Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

Occupational Cancer Convention, 1974 (No. 139) - France (Ratification: 1994)

1. The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s reports. It notes in particular that the specific rules on the prevention of carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic (CMR) risks have been supplemented by Decree No. 2003-1254 of 23 December 2003. It also notes with interest the new procedure for halting work in the event of “chemical risk” introduced by Act No. 2002-73 of 17 January 2002 on social modernization.

2. Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Replacement of carcinogenic substances or agents with less dangerous or non-carcinogenic substances or agents. The Committee notes that in its reply to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government’s statement that there cannot be general and universal criteria for ascertaining the technical feasibility of replacing a carcinogenic agent with a less harmful or a non-carcinogenic agent when there are tens of thousands of different uses for the 400 or so known carcinogenic substances used in the work environment. The Government also states that Decree No. 2001-97 of 1 February 2001 confirms the role and liability of the employer in this matter, under which employers are required to prove, in the course of their risk evaluation studies, that they have actually attempted to replace the CMR agents they are still using and, in particular, that they have made unsuccessful approaches to prevention bodies, their suppliers or their customers. In order to assess technical feasibility, employers may have to take account of criteria that are purely technological or that are related to the nature of the exposure. Such criteria are liable to change and so allow preventive action to be improved. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on measures taken to replace carcinogenic substances and agents by non-carcinogenic substances or agents or by less harmful substances or agents.

3. Article 2, paragraph 2. Reducing the number of workers exposed to carcinogenic substances or agents. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that section R.231-56-3(2) of the Labour Code, reducing the number of workers exposed to as low a level as is “technically possible”, is more protective than the notion in Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Convention, because it implies an ongoing effort which does not stop once the “safety minimum” has been reached and is only limited by nothing other than the status of technology. The Committee notes that although, according to the Government’s reasoning, an effort may be demanded beyond the “safety minimum”, the effort may stop before the safety minimum is reached when it is not technically possible to reach another level. In other words, the provision of the Convention lays down a requirement for minimum safety which is not determined by technological or economic resources, but by the need to protect workers. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how it determines the threshold defined as “the minimum compatible with safety” in Article 2, paragraph 2, in order to reduce the number of workers exposed to carcinogenic substances or agents and the duration and degree of such exposure.

4. Part IV of the report form. The Committee notes with concern the growing number of cases of occupational cancer indicated in the Government’s report (840 cases in 2000 and 1,279 in 2002). It notes the Government’s statement that the increase in the number of cancers acknowledged to be occupational in origin is linked to exposure to asbestos in the past and that the increase is in part due to the law (because the Act on Social Security Funding for 1999 enabled persons with asbestos-related ailments to be reinstated in their entitlements) and is also epidemiological in nature (because France has not yet reached the peak of the curve regarding estimates of cancers expected due to exposure that occurred several decades ago). The Government also indicates that wood dust is the main causal agent, being at the origin of 67 recognized occupational cancers. With regard to the practical application of the Convention, the Government indicates that France continues to provide particularly good protection in respect of CMR agents – well beyond its international or European obligations. It plans to establish by decree new thresholds for occupational exposure in respect of CMR agents. Lastly, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, section 188 of the Act on Social Modernization reinforces even further the protection of workers against the risks involved in exposure to carcinogenic substances and agents. There is to be a procedure for halting work in the event of “chemical risk”. Under the Act, where a regulatory and binding limit of occupational exposure is exceeded, the Labour Inspectorate may order a halt to activities in the enterprise until compliance with the rules of protection is resumed. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide statistical information on cases of occupational cancer.