Environmental, health and safety cost benefit analysis in the United States chemical industry

The purpose of this research project is to determine whether there is a cost/benefit to allocating financial and other company-related resources to improve environmental, health and safety performance beyond that which is required by law. The issue of whether a company benefits from spending dollars to achieve environmental, health and safety performance beyond legal compliance is an important issue to the chemical manufacturing industry in the United States because of the voluminous and complex legal requirements impacting environmental, health and safety expenditures. The cost/benefit issue has practical significance because many U.S. chemical manufacturing companies base their environmental, health and safety management strategies on just achieving and maintaining compliance with legal requirements when in reality this strategy may actually be a higher cost way of managing environmental, health and safety practices. This difference in environmental, health and safety management strategy is being investigated to determine if managing environmental, health and safety to achieve performance beyond that which is required by law results in a greater benefit to companies in the U.S. chemical manufacturing sector.

Occupational respiratory disease in the services industry

Objective. To describe the spectrum and occurrence of occupational exposures of relevance to the respiratory system and their subsequent adverse effects within the service industries and occupations, as outlined by the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2007. ^ Design. Systematic review of the literature from an Ovid search including years 1950 to 2008. Initially, occupational respiratory disease categories were searched, and then combined with each of the different occupations for a comprehensive review of the literature. ^ Results. Ten groups within the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2007 were identified as having exposures leading to occupational respiratory disease. These include janitors/cleaners, dental personnel, cosmetology professionals, traffic police, veterinary personnel, firefighters, healthcare workers, bakers, and bar/restaurant workers. The most common respiratory disorder affecting this population was occupational asthma caused by many different exposures in each occupation. The biggest limitation was the absence of a uniform reporting method for occupational respiratory diseases. ^ Conclusion. There is evidence that there are risks for occupational respiratory disease in the services industry. ^ Key Words: occupational and respiratory disease and service industries ^

Occupational respiratory disease in the services industry

Objective. To describe the spectrum and occurrence of occupational exposures of relevance to the respiratory system and their subsequent adverse effects within the service industries and occupations, as outlined by the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2007. ^ Design. Systematic review of the literature from an Ovid search including years 1950 to 2008. Initially, occupational respiratory disease categories were searched, and then combined with each of the different occupations for a comprehensive review of the literature. ^ Results. Ten groups within the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2007 were identified as having exposures leading to occupational respiratory disease. These include janitors/cleaners, dental personnel, cosmetology professionals, traffic police, veterinary personnel, firefighters, healthcare workers, bakers, and bar/restaurant workers. The most common respiratory disorder affecting this population was occupational asthma caused by many different exposures in each occupation. The biggest limitation was the absence of a uniform reporting method for occupational respiratory diseases. ^ Conclusion. There is evidence that there are risks for occupational respiratory disease in the services industry. ^ Key Words. occupational and respiratory disease and service industries ^

Legal regulation of the food industry as a public health measure

Background. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is an agency of the federal government that is responsible for monitoring and maintaining public health through the regulation of many industries, including food safety. Through the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, the FDA was granted authority over the implementation and regulation of nutrition labeling on packaged foods. Many nutrients are printed on nutrition labels as well as their percent Daily Values. Research has been undertaken to examine the evidentiary basis the FDA relied upon in making its determinations regarding which nutrients to include on nutrition labels as well as their Daily Values. ^ Methods. Relevant legal policies, scientific studies, and other published literature (either in print or electronic form) were used to collect data. ^ Results. Results demonstrated that the FDA did not employ one single method in its determination of which nutrients to select for inclusion on food labels. The agency relied upon current public heath studies of that time as well as recommendations from the U.S. Surgeon General.^

Prevalence and risk factors of asthma and work -related asthma among U.S. adults: Data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988--1994

This cross-sectional analysis of the data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey was conducted to determine the prevalence and determinants of asthma and wheezing among US adults, and to identify the occupations and industries at high risk of developing work-related asthma and work-related wheezing. Separate logistic models were developed for physician-diagnosed asthma (MD asthma), wheezing in the previous 12 months (wheezing), work-related asthma and work-related wheezing. Major risk factors including demographic, socioeconomic, indoor air quality, allergy, and other characteristics were analyzed. The prevalence of lifetime MD asthma was 7.7% and the prevalence of wheezing was 17.2%. Mexican-Americans exhibited the lowest prevalence of MD asthma (4.8%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.2, 5.4) when compared to other race-ethnic groups. The prevalence of MD asthma or wheezing did not vary by gender. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that Mexican-Americans were less likely to develop MD asthma (adjusted odds ratio (ORa) = 0.64, 95%CI: 0.45, 0.90) and wheezing (ORa = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.44, 0.69) when compared to non-Hispanic whites. Low education level, current and past smoking status, pet ownership, lifetime diagnosis of physician-diagnosed hay fever and obesity were all significantly associated with MD asthma and wheezing. No significant effect of indoor air pollutants on asthma and wheezing was observed in this study. The prevalence of work-related asthma was 3.70% (95%CI: 2.88, 4.52) and the prevalence of work-related wheezing was 11.46% (95%CI: 9.87, 13.05). The major occupations identified at risk of developing work-related asthma and wheezing were cleaners; farm and agriculture related occupations; entertainment related occupations; protective service occupations; construction; mechanics and repairers; textile; fabricators and assemblers; other transportation and material moving occupations; freight, stock and material movers; motor vehicle operators; and equipment cleaners. The population attributable risk for work-related asthma and wheeze were 26% and 27% respectively. The major industries identified at risk of work-related asthma and wheeze include entertainment related industry; agriculture, forestry and fishing; construction; electrical machinery; repair services; and lodging places. The population attributable risk for work-related asthma was 36.5% and work-related wheezing was 28.5% for industries. Asthma remains an important public health issue in the US and in the other regions of the world. ^