Vested interests, whose primary goal is to protect markets for products which frequently have hazardous potentials, are increasingly combined with distortion of science applied in legislation, policy-making, standard-setting and legal proceedings. The Collegium Ramazzini held a panel entitled “Corporate Influence Threatens the Public’s Health” on November 1, 2018 at the Annual Ramazzini Days in Carpi, Italy, which drew attention to these hazardous malfeasances. Strategies to meet the related ongoing challenges by promoting and protecting the integrity of research, the welfare of patients and society, and the quality of medical/health education, were debated. The following conference abstracts as well as a related commentary (see this issue) were originally published in the European Journal of Oncology Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 121-127, 2018. The authors and editor of the European Journal of Oncology have agreed to re-publish their abstracts in the first issue of the Journal of Scientific Practice and Integrity. The original publication is available from: https://mattioli1885journals.com/index.php/Europeanjournalofoncology

As one of the largest waste streams, electronic waste (e-waste) production continues to grow in response to global demand for consumer electronics. This waste is often shipped to developing countries where it is disassembled and recycled. In many cases, e-waste recycling activities are conducted in informal settings with very few controls or protections in place for workers. These activities involve exposure to hazardous substances such as cadmium, lead, and brominated flame retardants and are frequently performed by women and children. Although recycling practices and exposures vary by scale and geographic region, we present case studies of e-waste recycling scenarios and intervention approaches to reduce or prevent exposures to the hazardous substances in e-waste that may be broadly applicable to diverse situations. Drawing on parallels identified in these cases, we discuss the future prevention and intervention strategies that recognize the difficult economic realities of informal e-waste recycling.

Background: Asbestos continues to be used in large quantities around the world and to be an important commodity in global trade. Objective: To assess and quantify current global patterns of asbestos production, export and use; to examine global patterns of asbestos-related disease; and to examine barriers to an asbestos ban. Method: Review of the biomedical literature describing patterns of asbestos exposure and disease; review of documents from national governments, UN agencies, and NGOs on asbestos production and use. Findings: Despite widespread knowledge of the hazards of asbestos and bans on any use of asbestos in more than 50 countries, an estimated 2 million tons of asbestos continue to be used around the world each year. Although this amount is significantly less than peak annual consumption of nearly 5 million tons two decades ago, significant amounts of asbestos are still used in India, China, Russia, and some developing countries. This use of asbestos is responsible for disease today and will cause still more asbestos-related disease in the years ahead. Real and artificially manufactured controversies regarding asbestos such as arguments about the relative hazards of different asbestos fiber types and fiber sizes have impeded bans on asbestos. Conclusions: All forms of asbestos pose grave dangers to human health. All are proven human carcinogens. There is no continued justification for the use of asbestos. Its production and use should be banned worldwide.

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers Association of India, 2012. Letter from health experts to Prime Minister Harper of Canada, January 23, 2009 Quebec, Public Health Directors, 2011. Les directions régionales de santé publique constatent l’échec de l’utilisation sécuritaire de l’amiante chrysotile. Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail du Québec, 2010. Portrait des lésions professionnelles chez les travailleurs de 45 ans et plus 1999-2008. The Case for a Global Ban on Asbestos, LaDou et al, Environmental Health Perspectives, volume 118, number 7, July 2010 Position Statement on Asbestos, JPC-SE, June 4, 2012 Endorsements from Organizations, JPC-SE Position Statement on Asbestos. Endorsements from Individuals, JPC-SE Position Statement on Asbestos. World Health Organization (WHO), 2006. Elimination of Asbestos-Related Disease. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO. National Programmes for Elimination of Asbestos-Related Diseases: Review and Assessment, 07-08 June 2011, Bonn, WHO Regional Office for Europe, pp 22-29, 2012, Substitutes for Asbestos Construction Products, Barry Castleman, ScD. Dec. 21, 2012, New homes drive tile growth, http://www.bangkokpost.com/business/economics/327227/new-homes-drive-tile-growth. Virta, RL, Asbestos: US Geological Survey, Asbestos Production, Trade & Consumption in 2011. Correction. The correct figure is 35 countries. The typographical error on the IBAS website, stating 15 countries, was corrected to say 35 countries on Feb 23, 2013. Charting the Changing Pattern of Asbestos Production and Use 1950-2012, Laurie Kazan-Allen, International Ban Asbestos Secretariat, Jan. 22, 2013 Testimony of David Bernstein in Emma Josephine Maloney Martin vs Quigley Company, Inc., District Court, Ellis County, Texas 40th Judicial District, Oct. 16, 2007. Transcript available on request. Mealey's International Asbestos Liability Report November 19, 2003, 1-9 Mealey's Intl. Asb. Liab. Rep. 7 (2003). Chrysotile Institute media release, With new supporting evidence, Quebec chrysotile is entitled to fair and balanced treatment, Sept. 9, 2003 Suzuki, Y, Yuen, SR, Ashley, R, Short, thin asbestos fibers contributed to the development of human malignant mesothelioma: Pathological evidence. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health, 208:201-10,2005. Also Dodson, RF, Analysis and relevance of asbestos burden in tissue, 2nd ed. In: Asbestos: Risk Assessment, Epidemiology and Health. Hammar and Dodson eds., CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fl., 2011, pp 49–108.

A.. n issue relevant to scientifit integrity has arisen in ·connection with a court case in the Amazon, wherein the Amazonian people are seeking redress for environmental damage and deleterious health effects related to the operations of Texaco in the Amazon region of Ecuador. It has been estimated that in its more than 20 years of oil exploitation·· in Ecuador (1971-1992), Texaco discharged into the environment 16.8 million gallons of' crude oil and· 20 billion gallons of toxic wastes.1 The. environmental damage caused by Texaco can be compared to 10.8 million gallons of crude oil spilled in Alaska in the Exxon. Valdez tanker disaster in 1989. Mor~over, six hundred open pits filled with toxic waste were apparently left in the surrounding' communities in . Ecuador.2,3 In 1995, the company signed' an agreement with Ecuador's government to undertake clean up activities in return for releasing the company from future responsibility related' to its former oil operations.4 On February 10, 2005, during the ongoing court proceedings, major newspapers in Ecuador ran a full-page (presumably paid) advertisement citing reports by scientists 'retained by Texaco who critiqued studies published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals that suggest links between adverse health effects and oil development in the Amazon.5-1oTexaco's consultant scientists, Kenneth Rothman, Felix Arellano, Alvaro Felipe Davalos Perez, Lowell Sever, DavidJ. Hewitt, and Laura Green, pointed to alleged weaknesses in the ..published studies. The ad was, to us, a blatant effort by the company to sway. public opinion as the legal case was being heard. The Web site is available at: . Epidemiologic studies, however meticulously conducted, may have inherent limitations, as allepidemiologists are aware. Epidemiology is not laboratory science but a study of the' real world, and thus always subjectto challenge in its ability to control for. all potential· effects. Especially, in .vulnerable study .populations, exact· details of the· populations.at risk, as well as the extents, natures, and durations of exposures, are difficult· to document, and ascertainment of 'outcomes is limited by the quality of health services available. However, epidemiologic findings' can confidently detect trends, and it is the body of evidence that should influence policy.' The scien.tificprocessof peer. review ascertains .whether the potential weaknesses of any' study raise doubts sufficient. to preclude publication of its .findings and' conclusions. Texaco's consultants went to great pains to find flaws.in the studies. Some of the so-:-calledweaknesses they point out are not even themselves of particular concern, e.g., while "memory bias of respondents" may be .a confounder in some circumstances, it· is hardly a factor in the case of remembering < pregnancy and spontaneous abortion ..·Self-reported health effectsof which they also seem to question the validity-is a widely used· and accepted practice. The onus cannot be put on sci.;. entists to ensure that data are available· 'to evaluate adverse health impacts. It is far more logical to require' a company extracting minerals· or biological raw materials to accept responsibility, as good corporate citizens, for determining what protective measures it would be prudent to impose, and to monitor its success in controlling poten>tial adverse human health and environmental effects. If this did not occur, should we not be asking "why not"? In 'many" jurisdictions,environmental health, impact assessments are now ,required-:7"putting the onus where it belongs: on those who, are responsible for the poten':' tial health impacts. In fact, environmental health impact assessments are 'increasingly addressing. not only direct (toxicologic),. but also indirect ,impacts, of development· projects (health effects mediated by changes in ecologic and social systems).1l,12Texaco's Web site maintains that the primary causes of disease in the region are poverty, poor sanitation, naturally occurringbacteria and. parasites, a lack ·of access to clean water, and insufficient infrastructure, adding that, "it is both irresponsible and inaccurate for the plaintiffs to ignore. these well-documented conditions." Yet nowhere does Texaco mention how oil development has conceivably:' altered these conditions, nor does it state that such conditions' increase vulnerability to the environmental exposures of concern. Responsible environmen tal health scientists, cognizant of the need to.assess indirect as well as direct health effects of operations such as these, would have raised these issues \n an open and comprehensive discussion. Texaco's protagonists, whether or not, they agree, about the adverse health impacts of the social and ecologic disruptions related to the oil company's operations, can hardly believe· that the agents involved in drilling, and in the extracted oil, are innocuous. The hired experts.never referred to industrial and environmental exposure records, so presumably either the company failed to collect and maintain these data or the containment of the toxic agents was ineffective, and therefore not mentioned: The consultants commissioned by Texaco might have reasonably been expected to note that in the light of the monitoring, control, and mitigating measures provided to· them by the company

The ICOH has played a key role in the development of some scientific documents and policy recommendations, but it has not always been scientifically objective, particularly in regard to asbestos and other fibers and some chemicals and pesticides. Many ICOH members are employees of corporations or consultants to industry, serving multinational corporate interests to influence public health policy in the guise of a professional scientific organization. ICOH members' conflicts of interest with the public health dominate the organization and damage the standing of the ICOH. Official recognition of the ICOH compromises the credibility of the WHO and the ILO. It is inappropriate for the ICOH to continue to receive WHO and ILO recognition unless the ICOH is recognized as an industry organization.

To study the musculoskeletal disorders in industrial workers in Delhi, 631 workers from 60 factories representing small and medium-sized enterprises located in Delhi were interviewed. Many (59.4%) of the workers had musculoskeletal disorders. Tailors, those working near furnaces, cooks, workers in buffing, checking and assembly work, and those working with chemicals had the most joint complaints. Cervical pain was more frequent in tailoring and packing work, whereas lumbar pain was more common in buffing, operators working on presses, those using hand and power tools, and those lifting heavy manual loads. Contract workers had less musculoskeletal morbidity than regular and temporary workers. Skilled workers also had less morbidity. Workers experiencing more job satisfaction reported fewer musculoskeletal disorders. The high prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders in workers needs urgent attention from the health and labor sectors. An ergonomic approach to prevention should be considered. The current manual load handling limits prescribed in the Indian Factory Rules potentially expose workers to back stress. It is also inappropriate to have separate load-lifting limits for men and women. Research is urgently required to determine the safe load handling limits for the Indian working population based on ergonomic principles. Until internationally acceptable safe limits are established, back pain should be a notifiable disease in India.

All 64 dentists working in a teaching hospital of New Delhi participated in a survey. A pre-tested self-administered questionnaire was used to assess knowledge and practices of biomedical waste management and infection control among these dentists. The results show that not all dentists were aware of the risks they were exposed to and only half of them observed infection control practices. In addition to this, majority of them were not aware of proper hospital waste management. The dentists need to be educated on Biomedical Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 1998 through extensive training programme.