Database

Evidence from: RD Irwin. J. Appl. Toxicol. (2006) Vol. 26 p 72–80 “A review of evidence leading to the prediction that 1,4-butanediol is not a carcinogen.” L A Mucci et al. Int J Cancer (2006) Vol. 118 p 169 to 173 “Prospective study of dietary acrylamide and risk of colorectal cancer among women” C Pelucchi et al. Int. J. Cancer (2006) Vol. 118 p 467 – 471 “Dietary acrylamide and human cancer” RD Goodwin et al. Psychosomatic Medicine (2006) Vol.68 p 94–98 “Major Depression and Allergy: Does Neuroticism Explain the Relationship?” D Brodie. Industrial Law Journal. (2006) Vol.35 p 87 – 92 “The Enterprise and the Borrowed Worker” Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd [2005] IRLR 983 (CA) AM Ruder et al. Environ Health Perspect. (2006) Vol.114 p 18–23. “Mortality among Workers Exposed to Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in an Electrical Capacitor Manufacturing Plant in Indiana: An Update” AL Oakla

Described as a health and safety measure, the Directive aims to ensure harmonised standards and reduce barriers to trade. There are specific measures for the control of ergonomic hazards, noise, vibration and radiation. Evidence from: Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 Many of these requirements are to reduce risks to the lowest level, or to the minimum possible. Biological change such as fatigue, are defined as adverse outcomes. The Directive could be related to health and safety at work, but it is so open-ended as to be unhelpful to the machine manufacturer. Further detail: 6#1 45

The Government’s chief scientific advisor has requested that restrictions on the use of drug based cognitive performance enhancement be reviewed. The drugs in question were first developed for their disease treatment properties but are now found to enhance cognitive performance in the healthy. Evidence from: Sunday Times 4th June (2006) “No 10 scientist urges brain pills for all” The emergence of performance enhancement raises issues of equality/discrimination and if facilitated, encouraged or knowingly permitted by an employer (for the purpose of gain?) liability for adverse effects could be transmitted to the employer. Adverse effects could include: fatigue, dependency, emotional variability, personality changes… Further detail: 6#1 44

Interventions at six to 26 weeks of sickness absence did not improve the return to work rate. Evidence from: DWP RR342 “Impacts of the Job Retention and Rehabilitation Pilot (JRRP)” This was a complex trial of state-of-the-art interventions for people at risk of long term worklessness as a result of medical status. One possibility is that medical status and work place risk factors were not the real reason why people became workless. Insurers should hesitate to assume that medical service providers can contribute to indemnity. Further detail: 6#1 43

Evidence from: SK Mathiassen et al. J Agric Food Chem (2006) Vol.54 p 1058 – 1063 “Herbicidal Effects of Soil-Incorporated Wheat” The authors noted that wheat plants contain several chemicals with weak weed killing properties. In field trials, when wheat plants were ploughed-in after harvest, a small effect was noted on the numbers of weeds germinating and their growth in next years crops. With genetic modification, crop plants could be made to continuously exude these chemicals or to increase the dose when ploughed-in. Comment Control of such modification would need to be exceptionally reliable.

Foods containing more than 0.9% GMO by weight must be so labelled; providing the consumer the opportunity to make an informed(?) choice. The commercial costs of erroneous labelling could be considerable. The costs of false test results, or false interpretations of test results could also be considerable. The article shows good reason to doubt the usefulness of current quantification techniques; do they actually meet the needs of regulation? Evidence from: F Weighardt. Nature Biotechnology (2006) Vol.24#1 p 23 – 25 “European GMO labeling thresholds impractical and unscientific” The report provides guidance on measurement tolerances. Insurers may wish to avoid allowing labs to quote unrealistic precision; error has a high commercial value. Further detail: 6#1 41