The control of occupational carcinogens is based on the critical review of scientific investigations both in humans and in experimental systems. There are several review programmes being undertaken in different countries aimed at controlling occupational exposures which could be carcinogenic to humans. The criteria used in different programmes are not entirely consistent, leading occasionally to differences in the control of agents in different countries. For example, 4,4-methylene-bis-2-chloroaniline (MOCA) was classified as an occupational carcinogen in Denmark in 1976 and in the Netherlands in 1988, but only in 1992 has a notation “suspected human carcinogen” been introduced by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists in the United States.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has established, within the framework of its Monographs programme, a set of criteria to evaluate the evidence of the carcinogenicity of specific agents. The IARC Monographs programme represents one of the most comprehensive efforts to review systematically and consistently cancer data, is highly regarded in the scientific community and serves as the basis for the information in this article. It also has an important impact on national and international occupational cancer control activities. The evaluation scheme is given in table 1.

Table 1.  Evaluation of evidence of carcinogenicity in the IARC Monographs programme.

1. The evidence for the induction of cancer in humans, which obviously plays an important role in the identification of human carcinogens is considered. Three types of epidemiological studies contribute to an assessment of carcinogenicity in humans: cohort studies, case-control studies and correlation (or ecological) studies. Case reports of cancer in humans may also be reviewed. The evidence relevant to carcinogenicity from studies in humans is classified into one of the following categories:

• Sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity: A causal relationship has been established between exposure to the agent, mixture or exposure circumstance and human cancer. That is, a positive relationship has been observed between the exposure and cancer in studies in which chance, bias and confounding could be ruled out with reasonable confidence.
• Limited evidence of carcinogenicity: A positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent, mixture or exposure circumstance and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered to be credible, but chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence.
• Inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity: The available studies are of insufficient quality, consistency or statistical power to permit a conclusion regarding the presence or absence of a causal association, or no data on cancer in humans are available.
• Evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity: There are several adequate studies covering the full range of levels of exposure that human beings are known to encounter, which are mutually consistent in not showing a positive association between exposure to the agent and the studied cancer at any observed level of exposure.

2. Studies in which experimental animals (mainly rodents) are exposed chronically to potential carcinogens and examined for evidence of cancer are reviewed and the degree of evidence of carcinogenicity is then classified into categories similar to those used for human data.

3. Data on biological effects in humans and experimental animals that are of particular relevance are reviewed. These may include toxicological, kinetic and metabolic considerations and evidence of DNA binding, persistence of DNA lesions or genetic damage in exposed humans. Toxicological information, such as that on cytotoxicity and regeneration, receptor binding and hormonal and immunological effects, and data on structure-activity relationship are used when considered relevant to the possible mechanism of the carcinogenic action of the agent.

4. The body of evidence is considered as a whole, in order to reach an overall evaluation of the carcinogenicity to humans of an agent, mixture or circumstance of exposure (see table 2).

Agents, mixtures and exposure circumstances are evaluated within the IARC Monographs if there is evidence of human exposure and data on carcinogenicity (either in humans or in experimental animals) (for IARC classification groups, see table 2).

Table 2.  IARC Monograph programme classification groups.

The agent, mixture or exposure circumstance is described according to the wording of one of the following categories:

Known and Suspected Occupational Carcinogens

At present, there are 22 chemicals, groups of chemicals or mixtures for which exposures are mostly occupational, without considering pesticides and drugs, which are established human carcinogens (table 3). While some agents such as asbestos, benzene and heavy metals are currently widely used in many countries, other agents have mainly an historical interest (e.g., mustard gas and 2-naphthylamine).

Table 3. Chemicals, groups of chemicals or mixtures for which exposures are mostly occupational (excluding pesticides and drugs).
Group 1-Chemicals carcinogenic to humans¹

¹ Evaluated in the IARC Monographs, Volumes 1-63 (1972-1995) (excluding pesticides and drugs).
² CAS Registry Nos. appear between parentheses.
³ This evaluation applies to the group of chemicals as a whole and not necessarily to all individual chemicals within the group.

An additional 20 agents are classified as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A); they are listed in table 4, and include exposures that are currently prevalent in many countries, such as crystalline silica, formaldehyde and 1,3-butadiene. A large number of agents are classified as possible human carcinogens (Group 2B, table 5) - for example, acetaldehyde, dichloromethane and inorganic lead compounds. For the majority of these chemicals the evidence of carcinogenicity comes from studies in experimental animals.

Table 4. Chemicals, groups of chemicals or mixtures for which exposures are mostly occupational (excluding pesticides and drugs).
Group 2A—Probably carcinogenic to humans¹

¹ Evaluated in the IARC Monographs, Volumes 1-63 (1972-1995) (excluding pesticides and drugs).
² CAS Registry Nos. appear between parentheses.

Table 5. Chemicals, groups of chemicals or mixtures for which exposures are mostly occupational (excluding pesticides and drugs).
Group 2B—Possibly carcinogenic to humans¹

¹ Evaluated in the IARC Monographs, Volumes 1-63 (1972-1995) (excluding pesticides and drugs).
² CAS Registry Nos. appear between parentheses.

Occupational exposures may also occur during the production and use of some pesticides and drugs. Table 6 presents an evaluation of the carcinogenicity of pesticides; two of them, captafol and ethylene dibromide, are classified as probable human carcinogens, while a total of 20 others, including DDT, atrazine and chlorophenols, are classified as possible human carcinogens.

Table 6. Pesticides evaluated in IARC Monographs, Volumes 1-63(1972-1995)

¹ CAS Registry Nos. appear between parentheses.

Several drugs are human carcinogens (table 9): they are mainly alkylating agents and hormones; 12 more drugs, including chloramphenicol, cisplatine and phenacetin, are classified as probable human carcinogens (Group 2A). Occupational exposure to these known or suspected carcinogens, used mainly in chemotherapy, can occur in pharmacies and during their administration by nursing staff.

Table 7. Drugs evaluated in IARC Monographs, Volumes 1-63 (1972-1995).

¹ CAS Registry Nos. appear between parentheses.
² Suspected target organs are given in parentheses.

Several environmental agents are known or suspected causes of cancer in humans and are listed in table 8; although exposure to such agents is not primarily occupational, there are groups of individuals exposed to them because of their work: examples are uranium miners exposed to radon decay products, hospital workers exposed to hepatitis B virus, food processors exposed to aflatoxins from contaminated foods, outdoor workers exposed to ultraviolet radiation or diesel engine exhaust, and bar staff or waiters exposed to environmental tobacco smoke.

The IARC Monograph programme has covered most of the known or suspected causes of cancer; there are, however, some important groups of agents that have not been evaluated by IARC—namely, ionizing radiation and electrical and magnetic fields.

Table 8. Environmental agents/exposures known or suspected to cause cancer in humans.¹

¹ Agents and exposures, as well as medicines, occurring mainly in the occupational setting are excluded.

² Suspected target organs are given in parentheses.

³ IARC Monograph evaluation reported wherever available (1: human carcinogen; 2A: probable human carcinogen; 2B: possible human carcinogen); otherwise E: established carcinogen; S: suspected carcinogen.

⁴ Human exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons occurs in mixtures, such as engine emissions, combustion fumes and soots. Several mixtures and individual hydrocarbons have been evaluated by IARC.

Industries and Occupations

Current understanding of the relationship between occupational exposures and cancer is far from complete; in fact, only 22 individual agents are established occupational carcinogens (table 9), and for many more experimental carcinogens no definitive evidence is available based on exposed workers. In many cases, there is considerable evidence of increased risks associated with particular industries and occupations, although no specific agents can be identified as aetiological factors. Table 10 present lists of industries and occupations associated with excess carcinogenic risks, together with the relevant cancer sites and the known (or suspected) causative agent(s).

Table 9. Industries, occupations and exposures recognized as presenting a carcinogenic risk.

Table 10.  Industries, occupations and exposures reported to present a cancer excess but for which the assessment of the carcinogenic risk is not definitive.

¹ PAH, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon.

² MOCA, 4,4’-methylene-bis-2-chloroaniline.

³ PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls.

Table 9 presents industries, occupations and exposures in which the presence of a carcinogenic risk is considered to be established, whereas Table 10 shows industrial processes, occupations and exposures for which an excess cancer risk has been reported but evidence is not considered to be definitive. Also included in table 10 are some occupations and industries already listed in table 9, for which there is inconclusive evidence of association with cancers other than those mentioned in table 9. For example, the asbestos production industry is included in table 9 in relation to lung cancer and pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma, whereas the same industry is included in table 10 in relation to gastrointestinal neoplasms. A number of industries and occupations listed intables 9 and 10 have also been evaluated under the IARC Monographs programme. For example, “occupational exposure to strong inorganic acid mist containing sulphuric acid” was classified in Group 1 (carcinogenic to humans).

Constructing and interpreting such lists of chemical or physical carcinogenic agents and associating them with specific occupations and industries is complicated by a number of factors: (1) information on industrial processes and exposures is frequently poor, not allowing a complete evaluation of the importance of specific carcinogenic exposures in different occupations or industries; (2) exposures to well-known carcinogenic exposures, such as vinyl chloride and benzene, occur at different intensities in different occupational situations; (3) changes in exposure occur over time in a given occupational situation, either because identified carcinogenic agents are substituted by other agents or (more frequently) because new industrial processes or materials are introduced; (4) any list of occupational exposures can refer only to the relatively small number of chemical exposures which have been investigated with respect to the presence of a carcinogenic risk.

All of the above issues emphasize the most critical limitation of a classification of this type, and in particular its generalization to all areas of the world: the presence of a carcinogen in an occupational situation does not necessarily mean that workers are exposed to it and, in contrast, the absence of identified carcinogens does not exclude the presence of yet unidentified causes of cancer.

A particular problem in developing countries is that much of the industrial activity is fragmented and takes place in local settings. These small industries are often characterized by old machinery, unsafe buildings, employees with limited training and education, and employers with limited financial resources. Protective clothing, respirators, gloves and other safety equipment are seldom available or used. The small companies tend to be geographically scattered and inaccessible to inspections by health and safety enforcement agencies.

Back

Magnitude of the Problem

The first clear-cut evidence of cancer causation involved an occupational carcinogen (Checkoway, Pearce and Crawford-Brown 1989). Pott (1775) identified soot as the cause of scrotal cancer in London chimney-sweeps, and graphically described the abysmal working conditions, which involved children climbing up narrow chimneys that were still hot. Despite this evidence, reports of the need to prevent fires in chimneys were used to delay legislation on child labour in this industry until 1840 (Waldron 1983). An experimental model of soot carcinogenesis was first demonstrated in the 1920s (Decoufle 1982), 150 years after the original epidemiological observation.

In subsequent years, a number of other occupational causes of cancer have been demonstrated through epidemiological studies (although the association with cancer has usually first been noted by occupational physicians or by workers). These include arsenic, asbestos, benzene, cadmium, chromium, nickel and vinyl chloride. Such occupational carcinogens are very important in public health terms because of the potential for prevention through regulation and improvements in industrial hygiene practices (Pearce and Matos 1994). In most instances, these are hazards which markedly increase the relative risk of a particular type or types of cancer. It is possible that other occupational carcinogens remain undetected because they involve only a small increase in risk or because they simply have not been studied (Doll and Peto 1981). Some key facts about occupational cancer are given in table 1.

Table 1. Occupational cancer: Key facts.

• Some 20 agents and mixtures are established occupational carcinogens; a similar number of chemicals are highly suspected occupational carcinogens.
• In industrialized countries, occupation is causally linked to 2 to 8% of all cancers; among exposed workers, however, this proportion is higher.
• No reliable estimates are available on either the burden of occupational cancer or the extent of workplace exposure to carcinogens in developing countries.
• The relatively low overall burden of occupational cancer in industrialized countries is the result of strict regulations on several known carcinogens; exposure to other known or highly suspected agents, however, is still allowed.
• Although several occupational cancers are listed as occupational diseases in many countries, a very small fraction of cases is actually recognized and compensated.
• Occupational cancer is-to a very large extent-a preventable disease.

Occupational causes of cancer have received considerable emphasis in epidemiological studies in the past. However, there has been much controversy regarding the proportion of cancers which are attributable to occupational exposures, with estimates ranging from 4 to 40% (Higginson 1969; Higginson and Muir 1976; Wynder and Gori 1977; Higginson and Muir 1979; Doll and Peto 1981; Hogan and Hoel 1981; Vineis and Simonato 1991; Aitio and Kauppinen 1991). The attributable cancer risk is the total cancer experience in a population that would not have occurred if the effects associated with the occupational exposures of concern were absent. It may be estimated for the exposed population, as well as for a broader population. A summary of existing estimates is shown in table 2. Universal application of the International Classification of Diseases is what makes such tabulations possible (see box).

Table 2.  Estimated proportions of cancer (PAR) attributable to occupations in selected studies.

The International Classification of Diseases

Human diseases are classified according to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), a system that was started in 1893 and is regularly updated under the coordination of the World Health Organization. The ICD is used in almost all countries for tasks such as death certification, cancer registration and hospital discharge diagnosis. The Tenth Revision (ICD-10), which was approved in 1989 (World Health Organization 1992), differs considerably from the previous three revisions, which are similar to each other and have been in use since the 1950s. It is therefore likely that the Ninth Revision (ICD-9, World Health Organization 1978), or even earlier revisions, will still be used in many countries during the coming years.

The large variability in the estimates arises from the differences in the data sets used and the assumptions applied. Most of the published estimates on the fraction of cancers attributed to occupational risk factors are based on rather simplified assumptions. Furthermore, although cancer is relatively less common in developing countries due to the younger age structure (Pisani and Parkin 1994), the proportion of cancers due to occupation may be higher in developing countries due to the relatively high exposures which are encountered (Kogevinas, Boffetta and Pearce 1994).

The most generally accepted estimates of cancers attributable to occupations are those presented in a detailed review on the causes of cancer in the population of the United States in 1980 (Doll and Peto 1981). Doll and Peto concluded that about 4% of all the deaths due to cancer may be caused by occupational carcinogens within “acceptable limits” (i.e., still plausible in view of all the evidence at hand) of 2 and 8%. These estimates being proportions, they are dependent on how causes other than occupational exposures contribute to produce cancers. For example, the proportion would be higher in a population of lifetime non-smokers (such as the Seventh-Day Adventists) and lower in a population in which, say, 90% are smokers. Also the estimates do not apply uniformly to both sexes or to different social classes. Furthermore, if one considers not the whole population (to which the estimates refer), but the segments of the adult population in which exposure to occupational carcinogens almost exclusively occurs (manual workers in mining, agriculture and industry, broadly taken, who in the United States numbered 31 million out of a population, aged 20 and over, of 158 million in the late 1980s), the proportion of 4% in the overall population would increase to about 20% among those exposed.

Vineis and Simonato (1991) provided estimates on the number of cases of lung and bladder cancer attributable to occupation. Their estimates were derived from a detailed review of case-control studies, and demonstrate that in specific populations located in industrial areas, the proportion of lung cancer or bladder cancer from occupational exposures may be as high as 40% (these estimates being dependent not only on the local prevailing exposures, but also to some extent on the method of defining and assessing exposure).

Mechanisms and Theories of Carcinogenesis

Studies of occupational cancer are complicated because there are no “complete” carcinogens; that is, occupational exposures increase the risk of developing cancer, but this future development of cancer is by no means certain. Furthermore, it may take 20 to 30 years (and at least five years) between an occupational exposure and the subsequent induction of cancer; it may also take several more years for cancer to become clinically detectable and for death to occur (Moolgavkar et al. 1993). This situation, which also applies to non-occupational carcinogens, is consistent with current theories of cancer causation.

Several mathematical models of cancer causation have been proposed (e.g., Armitage and Doll 1961), but the model which is simplest and most consistent with current biological knowledge is that of Moolgavkar (1978). This assumes that a healthy stem cell occasionally mutates (initiation); if a particular exposure encourages the proliferation of intermediate cells (promotion) then it becomes more likely that at least one cell will undergo one or more further mutations producing a malignant cancer (progression) (Ennever 1993).

Thus, occupational exposures can increase the risk of developing cancer either by causing mutations in DNA or by various “epigenetic” mechanisms of promotion (those not involving damage to DNA), including increased cell proliferation. Most occupational carcinogens which have been discovered to date are mutagens, and therefore appear to be cancer initiators. This explains the long “latency” period which is required for further mutations to occur; in many instances the necessary further mutations may never occur, and cancer may never develop.

In recent years, there has been increasing interest in occupational exposures (e.g., benzene, arsenic, phenoxy herbicides) which do not appear to be mutagens, but which may act as promoters. Promotion may occur relatively late in the carcinogenic process, and the latency period for promoters may therefore be shorter than for initiators. However, the epidemiological evidence for cancer promotion remains very limited at this time (Frumkin and Levy 1988).

Transfer of Hazards

A major concern in recent decades has been the problem of the transfer of hazardous industries to the developing world (Jeyaratnam 1994). Such transfers have occurred in part due to the stringent regulation of carcinogens and increasing labour costs in the industrialized world, and in part from low wages, unemployment and the push for industrialization in the developing world. For example, Canada now exports about half of its asbestos to the developing world, and a number of asbestos-based industries have been transferred to developing countries such as Brazil, India, Pakistan, Indonesia and South Korea (Jeyaratnam 1994). These problems are further compounded by the magnitude of the informal sector, the large numbers of workers who have little support from unions and other worker organizations, the insecure status of workers, the lack of legislative protection and/or the poor enforcement of such protection, the decreasing national control over resources, and the impact of the third world debt and associated structural adjustment programmes (Pearce et al. 1994).

As a result, it cannot be said that the problem of occupational cancer has been reduced in recent years, since in many instances the exposure has simply been transferred from the industrialized to the developing world. In some instances, the total occupational exposure has increased. Nevertheless, the recent history of occupational cancer prevention in industrialized countries has shown that it is possible to use substitutes for carcinogenic compounds in industrial processes without leading industry to ruin, and similar successes would be possible in developing countries if adequate regulation and control of occupational carcinogens were in place.

Prevention of Occupational Cancer

Swerdlow (1990) outlined a series of options for the prevention of exposure to occupational causes of cancer. The most successful form of prevention is to avoid the use of recognized human carcinogens in the workplace. This has rarely been an option in industrialized countries, since most occupational carcinogens have been identified by epidemiological studies of populations that were already occupationally exposed. However, at least in theory, developing countries could learn from the experience of industrialized countries and prevent the introduction of chemicals and production processes that have been found to be hazardous to the health of workers.

The next best option for avoiding exposure to established carcinogens is their removal once their carcinogenicity has been established or suspected. Examples include the closure of plants making the bladder carcinogens 2-naphthylamine and benzidine in the United Kingdom (Anon 1965), termination of British gas manufacture involving coal carbonization, closure of Japanese and British mustard gas factories after the end of the Second World War (Swerdlow 1990) and gradual elimination of the use of benzene in the shoe industry in Istanbul (Aksoy 1985).

In many instances, however, complete removal of a carcinogen (without closing down the industry) is either not possible (because alternative agents are not available) or is judged politically or economically unacceptable. Exposure levels must therefore be reduced by changing production processes and through industrial hygiene practices. For example, exposures to recognized carcinogens such as asbestos, nickel, arsenic, benzene, pesticides and ionizing radiation have been progressively reduced in industrialized countries in recent years (Pearce and Matos 1994).

A related approach is to reduce or eliminate the activities that involve the heaviest exposures. For example, after an 1840 act was passed in England and Wales prohibiting chimney-sweeps from being sent up chimneys, the number of cases of scrotal cancer decreased (Waldron 1983). Exposure also can be minimized through the use of protective equipment, such as masks and protective clothing, or by imposing more stringent industrial hygiene measures.

An effective overall strategy in the control and prevention of exposure to occupational carcinogens generally involves a combination of approaches. One successful example is a Finnish registry which has as its objectives to increase awareness about carcinogens, to evaluate exposure at individual workplaces and to stimulate preventive measures (Kerva and Partanen 1981). It contains information on both workplaces and exposed workers, and all employers are required to maintain and update their files and to supply information to the registry. The system appears to have been at least partially successful in decreasing carcinogenic exposures in the workplace (Ahlo, Kauppinen and Sundquist 1988).

Back