Strong intervention on reducing exposure limits relating to occupational carcinogens and increasing compliance in the workplace could prevent nearly 8500 cases of cancer over the next 50 years, according to an HSE expert.
Presenting the findings of new research published in the British Journal of Cancer to the HSE board last week, Dr Lesley Rushton said even modest intervention by the HSE, involving a light reduction in exposure limits, could prevent more than 2000 cancers by 2060.
Pointing out that the research is not new evidence but about established and probable risks, Dr Rushton said the percentage of cancers attributable to occupational carcinogens is 5.3 per cent, which translates to approximately 8000 fatalities a year and around 13,500 new cases a year.
While work exposure is not as big a causative factor as smoking and diet, the study reports that the total number of cancer cases attributable to occupational exposure is estimated as 11,494 (7832 in men and 3662 in women), representing 3.7 per cent of all cancers (excluding non-melanoma skin cancers). Significantly, more men develop cancer from work exposure than alcohol consumption.
The main occupational causes of lung cancer are asbestos, as well as silica, diesel-engine exhausts and mineral oils, while shift work is cited as a major occupational cause of breast cancer among women. Dr Rushton added that there are 16 carcinogens associated with construction, and 14 agents account for 85.7 per cent of current cancers attributed to the workplace.
Following the presentation, HSE board member Hugh Robertson said the research confirmed the need to take action, adding: “It’s about changing behaviour – ensuring that all those ‘under the arches’ workplaces improve compliance.”
HSE chair Judith Hackitt said further research is needed to help the regulator determine what it needs to do to shape its intervention strategy for the next three to five years.
Following the publication of the study, there were calls for a greater focus on occupational exposure to carcinogens from several stakeholders. Welcoming the research, the British Occupational Hygiene Society said: “All of these (work-related) cancers could have been prevented through better recognition of the risks within occupations, and BOHS believes that with appropriate focused efforts almost all occupational cancers could ultimately be prevented.
“This goal would take time to achieve because there is a very long lag between workers first being exposed to carcinogens and any disease being diagnosed, but if we do not act now then the present death toll will continue.”
The Scottish Hazards Campaign asked: “If the percentage of causes attributable to work is greater than that percentage attributable to alcohol [in men], then why are there no concrete measures to address work-related causes of cancer?”
The study from the British Journal of Cancer can be found at: http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/groups/cr_common/@nre/@new/@prehttps://www.shponline.co.uk/documents/generalcontent/cr_080626.pdf
Is Dr Rushton not aware that COSHH requires the “ALARP” principle to be applied to carcinogens, regardless on any WEL?