Cargando…

Prioritising action on occupational carcinogens in Europe: a socioeconomic and health impact assessment

BACKGROUND: Work-related cancer is an important public health issue with a large financial impact on society. The key European legislative instrument is the Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive (2004/37/EC). In preparation for updating the Directive, the European Commission commissioned a study to pro...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cherrie, J W, Hutchings, S, Gorman Ng, M, Mistry, R, Corden, C, Lamb, J, Sánchez Jiménez, A, Shafrir, A, Sobey, M, van Tongeren, M, Rushton, L
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5520511/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28609433
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2017.161
_version_ 1783251827072958464
author Cherrie, J W
Hutchings, S
Gorman Ng, M
Mistry, R
Corden, C
Lamb, J
Sánchez Jiménez, A
Shafrir, A
Sobey, M
van Tongeren, M
Rushton, L
author_facet Cherrie, J W
Hutchings, S
Gorman Ng, M
Mistry, R
Corden, C
Lamb, J
Sánchez Jiménez, A
Shafrir, A
Sobey, M
van Tongeren, M
Rushton, L
author_sort Cherrie, J W
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Work-related cancer is an important public health issue with a large financial impact on society. The key European legislative instrument is the Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive (2004/37/EC). In preparation for updating the Directive, the European Commission commissioned a study to provide a socioeconomic, health and environmental impact assessment. METHODS: The evaluation was undertaken for 25 preselected hazardous substances or mixtures. Estimates were made of the number of cases of cancer attributable to workplace exposure, both currently and in the future, with and without any regulatory interventions, and these data were used to estimate the financial health costs and benefits. RESULTS: It was estimated that if no action is taken there will be >700 000 attributable cancer deaths over the next 60 years for the substances assessed. However, there are only seven substances where the data suggest a clear benefit in terms of avoided cancer cases from introducing a binding limit at the levels considered. Overall, the costs of the proposed interventions were very high (up to €34 000 million) and the associated monetised health benefits were mostly less than the compliance costs. CONCLUSIONS: The strongest cases for the introduction of a limit value are for: respirable crystalline silica, hexavalent chromium, and hardwood dust.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5520511
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55205112018-07-11 Prioritising action on occupational carcinogens in Europe: a socioeconomic and health impact assessment Cherrie, J W Hutchings, S Gorman Ng, M Mistry, R Corden, C Lamb, J Sánchez Jiménez, A Shafrir, A Sobey, M van Tongeren, M Rushton, L Br J Cancer Epidemiology BACKGROUND: Work-related cancer is an important public health issue with a large financial impact on society. The key European legislative instrument is the Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive (2004/37/EC). In preparation for updating the Directive, the European Commission commissioned a study to provide a socioeconomic, health and environmental impact assessment. METHODS: The evaluation was undertaken for 25 preselected hazardous substances or mixtures. Estimates were made of the number of cases of cancer attributable to workplace exposure, both currently and in the future, with and without any regulatory interventions, and these data were used to estimate the financial health costs and benefits. RESULTS: It was estimated that if no action is taken there will be >700 000 attributable cancer deaths over the next 60 years for the substances assessed. However, there are only seven substances where the data suggest a clear benefit in terms of avoided cancer cases from introducing a binding limit at the levels considered. Overall, the costs of the proposed interventions were very high (up to €34 000 million) and the associated monetised health benefits were mostly less than the compliance costs. CONCLUSIONS: The strongest cases for the introduction of a limit value are for: respirable crystalline silica, hexavalent chromium, and hardwood dust. Nature Publishing Group 2017-07-11 2017-06-13 /pmc/articles/PMC5520511/ /pubmed/28609433 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2017.161 Text en Copyright © 2017 Cancer Research UK http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ From twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
spellingShingle Epidemiology
Cherrie, J W
Hutchings, S
Gorman Ng, M
Mistry, R
Corden, C
Lamb, J
Sánchez Jiménez, A
Shafrir, A
Sobey, M
van Tongeren, M
Rushton, L
Prioritising action on occupational carcinogens in Europe: a socioeconomic and health impact assessment
title Prioritising action on occupational carcinogens in Europe: a socioeconomic and health impact assessment
title_full Prioritising action on occupational carcinogens in Europe: a socioeconomic and health impact assessment
title_fullStr Prioritising action on occupational carcinogens in Europe: a socioeconomic and health impact assessment
title_full_unstemmed Prioritising action on occupational carcinogens in Europe: a socioeconomic and health impact assessment
title_short Prioritising action on occupational carcinogens in Europe: a socioeconomic and health impact assessment
title_sort prioritising action on occupational carcinogens in europe: a socioeconomic and health impact assessment
topic Epidemiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5520511/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28609433
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2017.161
work_keys_str_mv AT cherriejw prioritisingactiononoccupationalcarcinogensineuropeasocioeconomicandhealthimpactassessment
AT hutchingss prioritisingactiononoccupationalcarcinogensineuropeasocioeconomicandhealthimpactassessment
AT gormanngm prioritisingactiononoccupationalcarcinogensineuropeasocioeconomicandhealthimpactassessment
AT mistryr prioritisingactiononoccupationalcarcinogensineuropeasocioeconomicandhealthimpactassessment
AT cordenc prioritisingactiononoccupationalcarcinogensineuropeasocioeconomicandhealthimpactassessment
AT lambj prioritisingactiononoccupationalcarcinogensineuropeasocioeconomicandhealthimpactassessment
AT sanchezjimeneza prioritisingactiononoccupationalcarcinogensineuropeasocioeconomicandhealthimpactassessment
AT shafrira prioritisingactiononoccupationalcarcinogensineuropeasocioeconomicandhealthimpactassessment
AT sobeym prioritisingactiononoccupationalcarcinogensineuropeasocioeconomicandhealthimpactassessment
AT vantongerenm prioritisingactiononoccupationalcarcinogensineuropeasocioeconomicandhealthimpactassessment
AT rushtonl prioritisingactiononoccupationalcarcinogensineuropeasocioeconomicandhealthimpactassessment