Title: Summary of New Available Journal Papers in Environmental and Occupational Health
Author:
Section/SPIG: Environment
Issue Date:
This was submitted to our e-newsletter from the Occupational Health Section’s editor (2003-05). This is a summary of a full paper to appear in late 2005 in the journal New Solutions. [EDITOR NOTE: Even though our policy is to only share new reports and papers not archived in peer-reviewed literature, given its thought-provoking content, the fact the journal version is not out yet, and our desire to promote discussion at the Annual Meeting across the Environment and Occupational Health Sections, this summary is included.]
Please contact Karla for citation/re-print information.
“Are Separate Standards for Occupational and Environmental Exposures Good Public Health Policy?”
By Jean Rabovsky, PhD
Public health discussions generally consider workers and community members as two distinct exposure groups. One explanation may lie in the concept of a workplace that is physically isolated from the surrounding community. Regardless of the specific reason, heath assessments are applied to workers and community members in different ways. For the purpose of improved public health policy, a discussion among public health advocates is needed to determine if this distinction is appropriate.
Even with physically bounded workplaces, e.g., factories and underground mines, exposures to toxic agents are not confined to interior spaces. Manufacturing plants produce emissions that are released to the outside of the facilities. Mining operations result in tailings that are stored above ground ,and toxic dusts can be carried to the household after the work shift.
Physically unbounded workplaces add to the problem. Pesticide drift from fields to residential areas occurs during the application of agricultural chemicals. In addition, exposure to farm workers living in adjacent communities may continue after cessation of the workday. This person, who is defined as a worker during the shift, is then defined as a community member after the shift. In the meantime, the extended exposure may result in incomplete clearance of the toxin and cause the worker to start the next shift with a toxic load.
Simultaneous exposures occur in non-agricultural outdoor environments. In Brownfield clean-up and road building and repair activities, an important issue is the placement of the "fence line" in order to determine the point beyond which a health assessment is not needed for the exposed worker. Yet beyond the "fence line" are people who live nearby or who travel in close proximity to the sites. Concerns have been expressed about the adverse health effects experienced by soldiers exposed to toxic agents during the Vietnam and Iraq wars, but the civilian populations in those countries continue to be exposed to the same agents after cessation of hostilities.
The overlapping exposures experienced by workers and community members have implications for the use of protective standards. Occupational standards tend to be higher than environmental standards, based in part on the assumption that exposure duration and frequency are less for the worker than for the community member. The occupational standard, based on an eight-hour work-day, may underestimate the exposure frequency of farm workers who remain in the fields for long hours during planting/harvest season or of industrial workers who work long hours during heavy production times.
The use of distinct occupational and environmental standards also requires a definition of work. Work is generally considered an activity that takes place away from the home, and this definition requires some thought. Scenarios exist where work takes place within the home environment. One example is work in the visual arts, where toxic agents are a part of the materials. The identification of domestic work also needs discussion. In some cultures, domestic activity, carried out in close contact with the ambient environment, has been considered by some authors as an occupation, and occupational standards have been applied to evaluate the potential for adverse health effects. Within more industrialized cultures, people who are hired to perform domestic or maintenance activities in someone else's home are considered workers. This definition, however, is not applied to the person who carries out the same activity within her/his own domicile. Under the conditions of this scenario, different standards will be applied to different people, who are exposed under the same conditions in the same place.
The stated purpose of this article is to initiate a discussion on the ramifications of a strict separation between occupational and environmental exposures and standards. The issues are not easy to resolve. However, by focusing on some specific points or questions, a beginning can be made towards a more equitable public health policy for all populations. For example, is it appropriate to permit higher exposures to workers than to community members? What are the assumptions that are used for the analyses of occupational exposures and development of occupational standards? When public health advocates, representing different constituencies, come together to address these issues, progress can be made towards enhanced public health policies for all exposure populations.