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

1. Occupational Cancer: What are the rules we are playing by & do they need reform? Deborah Vallance AMWU OHS Coordinator

2. “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

3. 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]

4. Key agencies related to work

6. Our System • Systems built over time for selected purposes for selected parts of community • Multiple agencies • Multiple frameworks • Multiple stakeholders

7. 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] “

8. 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

9. NICNAS -- 1989 • National notification & assessment for new chemicals protect the health of the public, workers & the environment • 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

10. 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

11. 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)

12. 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

13. 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

14. Australian Government Guide to Regulation • Regulation introduced as a last resort • Regulation hampers the economy • A future with substantially less red tape

15. 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”

16. 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

17. DOES IT MATTER ? • That depends on your objective

18. “ the objective is safe chemicals, not safer exposures” • Ken Geiser, a founder of TURI, Massachusetts [2011]

19. 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

20. Prioritize chemicals into tiers

21. 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

22. 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………

23. 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

24. 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