One-in-five lung cancers in females and almost 1-in-10 in men occur in people who have never smoked, a new study has concluded. Researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine and the Northern California Cancer Center examined US and Swedish data and concluded that never-smokers get lung cancer more often than thought. They note: “Lung cancer in never smokers is an important public health issue, and further exploration of its incidence patterns, etiology, and biology is needed.” Workplace exposures would be a co-factor in the lung cancers experienced by the smoking group too – smoking does not make you immune to occupational lung carcinogens. The evidence suggests it does in fact greatly increase the likelihood of getting a work-related cancer.
The asbestos factories have shut, but the asbestos hasn’t gone away. Hazards magazine features a new HSE/TUC guide that advises safety reps how to keep workplaces safe from asbestos – including clearing out when there is a serious risk.
An International Labour Organisation (ILO) estimate, cited in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine in January 2007, concluded the attributable fraction of occupational cancers in industrialised countries is 13.8 per cent for men and 2.2 per cent for women. ILO’s cautious estimate puts the global human toll at over 600,000 deaths a year – one death every 52 seconds. This would translate to around 10 per cent of all cancer deaths every year. Key paper calculating the global burden of occupational disease in the 2000s using a new work-related cancer concept. Few countries in the world had work-related disease registers so they used Finnish work-related disease attributable fractions to estimate about 2 million global work-related deaths annually. In 2000 occupational cancer was the leading cause of work-related death. The authors call for improved information and prevention. The paper’s cancer incidence estimates are likely to be significant under-estimates, relying in part on papers by Rushton for ILO and McCormack of IARC, both of whom have faced criticism for missing many cancers.
Occupational cancer studies and statutory agencies routinely make unfounded assumptions about these cancers inevitably having latency periods of many years. In fact, for many occupational cancers, latency periods between exposure and onset of disease can be much shorter. These include cancers related to chromium, arsenic, aromatic amine, benzene, asbestos, nickel and wood dust exposures. This German paper of the few comprehensive guides to the latency periods and exposure times applying to a range of occupational carcinogens and the cancers they produce. When compared with several recognized cancers elsewhere in Europe and North America, the German criteria provide compensation with shorter latency periods and lower exposure years.
W Popp, T Bruening, and K Strait. 2007. Berufliche Krebserkrankungen-Situation in Deutschland. In Handbuch der Arbeitsmedizin. Edited by Johannes Konietzko and Heinrich Dupuis, IV-7 .9.1: 1-IV -7 .9.1 :13. Landsberg, Germany: Ecomed Medizln.
This 2007 report from Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF) focuses mainly on the impact of the wider environment, including consumer products and wider pollution. However, it recognises that occupation can be a significant contributor to breast cancer incidence. It notes: “While we try and gain some control over some of the conventionally accepted risk factors by eating well, exercising, and not smoking or drinking, we are continually exposed to the risk factors we are never told about, the missing environmental and occupational ones which could account for some 50-70% of breast cancer cases. So why is prevention off the agenda and the missing factors ignored?” The report adds: “Of the 100,000 chemicals used in workplaces worldwide, barely 1 in 100 has been thoroughly tested for health risks. It is encouraging that as more women enter the workforce, they also have the opportunity to join their trade union and become actively involved in determining health and safety legislation which protects a woman at all stages of her working life. But there needs to be better enforcement of the legislation which does exist and a rethink about how to make research more women-focused to prevent occupational cancer.”
The International Agency for Research and Cancer confirms formaldehyde is a human carcinogen in the top cancer risk category, Group 1. In 2007, Hazards magazine criticised the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for its continuing “inaction” on this and other known cancer risks.
When assessing the impact of work cancers on the working population, it is also important to note that almost all the risk is concentrated in a relatively small section of the workforce. Work-related cancer is far more common in blue-collar workers – there is an undeniable correlation between employment in lower status jobs and an increased risk. The World Health Organisation notes: “Occupational cancers concentrate among specific groups of the working population. For these people the risk of developing a particular form of cancer may be much higher than for the general population.”
A world-famous British scientist failed to disclose that he held a paid consultancy with a chemical company for more than 20 years while investigating cancer risks in the industry. Research by Hazards magazine found Sir Richard Doll, the celebrated epidemiologist, was receiving a consultancy fee of $1,500 a day in the mid-1980s from chemical multinational Monsanto.
Occupational cancers are being missed because of flaws in the reporting system, according to a new report. It says a major factor in the near invisibility of occupational cancer is that the related tumours in the great majority of cases only occur after the worker has retired – however, a pilot scheme by France’s health protection agency which started in 2005 is using post-occupational monitoring for employees and self-employed skilled workers.
A world-famous British scientist failed to disclose that he held a paid consultancy with a chemical company for more than 20 years while investigating cancer risks in the industry. Sir Richard Doll, the celebrated epidemiologist, was receiving a consultancy fee of $1,500 a day in the mid-1980s from chemical multinational Monsanto. Doll continued to play down the occupational and environmental contribution to cancer causation throughout his career, with his low and now discredited estimate of this contribution in a paper co-authored in 1981 with Richard Peto dominating the literature for over two decades. Hazards magazine says the use of this estimate by health and safety regulators stymied preventive efforts.
A continually-updated, annotated bibliography of occupational cancer research produced by Hazards magazine, the Alliance for Cancer Prevention and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC).
