Document reQy58jKLYbZbavy3d9ebaYX7

Is there a workplace cancer epidemic? The question of i cancer epidemic in the workplace took center (tags end drew hosted debtto at a "media semi nar" iponaored by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in Chicago earlier this month. At the opening sessior, workers' and regulators' rights of access to company data on the effects of chemicals on employees held the spotlight (CW, Sept 19, p M). And during the Anal session, 03HA Director Eula Bingbsm disclosed that the generic cancer standard, proposed two years ego, is scheduled to be issued "within weeks." Questioned later for a more specific date, she said only that it would be by the end of October. The seminar, billed as lost in the Workpiece Is There an Occupational Disease Epidemic?, drew about 30 from the media and more than 900 from unions, industry, and regulatory and environmental groups. Cancer Epidemic? "There is no cancer epidemic," said Ronald Lang, executive director of the American Industrial Health Council. Lang quoted various edentiSe sources as the basis for his claim and said that the only epidemic ia `la the minds of those who need ons to justify massive new government pro grams and appropriations" Bat David ItalL director of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sdeaeta, would not bodgo bom his poaitioa oa occupationally caused cancers. An author of the Dope of Health, Educatioa and Welfare docu ment that estimated that 20-38% of cancers are occupationally mimed (CW, Oct U, 197$, p 97), he ooatandad, "The 20% figure looks pretty good to me." In defending the HEW workplan* cancer estimate, which was produced for hearings on the OSKA generic cancer standard but haa not yet been published for peer review, Rail hit at soma of its critics. He said Philip Handier, presi dent of the National Academy of Sciences, who claims there is no cancer epidemie (CW, Sept i, p S), is "not an expert on cancer." And he said John Higginsou of the international Agency for Resmreh on Cancer (Lyon, Prance) "has beea changing hit view lately, I think." Higginsou had said the data presented is the study "do not make a good case" (CW, Oct 9S, 1979, p 97). Moreover, Samuel Eptttin of the University of Illinois' School of Public Health said KEWt 3S% estimate "leri- Only tpidgmic ts in mindt of thogg who nood on* to lustily now programs' oualy underestimates the true haiards." But Robert Olsen, profess* of bio chemistry and medians at St Louis Uaivaraiqr, oountend by calling the esti mates "wild," and said they are "net coetributing to soiviag our problems." Lang auggwtad that the OSHA generic eancer standard "may provide the first reel Indicating of whether government sad industry eaa work tngeiber in such a complex undertaking, or whether funda mental public decisions of this land must be set by judges with no mining." Chances of induetry, labor and regula tor! working together in this appear to be slim. For example, Laag aid the agency would like to "adopt some very simple criteria for cardnogen- ieity." The original proposal would require any chemical substance that <----a any kind of tamor in a tingle animal test to be classified and regulated ee a carcinogen. "Cancer is limply too tO be dealt with in this simplis tic manner," says Laag. Rail, however, contends that "one well-designed and `administered test should be eu/Bdent to initiate regulatory action." ad Publicity: Induetry was upset abeut snore than cancer epidemie argu ment!. In the publicity brochure for the seminar, OSH* said than is s "massive but silent slaughter" of 100,000 Ameri cans, who die each year from exposure to materials in the workplace. Lang described induetry ts "dismayed end angry that a responsible federal agency should be maidng inaccurate end inflammatory chargee." Bruce Karrh, Du lint's medical direc- / tor, uid tin 100,008 (cure is "an excel lent example of highly questionable \ mathematical ii--itasss that dd. to ` the continuing detarhraaon in the tone i end substance of the dialogue over occu- 1 pational health." John France, dapaty director of the National Instituta for Occupational Safety and Health, predicted that occu pational health wilt be the "most impor tant issue in the lMte and 1990s." He reasons that "whea ant looks for [an exposure problem), ewe finds it." Froinee cited ts aa example the "tack of control of lead in the workplace, in many foundries the etandards are not met Exposures are as high aa 5,000 parts per million, well above the existing standard." William McCarviUs. director of envi ronmental affaire tar Monsanto, tgrted that "to know of a psehltm and not act responsibly is inerramhle. But it ssema to me that to cry vog based on insuffi cient evidence it also wrong." Du Pont'a Karrh added, "Neither the record-keeping nor tht itaia of knowi- edge it adequate to prnmit either indus try or government ta issue conclusive tUtMMfttt tnmmrrn tha dimension of th occupational-<*!* probitm," And Anthony Mi--rrhi. director of health and safety for the Oil. Chemical and Atomic Worktrn union, said it is "solely a question of who pays: now tht workers pay with their health." He charged that "a poihaetd environment n Mcemary to maximine production." In the fact of thorn differing views, the chancea of reaching agreement among the different groups appear slim indeed. DU 037945