Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2002, publiée 91ème session CIT (2003)

Convention (n° 139) sur le cancer professionnel, 1974 - Finlande (Ratification: 1977)

The Committee takes note of the comprehensive report provided by the Government as well as the information supplied in reply to its previous comments. It also notes the comments supplied by the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK). The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following points.

1. Article 1, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Convention. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication on the number of workers exposed to carcinogens, such as quartz dust, wood dust, diesel engine exhaust and formaldehyde, which, however, although classified as carcinogens by the International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC), do not figure on the list of carcinogens contained in Decision No. 838/1993 on carcinogenic agents at work. The Government explains that the substances compiled in the Finnish list follows in the first line the classification of the European Union, which subordinates the chemical substances and agents into different categories and only the chemical agents found in categories 1 and 2 are classified as carcinogenic. Although the European Union takes the estimates of the IARC into account, the list of carcinogens is structured on the grounds of different criteria, which accordingly causes the abovementioned discrepancies between the list established by the European Union and the list of the IARC. However, the Committee notes with interest that the compilation of an index of carcinogens is continuing and that the list has been supplemented the last time by Decree No. 1232 of 18 December 2000 of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health amending section 1 and the appendix of the Ministry of Labour Decision No. 838/1993 on carcinogenic agents at work. Moreover, Decision No. 1059 of 24 November 1999 of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health on a list of dangerous substances contains as well chemicals recently classified as carcinogenic by Finland following the classification of the European Union. The Government further indicates that a working group established under the auspices of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health has submitted a report proposing to add quartz dust to the list of carcinogens because of its proven characteristic to be conducive to the development of lung cancer, although the number of cases of occupational cancer caused by quartz dust is less than eight cases per year in Finland. With regard to the other above enumerated agents, which were classified as carcinogenic by the IARC, the Committee notes that, pursuant to section 3 of Governmental Decree No. 716 of 3 August 2000 on preventing occupational risk of cancer referring to Decision No. 838/1993 of the Minister of Labour which contains a list of carcinogenic agents at work, hardwood dust, which causes cancer of the nose, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, found as ingredients in diesel exhaust fumes, are classified as carcinogenic. Furthermore, tobacco smoke is considered as carcinogenic according to section 2 of Government Decision No. 1153 of 8 December 1999 on environmental tobacco smoke and prevention of related risks of cancer. Moreover, Government Decision No. 1154 of 8 December 1999 amending the appendix to Government Decision No. 1672/1992 on health examinations in jobs involving special risk of occupational disease, introduced a new item 14 adding environmental tobacco smoke to the list of chemical agents causing cancer. However, formaldehyde has not yet been classified as carcinogenic pursuant to the classification of the European Union. The Committee, taking due note of this information, requests the Government to specify the legal basis for determining polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as carcinogens. It further requests the Government to consider the possibility to base the periodic determination of carcinogenic substances and agents not only on the categorization recognized by the European Union, but also on the indications given by the IACR, in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article of the Convention.

2. Articles 2 and 3. The Committee notes section 1 of Government Decree No. 610 of 21 June 2000 on prohibitions and restrictions concerning carcinogenic, mutagenic and reproduction-toxic agents, which provides for further restrictions of the use of agents conducive to the development of a cancer, notably their prohibition except for research and analysis purposes. With specific regard to chlorinated solvents, the annex to the Government Decision No. 1209 of 18 December 1997 on prohibitions and restrictions concerning certain chlorinated solvents prescribes restrictions of their use. The Committee further notes section 2 of Government Decision No. 1155 of 8 December 1999, amending section 2 of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health Decision on estimating risks to pregnancy and development of the foetus providing for the inclusion of particular factors, such as the mutagenic effects of certain substances, into the risk assessment to be carried out before pregnant women workers are exposed to these substances. In the same way, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health Decision No. 1156 of 8 December 1999 amending the Ministry of Labour Decision on jobs involving risks to young employees prescribes that factors particular harmful to young workers, e.g. mutagenic effects of substances and agents, have to be taken into consideration in the framework of the risk assessment. The Committee notes with interest that section 1 of Decree No. 1028 of 1 December 2000 on concentrations known to be harmful has lowered the existing limits for workers’ exposure to some workplace air carcinogens by referring to the list published as Annexes 1 and 2 of the Safety and Health Notification of the Minister of Social Affairs and Health introducing the human toxicity potential (HTP) values - a calculated index that reflects the potential harm of a unit of chemicals released into the environment used to weight emissions inventories to arrive at a common indicator of harm - for the year 2000. Moreover, section 6 of Government Decree No. 716/2000 on preventing occupational risk of cancer prescribes protective measures to be taken, notably the prohibition to use carcinogenic substances and agents which can be replaced by non- or less carcinogenic ones; the employer’s obligation to use carcinogenic substances, which for technical reasons cannot be replaced, in a closed system and, if that is not feasible, the employer is required to limit workers’ exposure as far as it is technically possible. However, the exposure limits prescribed in Annex A to this Decree must not be exceeded. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that a Decree issued by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health has confirmed a list of carcinogenic agents to which workers’ exposure must be recorded pursuant to section 2 of Act No. 1038 of 26 November 1993 requiring the employer to register the workers exposed to carcinogenic substances and methods at their workplace. Noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to specify the abovementioned Decree and to supply a copy for further examination. With regard to work involving workers’ exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, section 2 of Government Decision No. 1153/1999 on environmental tobacco smoke and prevention of the related risk of cancer, effective since 1 July 2000, requires the employer to carry out a risk assessment with a view to the nature, quantity and duration of exposure in order to estimate the risks for workers’ safety and health. On the grounds of the results of this risk assessment, the employer is obliged to take appropriate measures to protect the workers by reducing the degree of exposure, its duration as much as reasonably and technically possible and by introducing protective concepts as the working facilities allow. As to workers with a higher risk factor, notably pregnant women, section 3, subsection 2, of the said Decision prohibits the assignment of pregnant women to work involving exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. In addition, the employer is obliged, upon request, to show to the labour protection authorities the risk assessment carried out, including the data on which the risk assessment is founded, and the measures taken to reduce the workers’ exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Moreover, the employer must provide information as to the manner in which the implementation of these measures is monitored at the workplace. Moreover, section 10 of Government Decision No. 1153/1999 requires the employer to keep a record of the workers who are exposed for a significant proportion of their working time, that is a minimum period of 40 workdays, in order to determine their annual exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. In this context, the Committee notes the comments provided by the SAK arguing that the legislative process of drafting the Act on the register of workers exposed to carcinogenic substances as well as the preparative work of the legislation concerning the listing of carcinogenic substances and products and workers’ exposure did not lead to an agreed solution with regard to the shortcomings observed in practice, in particular the collection of data on occupational exposure of temporary workers who have uninterrupted short-term employment periods, however, with different employers. In these cases, the employers do not enter in a satisfactory way the exposure data in the register on the exposure of workers occupationally exposed to carcinogens (ASA Register). Therefore the data contained therein are not reliable. This is demonstrated by means of section 11 of Government Decision No. 1153/1999 on environmental tobacco smoke, according to which only exposure data workers exposed for more than 40 days must be entered in the register. Due to a lack of exchange of information between the different employers of these short-term workers, their data are left outside the ASA Register, although they should be included in the ASA Register, because the workers concerned in fact have been exposed for at least 40 workdays to environmental tobacco smoke during a number of different employment periods under short-term contracts. The Committee, taking due note of the information provided by the Government as well as of the position of SAK, requests the Government to consider measures to guarantee that exposure data of all workers irrespective of the nature of their working contract are collected in the ASA Register to ensure a system of records containing reliable data, in accordance with the requirements set forth in Article 3 of the Convention. Moreover, it invites the Government to provide information in relation to the comments supplied by the central organization of SAK. As to the ASA Register itself, the Committee notes the Government’s indication contained in its report, that the impact of the ASA Register, being a statutory register of persons exposed to carcinogenic substances since 1979, was studied by sending questionnaires to working units which entered into the register in 1996. The Committee notes with interest that 73 per cent of the units having sent their replies have introduced changes with a view to either eliminate or to reduce significantly the workers’ exposure to carcinogens. The most common changes were the elimination of work causing exposure, the reduction of the volume of carcinogens used, the replacement of carcinogenic substances by others and the use of personal protective equipment. The Government adds that in a number of cases, the ASA Registration was the primary reason for these positive actions. The Committee notes this information with interest and invites the Government to continue to provide information on the impact of the ASA Register in practice.

3. Article 5. The Committee notes with satisfaction section 16 of the Government Decree No. 716/2000 on preventing occupational risk of cancer, which came into force on 1 September 2000, prescribing the employer’s obligation to arrange appropriate health examinations of workers to monitor their state of health, as provided for under the provisions of the Occupational Health Care Act No. 743/1978. Since section 16 of the above Decree requires appropriate health examinations of workers as necessary to avoid the risk of a cancer according to the Act No. 743/1978 on health examinations, workers, who have been previously exposed to carcinogenic substances, e.g. asbestos, benefit of health examinations even after they have changed their employment. The Government further indicates that, since the scope of application of the Government Decree No. 716/2000 covers all kind of work, workers in temporary employment are also covered. With regard to asbestos and, in response to the comments supplied by the Union of Construction Workers, the Government indicates that a research project on asbestos agreed on by the labour market organizations, the authorities and the insurance system jointly is being launched aiming to obtain new information concerning occupational asbestos diagnostics and possibly of supporting lung cancer screening. As to the participants of this project, the Committee understands that the workers examined are previously diagnosed as mild cases of occupational disease and most of them are not entitled to claim handicap benefits so far. Taking due note of this information, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results of this project. It also requests the Government to reveal the possible influence of the results of this study on the worker’s entitlement to benefits as well as on future legislation. Finally, the Committee asks the Government to indicate the definition of the term "mild occupational disease".

4. Article 6(c) in conjunction with Part IV of the report form. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that, between the years 1980 and 1997, the overall cancer morbidity of persons entered into the ASA Register, thus being occupationally exposed, were on the same level as for the population in general. However, exposed workers have been only observed during an average period of 13.2 years, which in general is a too short period to design a comprehensive picture of the incidence of occupational cancer. In the light of the long latency of cancer, the Committee requests the Government to explain why the observance of workers occupationally exposed were limited to the above-indicated period of time, since as the Government said itself, this relatively short period of time of monitoring does not provide reliable results on the origin of occupational cancer. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that different types of cancer occur according to the substances or agents to which the workers have been exposed. It notes with interest that, since the adoption of the Government Decision No. 920/1992 on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to chemical agents, the monitoring of risk assessments carried out for workplace chemicals and carcinogenic chemicals has played an increasing role in the inspections of workplaces by the occupational safety and health inspectorates. In this context, the Committee notes with concern that, while a total of 112 cases of cancer of occupational origin were reported in 1999, 109 of them were caused by workers’ exposure to asbestos. However, the number of asbestos deaths reported by the insurance companies in 2000 was declining to 64 cases in relation to 104 cases in 1999.

5. The Committee notes the Government’s indications concerning the CAREX database, which was established with the support from the European Union’s programme named "Europe Against Cancer". The Government explains that this database deals in the first place with those agents classified as carcinogens by the IARC. In this respect, it deals with the number of workers exposed and the exposure data. In that way, CAREX contributes indirectly to the reduction of workers’ exposure by disseminating information to be used in risk evaluation and the measures to be taken in consequence. The Committee noting this information requests the Government to explain more in detail the concept of CAREX and to specify the manner in which the IARC is implied in this programme. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to supply, as an example, a set of data collected since the database CAREX has been set up.