Occupational Cancer: What are the rules we are playing by & do they need reform?

Deborah VallanceAMWU OHS Coordinator

“Wherever stricter controls are proposed, industry representatives or their hired guns appear, challenging the science and predicting an economic catastrophe.”

Ms. Sharan Burrow, International Trade Union Congress, April 2015

Lobbyists & Science

IARC listing of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen

Monsanto -- sells glyphosate as “roundup”, claimed IARC had been engaged “selective cherry picking” of the data

Monsanto added - IARC decision was a clear example of agenda –driven bias

[Monsanto, March 23, 2015]

Key agencies related to work

Agency Ministry

Safe Work Australia Workplace Relations

NICNAS Health

National Pollution Inventory

Environment

Agriculture and Veterinary

Primary Industries

Transport Transport

Therapeutics Drugs Administration

Health

Our System

Systems built over time for selected purposes for selected parts of community

Multiple agencies

Multiple frameworks

Multiple stakeholders

Prod. Comm. Report 2008 noted

“chemicals formulation is fragmented and inconsistent. Policy tends to be developed in isolation within particular regulatory regimes [public health, workplace safety, transport, agriculture, environment protection and national security] “

SafeWork Australia

Create standards for adoption in work health and safety laws – covers all at work

Model Hazardous Chemicals Regulation Exposure standards Classification chemicals used at work (Hazardous

Chemical Information System) Prohibited/Restricted carcinogens Health surveillance

NICNAS -- 1989

National notification & assessment for new chemicals

protect the health of the public, workers & theenvironment

Assess individual chemicals already used on a priority basis

ACIS –all industrial chemicals in use 1977 & 1990

2012, NICNAS started assessing 3,000 existing chemicals identified using the IMAP Framework

National Pollution Inventory -- 1991

provides the community, industry & government with free information about substance emissions

emission estimates for 93 toxic substances and the source & location of these emissions

use greater than 10 tonnes for category one e.g arsenic, benzene, lead, trichloroethylene, vinyl chloride

monomer

AGVET

Registers over 8,000 different pesticides and veterinary medicines/products in the Australian marketplace

Products are assessed according to the specified use on the label (users, public & environment)

APVMA can review and restrict or ban (i.e. take the product off the registered list)

Perpetual Reviews ……….[a sample only]

Productivity Commission Chemicals & Plastics Regulation July 2008

Better Regulation Ministerial Partnership, Draft RIS, July 2013

Commission of Audit -- NICNAS, AgVET

Structural change in Commonwealth chemical assessment functions - Department of Industry and Science, report by Sept 2015

Current Review – COAG

Cost Benefit analysis of structural change to Commonwealth chemical assessment functions and subsequent impacts

investigate how to improve responsiveness of agencies in setting appropriate controls on the use, transport & storage of chemicals following assessment

explore opportunities to improve interactions between regulators across jurisdictions

identify opportunities for greater efficiency and cost savings in the operation of  the framework

Australian Government Guide to Regulation

Regulation introduced as a last resort

Regulation hampers the economy

A future with substantially less red tape

How does this impact?

Exposure standards

Updating exposure standards and health monitoring for lead to the 21st century

No encouragement to think outside the “deregulatory box”

SCOC “ultimately reduce the regulatory burden”

Current approach

Fragmented How a substance is

assessed/classified/labelled, etc is dependent on where/how it is used and therefore where it is regulated

Creates anomalies Lack of linkage between agencies Lack of Industry incentives for

technical/technological advances

DOES IT MATTER ?

That depends on your objective

“ the objective is safe chemicals, not safer exposures”

Ken Geiser, a founder of TURI, Massachusetts [2011]

Our system based on “safe exposures”

No systemic approach to “ banning” or toxic use reduction

or Prioritisation of chemicals into tiers for action

No systemic approach to transition chemical use from higher to lower hazard substances

No open access to information on volumes etc

Prioritize chemicals into tiers

What’s needed? a system that …..

Prioritizes and encourages avoidance and phase outs

Links inside & outside work Creates circumstances to diminish use &

hence exposures Coordinates & overviews Allows innovation Does not recreate the wheel

A start could be

As recognised by the WHO Asturias Declaration 2011

As canvassed but dismissed by the Prod. Comm. 2008

As recommended by UNEP Global Chemical Outlook Sept 2012………

A Central Chemical Agency

Focal point and resource for chemical information and coordination

Focus on toxic chemical use reduction

Coordination of consistent regulatory approaches and frameworks

Given that the global market for chemicals is worth $4.1 Tn per year ‘’ its inconceivable that we can claim to have limited ability and resources to address the major chemicals and waste related environmental issues”

R. Payet, ED UN Basel, Rotterdam & Stockholm Conventions, Geneva May 2015