Banning Engineered Stone: A Landmark Australian Public Health Law Reform.

Union activism, medical lobbying and occupational health and safety prosecutions led to a major public health initiative in Australia - the banning from 1 July 2024 of work with engineered/artificial stone, including manufacturing, supplying, processing and installing it. This editorial contextualises within the history of regulation of workers' exposure to risks of contracting silicosis the growing international awareness of the dangers posed by working with engineered stone, particularly in relation to making and installing kitchen and bathroom benchtops made from engineered stone. It argues that the Australian initiative is an important public health decision that has a sound justification, is likely to save many lives and should be emulated internationally.

Fetal Protection Policies and Corporate Liability of the US Vinyl Chloride Industry, 1974-1991.

In the late 20th century, fetal protection policies barred women from hundreds of thousands of industrial jobs on the pretext that if women became pregnant, their fetuses might be harmed by workplace exposure to toxic chemicals. Beginning in the 1970s, these policies set off a decades-long contest between the chemical industry, government agencies, and the judicial system over how to balance the uncertain reproductive health risks against sex discrimination. This article revives the subject of reproductive health and workplace protections through a historical case study of fetal protection policies at Firestone Plastics, a leader in the postwar vinyl chloride industry. I use formerly secret industry documents to argue that Firestone used scientific uncertainty and gender essentialism to skirt new regulatory pressures and minimize corporate liability. Ultimately, fetal protection policies stymied innovative regulatory efforts to protect all workers-not just women-from reproductive hazards in the workplace. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(2):271-276. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306539).

Approaches for setting occupational exposure limits in the pharmaceutical industry.

The use of pharmaceutical drugs has provided a cure for many diseases. However, unintended exposure to drugs in the manufacturing workplace can cause significant health hazards to workers. It is important to protect the workforce from these deleterious effects by limiting exposure to an acceptable level, the occupational exposure limit (OEL). OEL is defined as airborne concentrations (expressed as a time-weighted average for a conventional 8-h workday and a 40-h work week) of a substance to which nearly all workers may be repeatedly exposed (for a working lifetime) without adverse effects. Determination of OELs has become very challenging over time, requiring an overall assessment of the preclinical and clinical data of the drug being manufactured. Previously, to derive OEL values, toxicologists used animal no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) data, which have been replaced with the overall assessment of animal and human data, placing a higher emphasis on human health-based data. A major advantage of working with human pharmaceuticals is that sufficient clinical data are available for them in most cases. The present manuscript reviews the latest knowledge regarding the derivation of occupational exposure limits as health-based exposure limits (HBELs) for pharmaceuticals. We have provided examples of OEL calculations for various drugs including levofloxacin (CAS No. 100986-85-4), dienogest (CAS no. 65928-58-7), and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA, CAS no. 50-78-2) using human data. This report will benefit professionals in the OEL domain in understanding this highly important, growing, and challenging field.

Employer Liability for "Take-Home" COVID-19.

Workplace exposure to SARS-CoV-2 has sickened workers and, subsequently, their family members. Family members might be able to recover from the employer in a negligence action using "take-home" liability theory.

Programas de eliminación del Amianto. Lecciones desde Polonia / Programs for Asbestos Abatement. Lessons from Poland

La comercialización del amianto en Europa de la segunda mitad del siglo XX supuso un consumo de millones de toneladas. La exposición laboral se ha controlado a partir de la Directiva de 2009 y, en la actualidad, mediante vigilancia epidemiológica, se registran las patologías, mesoteliomas fundamentalmente, por exposiciones pasadas. Después de prohibida su utilización, aún permanecen cantidades ingentes en edificios, infraestructuras y vehículos, entre otros. El camino hacia su eliminación se inició con una Resolución del Parlamento Europeo, de 2013 y el Dictamen del Comité Económico y Social Europeo (2015/C 251/03). Con el objetivo de conocer las dificultades de estos planes se ha revisado el de Polonia, único país que hasta la fecha, ha implementado un plan de acción con un gran respaldo financiero y las actuaciones llevadas a cabo en relación con la exposición a amianto en España y, Navarra en concreto por contar con un registro exhaustivo de trabajadores expuestos. El enorme esfuerzo económico que precisan estos planes y los riesgos medioambientales que suponen, merecen una precisa planificación, que exige conocer el no alcance hasta la fecha actual de los objetivos planteados en Polonia, país referente

The commercialization of asbestos in Europe in the second half of the 20th century translated into consumption of millions of tons of this material. Occupational exposure to asbestos is controlled under the 2009 European Union Directive. Currently, through epidemiological surveillance and pathology registries (mainly mesotheliomas), it is possible to record past exposures. Despite prohibiting its use, large amounts of asbestos remain in buildings, infrastructures and vehicles, among others. The road to elimination of existing asbestos began with a 2013 European Parliament Resolution and the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2015 / C 251/03). To better understand barriers to implementing these plans, we reviewed the experience in Poland the only country that to date has implemented an action plan with great financial support, together with actions carried out in Spain generally, and Navarre specifically, given the latter's exhaustive registry of exposed workers. The enormous economic effort required to implement these plans, along with the environmental risks associated with asbestos abatement, require detailed planning, which should consider understanding why the objectives set by Poland, a benchmark country, have not been achieved to date

Using Evidence Integration Techniques in the Development of Health-Based Occupational Exposure Levels.

Development of toxicology-based criteria such as occupational exposure levels (OELs) are rarely straightforward. This process requires a rigorous review of the literature, searching for patterns in toxicity, biological plausibility, coherence, and dose-response relationships. Despite the direct applicability, human data are rarely used primarily because of imprecise exposure estimates, unknown influence of assumptions, and confounding factors. As a result, high reliance is often placed on laboratory animal data. Often, data from a single study is typically used to represent an entire database to extrapolate an OEL, even for data-rich compounds. Here we present a holistic framework for evaluating epidemiological, controlled in vivo, mechanistic/in vitro, and computational evidence that can be useful in deriving OELs. It begins with describing a documented review process of the literature, followed by sorting of data into either controlled laboratory in vivo, in silico/read-across, mechanistic/in vitro, or epidemiological/field data categories. Studies are then evaluated and qualified based on rigor, risk of bias, and applicability for point of departure development. Other data (eg, in vitro, in silico estimates, read-across data and mechanistic information, and data that failed to meet the former criteria) are used alongside qualified epidemiological exposure estimates to help inform points of departure or human-equivalent concentrations that are based on toxic end points. Bayesian benchmark dose methods are used to estimate points of departure and for estimating uncertainty factors (UFs) to develop preliminary OELs. These are then compared with epidemiological data to support the OEL and the use and magnitude of UFs, when appropriate.

Exposure to lead, mercury, styrene, and toluene and hearing impairment: evaluation of dose-response relationships, regulations, and controls.

The risk of hearing loss from exposure to ototoxic chemicals is not reflected in occupational exposure limits and most jurisdictions. The aims of this research were to investigate dose-response relationships between exposure to lead, mercury, toluene, and styrene and hearing impairment based on current epidemiological evidence, conduct cross-jurisdictional comparisons, and investigate control measures for exposure to ototoxic chemicals. Ovid Medline and Ovid Embase databases were used to find relevant publications. A total of 86 epidemiological studies met the eligibility criteria for final evaluation. When significant associations between exposure and outcome were identified, exposure levels were evaluated to determine whether No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) and Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) could be identified. Cross-jurisdictional comparisons included the U.K., U.S., Canada, and Australia occupational health and safety legislations. The majority of lead (75%), styrene (74%), and toluene (77%) studies showed significantly increased risks of hearing loss from exposure to these substances, although numerous studies on toluene (70%) and styrene (16%) compared auditory function between "solvent mixture" or "noise and solvent mixture" exposed groups and controls and not necessarily on groups exposed to a single agent. Based on five studies, blood lead ranges of 1-1.99 µg/dL to 2.148-2.822 µg/dL were identified as NOAELs while blood lead levels of 2 µg/dL up to 2.823-26.507 µg/dL were identified as LOAELs for hearing loss. Except for general duty clauses, the U.S., Canadian, and Australian jurisdictions have set no enforceable regulations specific to ototoxic chemical exposures. A biological exposure index of 2 µg/dL is recommended for prevention of hearing impairment from lead exposure. Based on Safe Work Australia, noise exposure limits may be reduced to 80 dB(A) for 8 hr. Other recommendations include performing audiometric testing and controlling exposure through all routes of entry.

Valoración medicolegal de la infección por COVID-19 en el ámbito laboral / Medico-legal assessment of the COVID-19 infection in workplace

España ha sido uno de los países con mayor afectación por la pandemia COVID-19. Hasta la fecha, un 22% de los casos notificados son personal sanitario, siendo significativamente mayor este porcentaje entre las mujeres (76% del personal sanitario contagiado). Ante la evidencia de que muchos profesionales sanitarios pueden haberse contagiado en su puesto de trabajo, hemos revisado la problemática en el ámbito de la salud laboral que produce la COVID-19. Se describen los decretos publicados por el Gobierno de España y las recomendaciones de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo. Concretamente se analiza la clasificación del SARS-CoV-2 como agente biológico del grupo 3, su calificación como accidente de trabajo o enfermedad profesional y sus repercusiones en las situaciones de incapacidades (temporales y permanentes), secuelas y muerte, así como el estudio de las posibles demandas de aquellos que lo han sufrido como consecuencia de falta de medidas preventivas

Spain is one of the countries most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. To date, 22% of reported cases are healthcare professionals, and 76% of them are women. Given that many healthcare professionals may have been infected in their workplace, we have reviewed the occupational health challenges posed by COVID-19. The Spanish laws and the recommendations of the International Labor Organization are described. The review covers the classification of SARS-CoV-2 as a biological agent in group 3 and of COVID-19 as an occupational accident or disease, its repercussions in temporary and permanent disabilities, sequelae and death, and the possible claims of those who may have developed the disease due to the lack of preventive measures

Investigation of radiation protection and safety measures in Rwandan public hospitals: Readiness for the implementation of the new regulations.

BACKGROUND: An essential concept that all radiographers are required to implement is the use of techniques and the provision of protective devices to minimize radiation to patients and staff. Methods to achieve this could include good communication, immobilization, beam limitation, justification for radiation exposure, shielding, appropriate distances and optimum radiographic exposures factors. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the availability and utilization of radiation protection and safety measures by medical imaging technologists (MITs) in Rwandan hospitals. METHODS: A quantitative, non-experimental descriptive design was used and data collected by means of a self-designed questionnaire. One hundred and sixteen MITs (n = 116) representing 96.67% of the total population participated in the study. RESULTS: The study found radiation safety measures were not adequately implemented in government hospitals. Only 58.62% of MITs had radiation-measuring devices, with 29% receiving dose readings inconsistently. Lead rubber aprons were available at 99.13% of the hospitals; however, 59% of the participants had never checked the integrity of the aprons. Lead rubber aprons and lead equivalent barriers were most prevalent in the facilities. CONCLUSION: The study found there was a lack of adequate radiation safety equipment. Exposure charts and immobilization devices were not adequately implemented in the hospitals. The level of education and experience of the MITs did not appear to influence the radiation safety practice significantly. There is a need for concerted efforts between the Rwanda Utilities Regulatory Authority (RURA), Ministry of Health, University of Rwanda and hospital management to improve the radiation safety culture, especially in view of the law governing radiation protection that was recently promulgated.

Cannabis and work: Need for more research.

Cannabis sativa is one of the oldest and most widely used plants in the world with a variety of industrial, medical, and nonmedical applications. Despite its long history, cannabis-derived products remain a source of controversy across the fields of medicine, law, and occupational safety and health. More favorable public attitudes about cannabis in the US have resulted in greater access to cannabis through legalization by states, leading to more consumption by workers. As more states adopt cannabis access laws, and as more workers choose to consume cannabis products, the implications for existing workplace policies, programs, and practices become more salient. Past workplace practices were grounded in a time when cannabis consumption was always viewed as problematic, considered a moral failing, and was universally illegal. Shifting cultural views and the changing legal status of cannabis indicate a need for research into the implications and challenges relating to cannabis and work. This commentary suggests research needs in the following areas: (a) data about industries and occupations where cannabis consumption among workers is most prevalent; (b) adverse health consequences of cannabis consumption among workers; (c) workplace supported recovery programs; (d) hazards to workers in the emerging cannabis industry; (e) relationship between cannabis consumption and occupational injuries; (f) ways to assess performance deficits and impairment from cannabis consumption; (g) consumption of synthetic cannabinoids to evade detection by drug testing; (h) cannabis consumption and its effect on occupational driving; and (i) ways to craft workplace policies and practices that take into consideration conflicting state and federal laws pertaining to cannabis.

Medidas para prevenir los riesgos asociados con la exposición a citostáticos en cirugía filtrante de glaucoma / Measures to prevent the risks associated with exposure to cytostatic drugs in glaucoma filtering surgery

INTRODUCCIÓN: El uso de medicamentos citostáticos como la mitomicina C y el 5-fluorouracilo es bien conocido en cirugía filtrante de glaucoma y en el manejo de sus complicaciones, no obstante, existe una falta de información en cuanto a las medidas preventivas a tomar por parte del profesional que maneja este tipo de sustancias. OBJETIVO: Concienciar al profesional sobre los riesgos asociados con el uso de medicamentos citostáticos sin la adecuada prevención. RESULTADOS: Revisión de la bibliografía y legislación disponible sobre medidas preventivas en el manejo de citostáticos en el ámbito médico y oftalmológico. CONCLUSIONES: La prevención y concienciación del profesional cualificado que maneja estas sustancias es la medida más importante para prevenir los posibles riesgos derivados. Es necesaria la coordinación con los equipos de Salud Laboral del Hospital y los profesionales y personal implicados en las distintas fases del proceso, desde la preparación en Farmacia Hospitalaria hasta su eliminación

INTRODUCTION: The use of cytostatic drugs such as Mitomycin C and 5-Fluorouracil is well-known in glaucoma filtering surgery, as well as the management of its complications. However, there is a lack of information regarding the preventive measures to be taken by the professional that handles these types of substances. OBJECTIVE: Raise awareness among professionals of the risks associated with the use of cytostatic drugs without adequate prevention measures. RESULTS: Review of the available literature and legislation on preventive measures in the management of cytostatic drugs in the medical and ophthalmological field. CONCLUSIONS: The prevention and awareness of the risks of the qualified professionals that handle these substances is the most important measure to prevent the possible risks. Coordination is necessary with the Occupational Health teams of the Hospital, as well as the professionals and staff involved in the different phases of the process, from the preparation in Hospital Pharmacy to its elimination

Is Covid-19 sowing the seeds for future litigation?

We consider various types of litigation that may follow the Covid-19 pandemic, including: claims against National Health Service (NHS) Trusts by patients who have contracted the coronavirus (or by their bereaved families), claims by NHS staff against their employer for a failure to provide any or adequate personal protective equipment or testing, commercial claims arising from the procurement of medical supplies, the potential liabilities to those who suffer adverse reactions to any vaccine and the guidance issued by the regulators in relation to subsequent disciplinary action.

Implementation of maternity protection legislation: Gynecologists' perceptions and practices in French-speaking Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: In several countries, maternity protection legislations (MPL) confer an essential role to gynecologist-obstetricians (OBGYNs) for the protection of pregnant workers and their future children from occupational exposures. This study explores OBGYNs' practices and difficulties in implementing MPL in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. METHODS: An online survey was sent to 333 OBGYNs. Data analysis included: 1) descriptive and correlational statistics and 2) hierarchical cluster analysis to identify patterns of practices. RESULTS: OBGYNs evoked several problems in MPL implementation: absence of risk analysis in the companies, difficult collaboration with employers, lack of competencies in the field of occupational health. Preventive leave was underused, with sick leave being prescribed instead. Training had a positive effect on OBGYNs' knowledge and implementation of MPL. Hierarchical cluster analysis highlighted three main types of practices: 1) practice in line with legislation; 2) practice on a case-by-case basis; 3) limited practice. OBGYNs with good knowledge of MPL more consistently applied its provisions. CONCLUSION: The implementation of MPL appears challenging for OBGYNs. Collaboration with occupational physicians and training might help OBGYNs to better take on their role in maternity protection. MPL in itself could be improved.

Examining the impact of occupational health and safety vulnerability on injury claim reporting in three Canadian provinces.

INTRODUCTION: The workers' compensation system covers wages and health care costs associated with work-related injuries or illnesses. We explore if dimensions of occupational health and safety vulnerability are associated with differences in reporting work-related injuries to workers' compensation boards (WCBs). METHODS: We examined data from adults reporting physical workplace injuries requiring time off or health care. We explored relationships between exposure to nine hazards, risk from inadequate policies and procedures, inadequate occupational health and safety (OHS) awareness, inadequate empowerment, and reporting to provincial WCBs. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to assess risk from dimensions of workplace vulnerability for not reporting an injury to WCBs. RESULTS: Of 326 participants, 64% did not report injuries to WCBs. Reporting was higher among those with hazardous workplace exposures compared to those without (40% vs 22%, P = .01), lower among those with inadequate policy and procedures and inadequate awareness protections. Inadequate OHS awareness protection was related to not reporting to WCBs in logistic regression models. Women, those working part-time, workers in education, health, and public administration, and non-unionized workers were less likely to report injuries (nonsignificant), while workers with postgraduate educations were significantly less likely to report an injury compared to referent (OR = 3.89, 95% CI: 1.57-9.62). CONCLUSION: A general lack of knowledge about OHS rights and responsibilities was associated with low levels of reporting. This suggests there is a knowledge deficit among some workers, possibly amenable to joint efforts to increase rights and responsibilities related to OHS with the dissemination of information about rights to workers' compensation.

International landscape of limits and recommendations for occupational exposure to engineered nanomaterials.

The increasing concern of possible adverse effects on human health derived from occupational engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) exposure is an issue addressed by entities related to provide guidelines and/or protocols for ENMs regulation. Here we analysed 17 entities from America, Europe and Asia, and some of these entities provide limits of exposure extrapolated from the non-nanosized counterparts of ENMs. The international landscape shows that recommendations are mostly made for metal oxide based ENMs and tonnage is one of the main criteria for ENMs registration, however, sub-nanometric ENMs are emerging and perhaps a novel category of ENMs will appear soon. We identify that besides the lack of epidemiological evidence of ENMs toxicity in humans and difficulties in analysing the toxicological data derived from experimental models, the lack of information on airborne concentrations of ENMs in occupational settings is an important limitation to improve the experimental designs. The development of regulations related to ENMs exposure would lead to provide safer work places for ENMs production without delaying the nanotechnology progress but will also help to protect the environment by taking opportune and correct measures for nanowaste, considering that this could be a great environmental problem in the coming future.

Surgical Smoke-Hazard Perceptions and Protective Measures in German Operating Rooms.

(1) Background: Hazardous substances in surgical smoke that is generated during laser or electrosurgery pose a potential health hazard. In Germany, the Technical Rules for Hazardous Substances (TRGS 525) have included recommendations for appropriate protective measures since 2014. Up to now, no empirical data has been available on the extent to which recommendations have been implemented in practice. (2) Methods: In 2018, 7089 surgeons in hospitals and outpatient practices were invited by email to participate in an online survey. In addition, 219 technical assistants were interviewed. The questionnaire dealt with knowledge of, and attitudes toward, the hazard potential of surgical smoke, as well as the availability and actual use of protective measures. Furthermore, manufacturers and distributors of smoke extraction devices were asked to give their assessment of the development of prevention in recent years. (3) Results: The survey response rate was 5% (surgeons) and 65% (technical assistant staff). Half of all surgeons assumed that there were high health hazards of surgical smoke without taking protective measures. Operating room nurses were more often concerned (88%). Only a few felt properly informed about the topic. The TRGS recommendations had been read by a minority of the respondents. In total, 52% of hospital respondents and 65% of the respondents in outpatient facilities reported any type of special suction system to capture surgical smoke. One-fifth of respondents from hospitals reported that technical measures had improved since the introduction of the TRGS 525. Fifty-one percent of the surgeons in hospitals and 70% of the surgeons in outpatient facilities "mostly" or "always" paid attention to avoiding surgical smoke. The most important reason for non-compliance with recommendations was a lack of problem awareness or thoughtlessness. Twelve industrial interviewees who assessed the situation and the development of prevention in practice largely confirmed the prevention gaps observed; only slight developments were observed in recent years. (4) Conclusions: The low response rate among surgeons and the survey results both indicate a major lack of interest and knowledge. Among other measures, team interventions with advanced training are needed in the future.

Surgical smoke: articulating the problem.

This six-part series focuses on surgical smoke evacuation legislation and policy. It provides answers to important frequently asked questions (FAQs) about surgical smoke from policymakers and people not working in perioperative services and suggests resources and tools to help you become a strong advocate for surgical smoke evacuation. The FAQs and legislative checklists that will be shared will cover the basics of surgical smoke and its harmful effects, strategies and solutions for eradicating surgical smoke in the OR, the role of regulatory agencies, and how to lay the groundwork for successful state legislation on your own and in tandem with AORN's Government Affairs Department.