Revising the British Occupational Hygiene Society Asbestos Standard: 1968–1982

Abstract

There was a time in Britain when a learned society might with impunity omit to consult the views of workers or their representatives when making value judgments about their health and safety, but consider it proper to accede to industry's decision as to what hygiene standard it would accept. Health and Safety at Work legislation in 1974, established an organization on which industry and labor were represented, with the onus for recommending hygiene standards. For several years the BOHS Asbestos Sub-Committee continued attempting to reconcile the interests of industry, until finally abandoning hygiene standard setting as its mission.

The BBA group industrial health unit 1959-1969

“…Support for this possibility is to be found in a Cape Director's objection to the membership of the first Turner and Newall dominated BOHS committee on chrysotile asbestos failing to include a representative from his company. The Turner and Newall hygienist, who was a member of the BOHS committee and highly influential on behalf of industry, informed the director to whom the complaint was made, that Cape had nothing to contribute [Greenberg, 1997].…”

The British approach to asbestos standard setting: 1898–2000

“…Fear of inducing such panic had led earlier in 1930 to Merewether and industry declining to assist a well thought out proposal by the Medical Research Council for a multidisciplinary medical team from Leeds University to investigate further those local asbestos workers identified in the Factory Department survey as suffering from asbestosis [Greenberg, 1997].…”

“…Because of the limitations of the health and environmental data, of which the analyst was aware, and of other matters that were not taken into consideration, as well as the inability to factor in bronchial carcinoma and malignant mesothelioma, a more conservative figure, well below the lower confidence limit calculated could have been considered. The industry employees on the committee were instructed by its Trade Association not only to stand out for the 2 fiber standard, as distinct from the 1 fiber standard initially suggested, but to amend the recommendation for masks to be worn when 5 fibers/ml were exceeded, to when 10 fibers/ml were exceeded [Greenberg, 1997]. BOHS considered that it would have been unthinkable to insist on the more conservative standard originally proposed, as its industry members would have withdrawn (personal communication, Dr. S. Roach).…”