MODULE 7: PSYCHOSOCIAL ISSUES AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS IN OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SECTION 10: STANDARD SETTING IN OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: 3. Health Based And Feasibility Based Standards

3. HEALTH BASED AND FEASIBILITY BASED STANDARDS:

Health based standards (in other words, standards which ensures no health effects among exposed workers) have been proposed by number of organisations and agencies, such as the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). However, these standards do not take into consideration the economic impact of the implementation of such levels. Feasibility based standards do take into consideration the costs of their implementation, and the impact that this will have on companies expected to implement such standards. Some claim that by having a health based standard, their implementation is likely to be so expensive as to result in the closure of smaller companies, resulting in job losses.

Feasibility standards supposedly aims to achieve a balance between the health protection effect as well the social costs (as may be experienced by job losses). It is unclear how standard setting agencies (legal or non-governmental) actually achieve this.

In a review of the Dutch standards in 1983-85 (mostly based on the US TLVs) to determine the extent to which health was a factor in setting the standard, only about 9% of the 686 OELs considered health impacts, as seen in the available documentation or literature. Over 50% lacked data on long term exposure of either workers or animal studies. Only 3% were based on established carcinogenic risks in human or animal studies or according to chemical structure. Approximately 13% were based on analogy with other agents.

Based on this sort of information, the reliance on standards in occupational health to protect the health of workers must be treated with caution.