John Libbey Eurotext

Environnement, Risques & Santé


Protecting workers against risk of exposure to carcinogenic, mutagenic, and reprotoxic agents in France Volume 17, issue 1, January-February 2018


  • Figure 1


1 ISFA, Laboratoire SAF
50, avenue Tony Garnier
69007 Lyon cedex
2 GATE - UMR 5824-CNRS
15, parvis René Descartes
BP 7000
69347 Lyon Cedex 7
Centre hospitalier Lyon Sud
Service des maladies professionnelles
8, avenue Rockefeller
69373 Lyon Cedex 08
4 Centre Léon Bérard
Direction de la recherche clinique et de l’innovation
28, rue Laënnec
69373 Lyon Cedex 08
5 Centre Léon Bérard
Unité cancer et environnement
EA 4129 Santé, Individu, Société
28, rue Laënnec
69 773 Lyon cedex 08
* Tirés à part
  • Key words: occupational exposure, carcinogens, health status disparities
  • DOI : 10.1684/ers.2017.1121
  • Page(s) : 40-7
  • Published in: 2018

Our study examines the disparities that exist in the implementation of protective measures for occupational exposures to carcinogenic, mutagenic, and reprotoxic agents in France. We analyzed data from the 2010 French national cross-sectional survey of occupational hazards (SUMER). Overall, the results showed that protective measures still appear to be insufficient, since in 19% of cases no protection – neither collective nor individual – was available to employees. The frequency of collective protection measures varied according to the CMR substances, the employees’ characteristics, their jobs and their companies. Our results, analyzed in the light of previous studies, showed that the populations most exposed to chemical CMR agents are not necessarily those who benefit the most from collective protection measures. Improving protective measures for skilled and unskilled workers seems a priority, as collective protection measures are less frequently available for them, despite the higher prevalence, duration and intensity of their exposure. Also, prevention efforts should be improved for workers with non-standard hours for whom the implemented protective measures (i.e. more general ventilation and individual protective equipment) seem to be relatively ineffective.