Best practices for promoting farmers’ health the

Authors: Vladimír Bencko Alena Slámová

Publish Date: 2007/05/26

Volume: 15, Issue: 4, Pages: 279-288

PDF Link

Abstract

The most important sources of environmental as well as occupational exposure of man to this metalloid are connected with the mining and smelting of nonferrous metals the burning of coal for its higher content the mass use of arsenicals as pesticides and in both growth stimulators and wood preservativesThe use of arsenical insecticides in agriculture decreased dramatically following the introduction of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane DDT but the use of arsenical herbicides has increased Beginning in the 1970s the use of arsenic compounds such as for wood preservatives began to grow By 1980 in the USA 70 of arsenic had been consumed for production of wood preservatives This practice was stopped 4 years ago due to the US Environmental Protection Agency EPA ban of the arsenic and chromiumbased wood preservative chromated copper arsenate This was at least in the USA an example of rational stepwise risk management which would mitigate exposure to arsenic for farmers and forestry and wood industry workersThe relatively frequent use of arsenic and its compounds in both industry and agriculture points to a wide spectrum of opportunities for human exposure this exposure can be via inhalation of airborne arsenic contaminated drinking water beverages or from food and drugs Today acute arsenic poisonings are mostly accidental Considerable concern has developed surrounding its delayed effects for its genotoxic and carcinogenic potential which has been demonstrated in epidemiological studies and subsequent animal experimentsThere is substantial epidemiological evidence for an excessive risk mostly for skin and lung cancer among workers exposed to arsenic Furthermore the genotoxic and carcinogenic effects have only been observed at relatively high exposure rates Current epidemiological and experimental studies are trying to elucidate the mechanism for this action pointing to the question of whether arsenic is actually the true genotoxic or rather an epigenetic carcinogen Due to the complexity of its effects both options remain plausible Its interactions with other toxic substances still represent another field of interestThis paper was written in a context of research activities of the 6th Framework Program EC DG SANCO Grant agreement No 2004122 “Development of Public Health Indicators for Reporting Environmental/Occupational Risks Related to Agriculture and Fishery” DIRERAF The authors would like to express their gratitude to Dr Hana Rakovcová from the Toxicology Information Centre Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague for access to a part of the historical references from classical literature to Ms Rachel Finkelstein for linguistic editing and to Mr Martin Ouvín for his devoted technical assistance

Keywords: