 |
| MODULE 7: PSYCHOSOCIAL ISSUES AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS
TOPICS IN OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SECTION 10: STANDARD SETTING IN OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: 1. Some General Concepts |
|
| MODULE 7: PSYCHOSOCIAL ISSUES AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS
TOPICS IN OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SECTION 10: STANDARD SETTING IN OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: 1. Some General Concepts |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Standards in themselves are not necessarily protective, but provide the mechanisms by which the health of workers can be protected. By providing a benchmark, standards provide employers with necessary information by which they can achieve healthy and safe workplaces through appropriate management processes.
 |
Question 2:What are some types of standards that you are aware of in occupational and environmental health? |
|
Question 3:What criteria need to be considered when setting standards? |
Standards need to take into account inter and intravariability of response to exposure, and should also consider subpopulations that are more vulnerable or susceptible to effects of exposure, these include pregnant women, elderly or those with illnesses.
The concept of dose (load) at the target organ must be considered, not just environmental concentrations. The science of toxicokinetics for various exposures is still poorly understood. The point of time of exposure, which "determines the kinetics and dynamics of the biological response" must also be considered (Zeilhuis, 1989).
Biological exposure indices (BEIs) is a more informative basis for determining load at a target organ. Distinction must be made between biological monitoring and biological effect monitoring.
Reproductive risks have to be considered in setting OELs, including effects on pregnancy, foetal effects, effects on female and male fertility.
Because most hazards have not been rigorously assessed for the carcinogenicity potential, the ability of OEL's to protect against cancer is restricted to only a few hazards. Issues to consider when setting standards to protect against the development of cancer are the nature of the carcinogens: initiating (non-threshold) or epigenetic (threshold); and the accepted risk - a lifetime risk of 10-6 or annual risk of 10-8 is accepted as negligible. A lifetime risk of 10-4 is considered maximal risk.
The "nuisance" effect must be considered in standard setting. The distinction between a "nuisance" effect and a "health" effect is arbitrary. Perceived nuisance reduces the quality of life, and hence can be seen as an impact on health.
Consideration to total load must be given - the work environment cannot be considered in isolation from the home and social environment. Exposure to the same or similar hazards outside the workplace has to be considered, and this will be greater among those with lower socio-economic status.
In any given workplace, workers are exposed to several hazards simultaneously. Setting of standards for a specific hazard must take into consideration the role of mixtures or interactions between different hazards.
In the development of standards, choices such as "best available" or "most reasonably practicable" come into play. Who decides what should be the best choice in standard setting? The concepts of risks versus benefits: should standards be developed to protect ALL workers ALL the time, at the cost of closure of workplaces and loss of jobs? If not protective of all of the workers, who decides what are the benefits of standards?
