and others. Occupation and occupational exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals in male breast cancer: a case–control study in Europe, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, volume 67, pages 837-844, 2010 [abstract]. Green jobs, safe jobs blog.

The US steelworkers’ union USW wants routine occupational lung cancer screening for all workers in high risk jobs. USW international president Leo W Gerard said: “Millions of workers have been exposed to asbestos, silica, chromium, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, nickel and combustion products – and all of these exposures are firmly established as causes of human lung cancer.”

Risks 482.