Lung Cancer in Butchers

Cancer among meat industry workers

“…In interpretations of these findings, it is also necessary to consider the possibility of uncontrolled confounding, and tobacco smoking is the strongest potential confounder in any study of the association between occupational exposures and the risk of lung cancer. While none of the cohort studies reviewed in this paper (12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23) had data on smoking, conclusions can still be drawn about the likely extent of the impact of differences in rates of smoking on the rates of lung cancer observed. Even where comparisons are made between rates of disease in an occupational cohort and in the general population, it has been shown that differences in smoking rates are unlikely to account for relative risks for lung cancer in excess of 1.5 (39), and, in the straight comparisons with national rates, the standardized mortality ratios observed for lung cancer among workers in the meat industry in these cohort studies ranged from 1.0 to 2.2.…”

“…Given the number of studies, the range of study types conducted, and the number of independent observations in different countries that have been made now over several decades, it is unlikely that any form of systematic error in either the selection or follow-up of the study subjects could explain these findings. Apart from the obvious limitations of reviews of routine data and proportionate mortality studies related to the comparability of numerator and denominator data, as in most epidemiologic studies, it is possible to identify the limitations of these investigations including issues related to study size and power particularly for the hematologic cancers, the reanalysis of existing datasets rather than the testing of hypotheses for which the studies were designed (15,24), possible selection bias in the definition of the case group (35) or through loss to follow-up (19,23), and possible information bias through obtaining exposure information from next of kin (25,27), from union membership records (11-14, 16, 17, 22), census data at fixed points in time (19,21), or from the last known occupation recorded on cancer registrations or death certificates (26,34). There is, however, no obvious differential misclassification between exposed and unexposed groups that would introduce a bias in the same direction across all studies.…”

“…Several cohort studies of butchers and meat workers have subsequently been reported, including studies in Germany (15), the United States (based on the same Baltimore union cohort) (12-14, 16, 17), England and Wales (18,19), Switzerland (20), Sweden (21), Australia (22), and New Zealand (23). These studies have allowed risks for all types of cancer to be evaluated, and, within the limitations of cohort size and the validity of the exposure categories used, they have allowed potential risk factors to be investigated.…”

Lung cancer among butchers and slaughterhouse workers.

“…Griffith (3) drew attention to the fact that an excess lung cancer mortality had been found also among butchers in conjunction with the 1951 and 1961 censuses in England and Wales. Doerken & Rehp enning (4) reported on a study from Hamburg, 1954Hamburg, -1966, in which butchers had a relati ve risk (RR) of lung can-cer of 2.4 when they were compared with bakers. Milham (5) presented death certificate data from Washington state, ; he reported proportionate mortality ratios (PMR) close to 100 for lung cancer in butchers and meatcutters working inside and outside of slaughterhouses.…”

Possible causes of increased lung cancer incidence among butchers and slaughterhouse workers.

“…An excess of lung cancer was indic ated among female workers in chicken slaughtering plants, but not among male or female slaughterhouse workers in general. A small cohort study from the Federal Republic of Germany indicated a high lung cancer mortality among butchers in comparison with bakers (3).…”