Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:22:40.717Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Protection without Discrimination: Pregnancy and Occupational Health Regulations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Sven Ove-Hansson  and
Linda Schenk
Sven Ove-Hansson
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy and History, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
Linda Schenk
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy and History, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Occupational exposures of pregnant workers can give rise to foetal damage. Two major types of strategies against detrimental effects on the foetus are described: differentiated protection that reduces only the exposure of pregnant workers (or only of female workers) and unified protection that reduces the exposure of all workers to a level that is sufficiently low to protect against detrimental effects on the foetus. The former strategy is shown to be inefficient, as it does not provide the desired protection. Protection only of pregnant workers is insufficient since protection is needed early in pregnancy when it is not known, and in the case of substances that are accumulated in the woman's body even prior to conception. Protection of all women is also insufficient to protect the foetus since evidence indicates that preconception exposure of the father can also give rise to malformations. Furthermore, differentiated protection that requires more costly protective measures for women tends to aggravate the already prevalent discrimination of women on the labour market. It is therefore concluded that unified protection is the only efficient and non-discriminatory strategy against foetal damage.

Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 404 - 412
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016

References

1 Lippel, Katherine and Messing, Karen “A Gender Perspective on Work, Regulation and Their Effects on Women's Health and Well–Being.” In Theo Nichols and David Walters (eds.) Safety or Profit (Amityville, New York : Baywood Publishing Company, 2013), at pp. 35–40.Google Scholar

2 Ibid . at pp. 34-35.

3 WHO UNEP State of the science of endocrine disrupting chemicals – 2012 . Åke Bergman, Jerrold J. Heindel, Susan Jobling, Karen A. Kidd and R. Thomas Zoeller (eds.) (Geneva: United Nations Environment Programme and the World Health Organization, 2013), at pp. 10-11.

4 See for instance the case of N–Methyl–2–pyrrolidone, where the restriction proposal under REACH specifically identified risks to the foetus of pregnant workers while provisions under workplace health legislations generally have focussed on respiratory irritation. This latter focus results in higher exposures being considered acceptable than what the restriction proposal identifies as needed to protect the foetus. http://echa.europa.eu/previous-consultations-on-restriction-proposals/-/substance-rev/1899/term (last accessed on 09 October 2015)

5 Julvez, Jordi and Grandjean, Philippe “Neurodevelopmental toxicity risks due to occupational exposure to industrial chemicals during pregnancy”, 47 Industrial Health (2009) 459 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Hunt, Vilma R., Work and the Health of Women . (Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1979), at p. 118.Google Scholar

7 Ratcliffe., J.M., McElhatton, P.R., and Sullivan, F.M., “Reproductive Toxicology”, in Ballantyne, Bryan, Marrs, Timothy, and Turner, Paul (eds.), General and Applied Toxicology, vol 2, (Basingstoke: Macmillan Press, 1993), at pp. 995 et sqq. Google Scholar

8 Julvez and Grandjean, supra note 5.

9 Strictly speaking, PCB is a group of substances rather than a substance, but it is usually treated as a single entity in assessments of occupational exposure.

10 Grandjean, Philippe and Landrigan, Philip J. “Neurobehavioural impact of developmental toxicity” 13 Lancet Neurology (2014), pp. 330 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Wright, John Paul, Dietrich, Kim N., Douglas Ris, M., Hornung, Richard W., Wessel, Stephanie D., Lanphear, Bruce P., Ho, Mona, Rae, Mary N. “Association of Prenatal and Childhood Blood Lead Concentrations with Criminal Arrests in Early Adulthood” 5 PLoS Med (2008), pp. e101 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This prospective cohort study provides strong evidence of a correlation between early lead exposure and adult criminality. However, although controlling for several confounding factors, it is not to be considered as proof of a direct causal link between early lead exposure and adult criminality. Wright et al. also bring up the possibility that the higher arrest rate is due to lead exposure causing decreased intelligence, i.e. that higher lead exposure makes it more likely that a criminal offender will be arrested.

12 Grandjean, Philippe and Landrigan, Philip J. “Developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals”, 368 Lancet (2006), pp. 2167 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Perrin, Mary C., Opler, Mark G., Harlap, Susan, Harkavy–Friedman, Jill, Kleinhaus, Karine, Nahon, Daniella, Fennig, Shmuel, Susser, Ezra S., and Malaspina, Dolores “Tetrachloroethylene exposure and risk of schizophrenia: offspring of dry cleaners in a population birth cohort, preliminary findings”,90 Schizophrenia Research (2007), pp. 251 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 McMartin, Kristen I., Chu, Merry, Kopecky, Ernest, Einarson, Thomas R. and Koren, Gideon “Pregnancy outcomes following maternal organic solvent exposure: a meta–analysis of epidemiologic studies” 34 American Journal of Industrial Medicine (1998) pp. 288 et sqq. 3.0.CO;2-Q>CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Julvez and Grandjean, supra note 5.

16 Young, Jessica G, Eskenazi, Brenda, Gladstone, Eleanor A., Bradman, Asa, Pedersen, Lesley, Johnson, Caroline, Barr, Dana B., Furlong, Clement E., and Holland, Nina T. “Association between in utero organophosphate pesticide exposure and abnormal reflexes in neonates”, 26 Neurotoxicology (2005), pp. 199 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Eskenazi, Brenda, Marks, Amy R., Bradman, Asa, Harley, Kim, Barr, Dana B., Johnson, Caroline, Morga, Norma, Jewell, Nicholas P. “Organophosphate pesticide exposure and neurodevelopment in young Mexican–American children”, 115 Environmental Health Perspectives (2007), pp. 792 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Julvez and Grandjean, 2009, supra note 5.

19 Van Maele–Fabry, Geneviève, Lantin, Anne–Catherine, Hoet, Perrine, and Lison, Dominique “Childhood leukaemia and parental occupational exposure to pesticides: a systematic review and meta–analysis”, 21 Cancer Causes Control (2010) pp. 787 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Norman, Christine A. and Halton, David M. “Is carbon monoxide a workplace teratogen? A review and evaluation of the literature.” 34 Annals of Occupational Hygiene (1990), pp. 335 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Levy, Richard J. “Carbon monoxide pollution and neurodevelopment: A public health concern” 49 Neurotoxicology and Teratology (2015), pp. 31 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Boivin, Jean–Francois “Risk of spontaneous abortion in women occupationally exposed to anaesthetic gases: a meta–analysis” 54 Occupational and Environmental Medicine (1997), pp. 541 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 Shirangi, A., Fritschi, L., and Holman, C.C. “Maternal occupational exposures and risk of spontaneous abortion in veterinary practice”, 65 Occupational and Environmental Medicine (2008), pp. 719 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Weeks, James L., Levy, Barry S., and Wagner, Gregory R., Preventing Occupational Disease and Injury , (Washington D.C.: American Public Health Association, 1991.), at pp. 489 et sqq.Google Scholar

25 Peters, P. W. J. and Garbis–Berkvens, J. M., “General Reproductive Toxicology.” in Raymond J.M Niesink, John de Vries, and Mannfred A. Hollinger (eds.), Toxicology. Principles and Applications . (Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1996), at pp. 935 et sqq. Google Scholar

26 Williams, Pamela M. and Fletcher, Stacy “Health effects of prenatal radiation Exposure”, 82 American Family Physician (2010), pp. 488 et sqq. Google Scholar

27 Logman, J Floris S, Vries, Laurens E. de, Hemels, Michiel E.H., Khattak, Sohail, and Einarson, Thomas R. “Paternal organic solvent exposure and adverse pregnancy outcomes: a meta–analysis”, 47 American Journal of Industrial Medicine (2005), at p. 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 ICRP The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection , Valentin, J. (ed.), Annals of the ICRP, Publication 103. (Oxford: Elsevier, 2007), at p. 57.Google Scholar

29 Williams and Fletcher 2010, supra note 26.

30 Salihu, H.M., , Myers, J., and August, E.M. “Pregnancy in the workplace”, 62 Occupational Medicine (2012), pp. 88 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Friedler, Gladys “Paternal exposures: Impact on reproductive and developmental outcome. An overview”, 55 Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior (1996), pp. 691 et sqq. Google Scholar

32 Cordier, Sylvaine “Evidence for a role of paternal exposures in developmental toxicity”, 102 Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology (2008), pp. 176 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 Desrosiers, Tania A, Herring, Amy H, Shapira, Stuart K, Hooiveld, Mariëtte, Luben, Tom J, Herdt–Losavio, Michele L, Lin, Shao, Olshan, Andrew F “Paternal occupation and birth defects: findings from the National Birth Defects Prevention Study” 69 Occupational and Environmental Medicine (2012), pp. 534 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 Anderson, Diana, Schmid, Thomas E, and Baumgartner, Adolf , “Male–mediated developmental toxicity”, 16 Asian Journal of Andrology (2014), pp. 81 et sqq CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

35 Chia, S.E. and Shi, L.M. “Review of recent epidemiological studies on paternal occupations and birth defects”, 59 Occupational and Environmental Medicine (2002), pp. 149 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 Logman et al 2005, supra note 27.

37 El–Helaly, Mohamed, Abdel–Elah, Kamal, Haussein, Ayman, and Shalaby, Hend “Paternal occupational exposures and the risk of congenital malformations – a case–control study”, 24 International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health (2011), pp. 218 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38 Robledo, Candace A., Yeung, Edwina, Mendola, Pauline, Sundaram, Rajeshwari, Maisog, Jose, Sweeney, Anne M., Barr, Dana Boyd, and Louis, Germaine M. Buck, “Preconception Maternal and Paternal Exposure to Persistent Organic Pollutants and Birth Size: The LIFE Study”, 123 Environmental Health Perspectives (2015), pp. 88 et sqq Google Scholar.

39 Cordier, 2008, supra note 32.

40 Schrader, Steven M. and Marlow, Katherine L. “Assessing the reproductive health of men with occupational exposures”, 16 Asian Journal of Andrology (2014), pp. 23 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 See e.g. discussion by Desrosiers et al., 2012, supra note 33.

42 Schrader and Marlow, 2014, supra note 40.

43 Anderson et al., 2014, supra note 34.

44 Council Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work OJ 1989 L 183/1.

45 Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) OJ 1992 L 348/1.

46 Amended by Directive 2014/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 amending Council Directives 92/58/EEC, 92/85/EEC, 94/33/EC and Directive 2004/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council in order to align them to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, OJ 2014 L 65/1.

47 Council directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work fourteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 9/391/EEC), OJ 1998 L 131/11.

48 Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits (SCOEL), Recommendation from the Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits for lead and its inorganic compounds. SCOEL/SUM/83 , January 2002 (European Commission. DG Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion, 2002), at pp. 3 et sqq.

49 Swedish Work Environment Authority, “AFS 2005:6 Medicinska kontroller i arbetslivet,” [Provisions 2005:6 on medical checks in working life] (Stockholm, Swedish Work Environment Authority, 2005), at pp. 6-8.

50 Ibid.

51 Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits (SCOEL), Methodology for the Derivation of Occupational Exposure Limits. Key Documentation , version 7 June 2013. (European Commission. DG Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion, 2013), at p. 24

52 Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, “2014 MAK and BAT values: Maximum Concentrations and Biological Tolerance Values at the Workplace”, 2014, Available on the Internet at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9783527682027 (last accessed on 9 October 2015).

53 Ibid., at p 211.

54 Hansson, Sven Ove “Should we protect the most sensitive people?” 29 Journal of Radiological Protection (2009) pp. 211 et sqq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55 Schenk, Linda “Comparison of data used for setting occupational exposure limits”, 16 International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health (2010) pp. 253–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56 Hansson, 2009, supra note 54.

57 Hansson, Sven Ove “Privacy, Discrimination, and Inequality in the Workplace” in Hansson, Sven Ove and Palm, Elin (eds.) The Ethics of Workplace Privacy (Brussels: Peter Lang., 2005), at pp. 119–135.Google Scholar

58 Greenberg, Danna, Ladge, Jamie, and Clair, Judy “Negotiating Pregnancy at Work: Public and Private Conflicts”, 2 Negotiation and Conflict Management Research (2009), pp. 42 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

59 T, Tydén, J, Stern, M, Nydahl, A, Berglund, M, Larsson, A, Rosenblad, C., Aarts “Pregnancy planning in Sweden – a pilot study among 270 women attending antenatal clinics”, 90 Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica (2011), pp. 408 et sqq. Google Scholar

60 Backhausen, Mette G., Ekstrand, Maria, Tydén, Tanja, Magnussen, Britta Kjeldberg, Shawe, Jill, Stern, Jenny, and Hegaard, Hanne K. “Pregnancy planning and lifestyle prior to conception and during early pregnancy among Danish women” 19 The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care (2014), pp. 57 et sqq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

61 Hansson, Sven Ove, Setting the Limit. Occupational Health Standards and the Limits of Science.(New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), at p. 45.Google Scholar

62 Heller, Carl G. and Clermont, Yves “Spermatogenesis in Man: An Estimate of Its Duration”, 140(3563) Science (1963), pp. 184 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

63 To hold prospective parents, rather than their employers, liable for the possible consequences of prenatal workplace exposures is furthermore a violation of autonomy and bodily integrity rights.

64 Even if a unified protection approach is adopted in future occupational health legislations, there may be benefits in keeping the right to apply for paid leave for pregnancy related reasons. Even though legislation aims at sufficient protection, workplace implementation may be insufficient and pose a risk to the foetus. This has been pointed out previously by for instance Messing, Karen in “One–Eyed Science: Scientists, Workplace Reproductive hazards, and the Right to Work” 29 International Journal of Health Services (1999), pp. 155–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

65 Ibid., at p. 152.

66 Hebl, Michelle R, King, Eden B., Glick, Peter, Singletary, Sarah L., and Kazama, Stephanie “Hostile and benevolent reactions toward pregnant women: Complementary interpersonal punishments and rewards that maintain traditional roles”, 92 Journal of Applied Psychology (2007), pp. 1499 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar