Informing Workers and Employers About Occupational Cancer

Our plain-English summary of Informing Workers and Employers About Occupational Cancer, by C.R. Shaw, A.M. Baetjer, E.P. Bettinghaus, et al (1977).

The study

• Authors: C.R. Shaw, A.M. Baetjer, E.P. Bettinghaus, P.A. Brodeur JR, W.C. Cooper, P.B. Cornely, B.L. Dervin, A.M. Lilienfeld, P.R. Reilly, P.E. White
• Published: Committee on Public Information in the Prevention of Occupational Cancer, June 1977
• Type of article: Report
• Our copy: from Johns-Manville's own medical library. The article is still under copyright, so we describe it here rather than post it.

In plain English

This 1977 National Research Council committee report was not a study of workers' health; it made recommendations to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) on what to tell workers and employers about cancer-causing substances at work, whom to tell, and how. Over 14 meetings the committee heard from government agencies, unions, companies and physicians. It also held an open meeting (some 55 attendees) and a symposium (149 attendees plus 30 invited speakers), and a letter to unions, trade associations and public service groups drew nine replies, only two informative. The authors stated that workers have a "right to know." They recommended labeling hazardous agents by generic and trade names at every stage and having a single national source decide when workers are at risk. They advised that information begin at the preemployment interview and be repeated, and that information essential for the whole group of employees to understand the risk not be withheld on the chance it might cause anxiety in some. The asbestos disease figures in the report came from other studies. The committee could identify no data on how effective or credible different information sources were.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Expert committee report with policy recommendations, based on meetings, public input and a symposium (not an original study of disease)
• Who was studied: No study population. Over 14 meetings the committee consulted representatives of OSHA, NIOSH, labor unions, management and physicians. Other input: an open meeting on 17 February 1976 (some 55 attendees); a March 1976 letter to 30 trade associations, 17 unions and 12 public service groups (nine responses); and a symposium on 2-3 December 1976 (30 invited speakers plus 149 attendees).
• Exposure: Occupational carcinogens in general. Asbestos is discussed as one example, including the point that asbestos is not readily eliminated from the body; asbestos disease data are cited from other sources.
• Main results:
  • The committee adopted a 'right to know' as a fundamental ethical principle for workers.
  • Recommended that information about a workplace carcinogen be sufficient for a job applicant to decide whether to work there.
  • Recommended that hazardous agents be labeled by generic and trade names at each stage of distribution and identified as hazardous.
  • Recommended that a single national source decide when workers are at risk.
  • Recommended that information start at the preemployment interview and be presented repeatedly.
  • Recommended that information essential to the whole group of employees' understanding of risk not be withheld because it might cause anxiety in some workers.
  • Most employee information programs brought to the committee had not been formally evaluated for effectiveness.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that current laws administered by OSHA and DHEW provide a clear legal basis for informing the public to prevent occupational cancer.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The committee could find no data on the effectiveness or credibility of different information sources.
  • The committee could not determine when and where information is best presented.
  • The committee could not yet judge the effect of the Toxic Substances Control Act on public information.

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: OSHA.

Browse return to medical research.