Letters to the Editor |
Having read the letter on natural rubber latex (NRL) by Kalman, perhaps the following comments are relevant and can help those concerned to reach a balanced decision.
First, the Health & Safety Executive has designated NRL as a hazardous substance. However, they do not define whether this is the NRL in its original form or when incorporated into the final product. This is very relevant, as most people will never be exposed to NRL in its original form and, as can be shown, when a product using NRL is properly manufactured, any risk from its use will be minimal.
Second, it is important to note the definition of a hazardous substance. The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (Fifth edition) defines a ‘substance hazardous to health’ and includes the following as one of the definitions:
(e) which, not being a substance falling within sub-paragraphs (a) to (d), because of its chemical or toxicological properties and the way in which it is used or is present at the workplace creates a risk to health.This can be interpreted to mean that any substance must be considered hazardous until such time as an examination of how it is used and the resultant risks of damage to health assessed. Thus, even water can be considered as potentially a hazardous substance. In fact, as anyone concerned with the prevention of occupational skin disease will know, wet work is a common cause of occupational contact dermatitis. In Germany this has been recognized and where exposure to wet work is extensive a special regulation applies.
Third, and following on from the comments in the second paragraph, the evidence from other countries shows clearly that if the appropriate NRL gloves are used then any risk of damage to health is minimal.
NRL has been in use for many decades, with no significant health problem. It was the vast increase in the use of the thin, single-use NRL gloves in health care that triggered the ‘latex allergy epidemic’. In fact, the problem only arose due to the extensive use of the powdered version of these gloves, usually ones with a high free-protein content.
In Germany, the decision was taken in 1998 to ban powdered NRL gloves. The results speak for themselves.
As Figure 1 shows, the use of unpowdered NRL gloves has increased significantly. However, the reduction in the availability of powdered gloves has resulted in a decrease in new-onset latex allergy as well as a reduction in new-onset asthma.
|
Thus, there is no technical reason to consider the banning of NLR. Since this is a renewable resource and offers certain properties that almost no other material can match, should not this debate be put to rest once and for all?
EnviroDerm Services, 2 Amery Lodge Farm, North Littleton, Evesham WR11 8QY, UK
e-mail: chris.packham{at}enviroderm.co.uk
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||