See text links
below.
By Shizue Tomoda
Stress occurs in different ways. Workers in modern mechanized plants may be subject to a high level of noise from various machines. For example, the noise from breaker machines in a boning room of an abattoir is around 96 dB(A), higher than the maximum allowable eight hour continuous exposure level, which is 85 dB(A). The noise from air compressors or chillers is around 105 dB(A). Since repeated exposure to noise between 75 and 85 dB(A) may also be a risk to some people,27 it is not hard to imagine how stressful noise can be in some workplaces. Workplace noise, and measures to combat it, is discussed further in subsequent chapters.
One characteristic that the meat, poultry and fish processing sectors share is that they all handle commodities which are highly perishable and need to be processed in cold temperatures from the viewpoint of food safety. Moreover, due to increasing volumes of trade in frozen commodities, as well as the growing popularity for frozen products, an increasing number of workers are required to work in much colder temperatures. These conditions can also contribute to stress.
This is why a bonus or premium payment is provided in collective agreements in a number of countries. The Poultry Industry Award of Australia, for example, entitles the employee who works in temperatures between minus 15.6_ C and minus 18.0_C to an additional 35 cents per hour. Those working in temperatures between minus 18.9_C and minus 23.3_C receive an additional 61 cents per hour, and those working in less than minus 23.3_C receive an additional 96 cents per hour. The going rates in the fish processing industry are similar, though employees working in less than minus 23.3_C are entitled to an additional 98 cents per hour.
In Belgium, on the other hand, the premium of 5 per cent and 10 per cent over the normal rate are granted to those who work in temperatures below 5_C and below minus 18_C, respectively. This is provided in the collective agreements applicable to all of the meat, poultry and fish processing industries. The problem of work in cold temperatures is touched on further in the following chapter.
As in many other industries in manufacturing, the meat, poultry and fish processing sectors have become increasingly mechanized during the last two decades to improve productivity. In poultry, processing, slaughtering, defeathering, eviscerating and chilling have become largely mechanized. Deboning, for example, is still mainly done manually with a knife. Because manual operations can keep up with the speed of mechanical operations only to a certain extent, there is a growing pressure among workers related to work speed, which has become an important source of stress.
Although poultry processing was a mostly manual operation prior to 1970, the output per employee hour rose at an average annual rate of 2.9 per cent between 1963 and 1985, compared with 2.3 per cent for all manufacturing. This had been due largely to increased investment in modern production facilities. For example, a skilled worker working with a sharp knife was able to kill about 66 birds per minute. This was replaced by a mechanized machine in the 1960s which killed five birds per second. A defeathering machine can now process 160 birds per minute, and only one worker is needed to oversee the functioning of the machine and to keep the area clean. On the other hand, a halving machine, which suppressed 40 jobs, can process about 70 birds per minute. These machines have greatly contributed to raising productivity.28
Despite rapid mechanization, some tasks are still manually performed and work has become even more demanding. This is due to changes in the kinds of product marketed by these industries. For example, in the past the poultry industry mainly supplied whole fresh or frozen birds to the market, in addition to some cut-up parts. In response to a growing demand from retailers and consumers with different needs, however, the industry's products have been diversified extensively. They now range from prepackaged part trays, pre-formed patties, luncheon meats, frankfurters, frozen entrees, stuffed breasts, etc. Moreover, the rapid growth of fast-food restaurants, where chicken nuggets is a popular item on the menu, has created an ever-growing demand for deboned chicken meat.
The speed of all manual and mechanical operations in the United States is determined by the Department of Agriculture. Line speeds vary according to the weight and size of the birds being processed and the types of product produced. Since the early 1970s, the average speed from the time the birds are shackled to the conveyor, to the time they leave the plant, increased from 56 birds per minute to 70 to 90 birds per minute, depending on the inspection system used. As mechanized plants are usually highly specialized, involving a limited set of operations on a particular animal species, workers are increasingly required to perform tasks which are machine paced, repetitive and monotonous.29
Workers in meat-packing plants are in similar situations. A plant in Canada specializing in slaughtering of hogs, used to kill between 1,200 and 1,500 hogs per day, which was later increased to 2,700 per day. The speed is projected to rise to 3,500, the maximum capacity of the facility. However, the speed-up on the kill floor is reported to have been achieved without any increase in staff. Since the workers who use knives have not been replaced by machines, they are required to work much faster than before.
In another plant, in Canada, where ham is produced, the line which had run at a speed of 280 to 300 hams per hour was increased to 360 hams per hour by the mid-1980s. This gave each worker using a knife approximately nine to ten seconds to perform his task. Increased speed has not only been responsible for higher injury rates among those having to adjust to the pace of machine, but has also created an unpleasant atmosphere where workers accuse one another for being too slow or too fast.30 Thus, improved productivity in these industries has been achieved partly at the expense of employees whose work-related stress has been increased.
Since speed is an important aspect of work conditions, it is specified in some collective agreements. For example, the Meat Industry Award of Western Australia, 1980 (Version 10/4/95), where the daily tally, or the equivalent thereof, per boner is specified as follows:
(i) Beef-table or fixed hook boning -- 20 sides
On rail (mechanical) side boning -- 23 sides
(ii) Beef-table or fixed hook boning -- 40 quarters
On rail (mechanical) quarter boning -- 46 quarters
(iii) Sheep-table or fixed hook boning -- 72 carcasses
(iv) Goat-table or fixed hook boning -- 72 carcasses
(v) Vealers-table or fixed hook boning -- 50 carcasses
(vi) Pigs weighing 77 kg and over: -- 12 carcasses with skin,
-- 15 carcasses with skin removed.
To compute the daily tally, according to the award, that one side of beef is equivalent to two-quarters of beef, five briskets to one quarter of beef, and so forth. These are relatively simple calculations, but some can be complex when keeping records. For example, seven briskets with shin are computed as equal to two-quarters of beef, five butts equal to two-quarters of beef, five briskets with shin with a portion of clod bone attached is equal to two-quarters of beef, etc.
Very little information has been obtained concerning national rules and regulations on work speed. It was mentioned earlier that it is the United States Department of Agriculture which regulates this matter. The Permanent Commission of International Labour Relations (COPRINT-CNI) of Brazil reported that the average speed from the time the chickens are shackled to the conveyor, to the time they leave the plant was about 57 to 66 per minute, though it was not indicated whether this was set by law or collective agreement. According to the Ministry of Labour of Egypt, work speed was determined by regulations and directives, and performance rates within each enterprise. However, no concrete information was made available. The information obtained from Mexico stated that speed was determined by the quantity of existing products, the perishability of meat, poultry, fish and shellfish and the supply and demand levels of the local population. However, it also stated that no specific regulations existed in this area. Perhaps due to the complexity of calculations, many collective agreements may not touch on work speed in terms of a daily tally.
It may be difficult to evaluate objectively work stress related to work speed because of the differences in an individual's capacity to adjust or respond to various work situations. However, as thresholds of noise and temperature levels considered as harmful are measured scientifically, more efforts should be made to study the relationship among work speed, repetitive tasks and the extent of energy exertion required for each such movement to ensure safer working conditions. This issue has become pertinent today, particularly in the meat and poultry industries, as plants are increasingly mechanized while certain tasks remain manual, which creates a greater gap between different tasks.
Occupational accidents and diseases in the meat, poultry and fish processing industries in particular are reported more often than in many other sectors in manufacturing. This must be due partly to the nature of the work. In Australia, for example, the injury/disease incidence rate in the meat industry (slaughtering and processing) was 153.6 per 1,000 employees for 1992-93, as opposed to 54.2 in the poultry sector and 79.9 in the bacon, ham and smallgoods sector. The rate for the meat industry in total (including poultry, bacon and others) was 120.7, as opposed to 25.2 for all Australian industries.31
The safety and health situation in these industries is similar to that of Australia in many other countries. A study32 conducted in the United States noted that the injury and illness rates in meat-packing were two to three times the all-manufacturing average. In Denmark, the Food and Allied Workers' Union (NNF) found the injury rate in the meat-packing industry unacceptable despite the efforts that had been made. It has therefore called for the joint development of a crash programme to eliminate injuries and diseases.33 The statistics on occupational accidents and diseases in France show that in 1993 the frequency rate in the poultry industry was 62.0, as opposed to 36.1 for the total of the food manufacturing and trade industries.34 This information confirms that employees in these industries face higher safety and health risks than workers in other industries.
More statistical data are discussed in the following section. This section briefly reviews the safety and health hazards that these industries share. This should shed some light on why workers in these sectors tend to suffer from more accidents and diseases than their counterparts in other branches in the food or other manufacturing industries.
In the course of their activities, many employees have to work in the vicinity of various safety and health hazards. These hazards are created mainly by the following elements: the particular tasks they perform, the gaps in the levels of technology employed, the nature of their work premises, and the types of raw material they handle.
First, some of the hazards are due to the workers' tasks. In the meat industry, one task is a procedure done before the animals are slaughtered. Animals are usually transported from where they were raised to the receiving pen. During the loading and unloading of large animals, workers risk being stabbed with horns, or crushed or kicked, unless the animals are handled properly. Although fences and dividers are set up to facilitate the loading and unloading, there are always some animals, often violent ones, which obstruct these movements. In such situations, the workers' careless handling can result in serious injuries.
The actual slaughtering of large animals in most plants is now carried out mechanically or with a gun. However, handling it incorrectly can cause the animals unnecessary suffering, resulting in violent reactions that cause serious injuries to the workers. Those who perform this task must be trained thoroughly in the proper handling of live animals.
Despite an increased level of mechanization, many employees still use non-electric knives for various tasks. The knives used in fish processing come in different shapes, depending on the purpose. They range from thin, long and pointed knives for skinning and filleting, to large broad-bladed knives for splitting heavy fish such as cod, salmon, etc. In meat-packing plants, because each animal is subtly different in shape and weight, the accurate dismemberment of carcasses and precise cuts of meat still require extensive manual labour. Nearly half of these workers still perform their tasks with knives or with hand-held power tools.35 Regardless of their shape, the knives are dangerously sharp and can easily cause serious injuries to workers who handle wet, greasy and slippery raw materials. Sharp hand tools is one of the major causes of accidents.
There are other hazardous tasks that are not confined to these sectors that can lead to accidents if not performed properly. They include various forms of manual handling or physical effort, such as lifting, lowering, pushing, pulling and carrying heavy objects. While many of these tasks are now performed with machines and forklifts in modern plants, many workers still risk injuries from these physical movements and should know the correct ways to exert force in order to minimize injuries.
The second element related to safety and health hazards concerns gaps in the levels of technology employed in the course of processing and production. As mentioned earlier, these sectors have made considerable investments to raise productivity by mechanizing some tasks. Despite modernization, certain tasks are still carried out by traditional methods.
For example, chilling, smoking, curing, slicing and packaging are now done in hours rather than days. On the other hand, since no two animals are the same size, shape and weight, the proper dismemberment of carcasses, cutting meat precisely and deboning cannot be automated. This is why approximately half the employees in the meat industry still work with knives and engage in labour-intensive work.36
While the productivity of defeathering and halving machines in poultry processing, for example, improves as technology advances, many workers continue to handle deboning operations with traditional knives, and are placed under increasing pressure to work as fast as the machines.
This problem is added to the specialized and monotonous nature of the tasks performed alongside the conveyor belt. In addition, workers are required to exert considerable force with certain parts of their hands and arms in repetitive movements. Having to handle slippery objects on a greasy surface with a dangerous tool also adds to their stress. All these elements contribute to creating safety hazards, particularly for repetitive strain injuries.
While some studies37 report little evidence for a strong association between repetitive motions and the development of carpal tunnel syndrome, others38 show a close correlation. Both point to a strong relationship between the age factor and the repetitive strain injuries. Thus, more studies concerning the association between work speed, the duration of employment and the nature of the tasks on the one hand, and the development of carpal tunnel syndrome on the other might help shed more light on this type of occupational disease.
Thirdly, the kinds of premise in which employees work tend to create certain safety and health hazards that often result in accidents. Because of the nature of the work or the kinds of raw material handled, many parts of the workplaces are either hot or cold, and the floor is often wet and slippery.
An increasing number of workers now work in cold areas. From the viewpoint of food safety, carcasses, poultry meat and fish must be processed in refrigerated areas where temperatures are normally kept below 16_C, while the air temperatures in the butchering premises have to be kept as close as possible to 10_C and must not fall below 8_C.39 An increase in the trade of frozen meat and fish and a rapid rise in the production of chilled and frozen foods also make it necessary to work in cold rooms, sometimes even in freezers.
Cold rooms can cause various physical problems. Some may suffer from frostbite if they are in extreme temperatures for too long or if they are not properly covered. Others may suffer from respiratory disorders from inhaling extremely cold air. Studies have shown that accident rates also increase as temperatures fall below 19_C due to a loss of dexterity and sensitivity.40 Another study reports that the threshold of skin temperature below which dexterity is affected is 23 to 24_C.41
There are other employees who work in hot areas. In pig slaughterhouses, for example, the hair on the skin is sometimes removed by a flame, after which the animals are scalded.42 In addition, due to a rise in the demand for prepared, precooked, cooked and smoked meat, and poultry and fish products, workers are also assigned to work near ovens, smokehouses and other cooking areas where temperatures become unbearably high and can cause burns, heat rash, heat exhaustion, heat stroke, etc.43
Another characteristic is that the floor is often wet because these industries have to clean the floor and work-tables frequently with abundant water. Blood, intestines and dejecta that are constantly produced in the course of slaughtering, eviscerating and processing activities must be removed and the premises cleaned. Cleaning is essential for the health of workers, as well as for food safety but with frequent cleaning, the wet floor often causes workers to slip and fall.
Another hazard is a greasy floor, particularly where workers debone and trim the animals and where fat falls on the floor. When workers are pressured to work faster, more fat falls on the floor. As they concentrate on their work, they may step on a piece of fat that sticks to the sole and can cause serious injuries if they fall with sharp knives in their hands. A loss of dexterity in a cold room could also increase such a risk.
Another hazardous element is noise. While many tasks still remain labour intensive, the increased level of mechanization has raised the noise level. Prolonged exposure to a high level of noise (e.g. 80 dB(A) and above for eight hours) can lead to hearing impairment, and loss of hearing can create tension. It is thus important that necessary measures be taken to protect the ears. (This hazard is found in most mechanized plants in other industries and is not particularly characteristic to the sectors concerned here.)
Finally, another safety hazard is caused by infected animals and birds. Such animals and their meat not only cause food poisoning when consumed without cooking properly, but also present a risk of zoonotic diseases to those who slaughter and process them. These diseases include leptospirosis, Q fever, brucellosis, anthrax, erysipeloid, salmonellosis, tetanus, tuberculosis, toxoplasmosis, etc.
The microorganisms that cause these diseases are usually found in urine, foetuses, faeces, vaginal discharges and milk of infected animals. They are transmitted to workers through direct or indirect contact through abraded skin, oral and nasal routes and eyes or through the inhalation of infected dust and aerosols. Employees who are more prone to such infectious diseases are those who work in yards and pens, the kill floor, offal room and skin shed.44
These diseases produce various symptoms. Q fever, for example, includes muscle pains, severe headache and fever, but may also cause pneumonia and liver and heart diseases.45 Erysipeloid produces redness, irritation, a burning sensation and pain in the infected area, which can spread to the blood stream and lymph nodes. The symptoms of brucellosis are similar to those of Q fever. They include recurrent fever, headache, weakness, joint pains and loss of appetite, and give rise to symptoms such as arthritis, influenza, asthenia and spondylitis. Leptospirosis also appears in the form of headache, aching muscles, eye infection, fever, vomiting and chills, though in serious cases it may result in kidney, liver, cardiovascular and neurological complications.46
Toxoplasmosis can also be mistaken for influenza because of its common symptoms that include fever, muscle pain, sore throat, headache and swollen lymph nodes. In severe cases, it can cause blindness in one or both eyes. Pregnant women in meat processing are at particular risk because it can be transmitted to the foetus, possibly resulting in brain defects or even in stillbirths.47
Meningitis caused by streptococcus suis type 2 is another infectious disease transmitted from animals to man. In 1989, there were 108 cases reported worldwide, and nearly all infected persons -- farmers, slaughterhouse employees, butchers, meat inspectors, etc. -- had been exposed to pigs. They were contaminated mostly through wounds, bone splinters and sharp instruments such as knives, but nasal and pharyngeal lesions would have also been possible. The symptoms include fever and anorexia, followed by motor incoordination and even ataxia. Although this is a rare disease, about 50 per cent of those infected develop severe disabilities such as deafness and ataxia.48
As discussed above, leptospirosis is a disease usually transmitted from infected animals, but fish workers are not entirely free from this disease. A study49 shows that there were a total of 1,508 cases of this disease reported in the British Isles between 1970 and 1992. Included were 682 farm workers, 301 water-related workers, 46 slaughterhouse employees/butchers and 26 fish processing/handling workers. Another occupational disease associated with fish and seafood processing workers is respiratory allergy, which is caused by marine antigens of animal origin that result in rhinitis and asthma.50
All of these occupational diseases can be prevented mostly by protecting wounds, mouth and nostrils or any body parts that come into contact, directly or indirectly, with infected animals. Vaccination against these diseases is also recommended. Preventive measures will be discussed further in Chapter 5. In any event, this brief review of certain safety and health hazards characteristic to these sectors should help everyone concerned to understand better the statistical data on occupational accidents and diseases examined in the following chapter.
This chapter reviews the data on occupational accidents and diseases among meat, poultry and fish processing workers, and compares them, where possible, with those among workers in other industries. Common types of accident and disease, as well as their causes are also explored. Finally, the implication on the industries of safety and health problems will be discussed from the viewpoint of cost in terms of treatment, compensation and workdays lost.
This is confirmed by table 4.1.1, which presents the degrees of frequency and severity of occupational accidents in all sectors, the food sector and the meat industry in Belgium for 1989-92. The frequency rate in the meat industry is 2.4 times that of all sectors and 1.6 times that of the food industry. The degree of severity also indicates that more workdays were lost in the meat industry, due to accidents, than in other industries. A consolation may be that the frequency rate declined from 1989 to 1992 in all industries, including meat, but the rate for the meat industry was still unacceptably high.
The additional data made available by the Occupational Accidents Fund (Fonds voor Arbeidsongevallen) of Belgium give a clearer picture of the safety situation. Of all the accidents reported among meat, poultry and fish processing workers in 1994, 83 per cent of the injured were men (labourers and butchers are mostly men). The two most accident-prone groups were labourers and butchers/meat processing workers, their accidents accounting for 40 and 38 per cent, respectively, of all cases.
According to Belgian authorities,51 there were seven, eight and 23 cases of occupational diseases reported in the meat and poultry industries in 1989, 1990 and 1992, respectively. These are compared with seven, one and one cases of diseases reported in the same years, respectively, in the fish processing industry. If the employment data in table 1.2.2 are taken as a basis for calculation, the rate per 1,000 workers in fish processing in 1989 was ten times that of meat and poultry processing (5.68 as opposed to 0.56). It was higher for fish processing also in 1990 (0.8 as opposed to 0.64), but the situation was reversed in 1992 (1.78 for meat and poultry against 0.84 for fish processing).
In Egypt, there was a total of 5,896 workers employed in a combined total of 32 meat, poultry and fish processing establishments in 1994, according to the information provided by the Ministry of Labour. Among them, 146 cases of accidents were reported in the same year, which resulted in a loss of 3,152 workdays. The accident rate was thus 24.8 per 1,000 workers, with an average loss of 21.6 workdays per case. Since data on time series are not available, whether or not the 1994 record was an improvement over the previous years is not known.
Table 4.1.1. Degree of frequency and severity of occupational accidents in all sectors, the food sector and the meat industry in Belgium, 1989-92
| Sector | Degree of frequency 1 | Actual degree of severity 2 | Significant degree of severity 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 1989 | 1990 | 1991 | 1992 | 1989 | 1990 | 1991 | 1992 | 1989 | 1990 | 1991 | 1992 | |||||||||||||
| All sectors | 54.50 | 49.48 | 49.16 | 46.00 | 1.02 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.91 | 1.79 | 1.60 | 1.65 | 1.58 | ||||||||||||
| Food industry | 80.40 | 76.14 | 77.08 | 69.04 | 1.40 | 1.38 | 1.33 | 1.22 | 2.14 | 2.02 | 1.92 | 2.02 | ||||||||||||
| Meat industry | 146.70 | 124.20 | 127.60 | 111.00 | 2.23 | 1.94 | 1.99 | 1.92 | 4.74 | 2.46 | 3.36 | 3.39 | ||||||||||||
| 1 Degree of frequency = number of accidents x 106/number of employees x number of hours of exposure per year and per employee.
2 Actual degree of severity = number of calendar days lost x 1,000/number of hours of exposure per year. 3 Significant degree of severity = (number of calendar days lost + number of forfeited days) x 1,000/number of hours of exposure per year. Source: Karen Peirens and Marc De Greef: Meat industry, Belgium: Monitoring the work environment at sectorial level, Project No. 149, ANPAT-NVVA, Brussels, July 1994. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Table 4.1.2 lists relevant information concerning occupational accidents in the cooperative sector of the meat and poultry industries in France for 1992-94. It shows that the number of serious accidents decreased, as did the frequency rate. However, the frequency rate of accidents and diseases in the poultry industry in 1993 was 1.7 times that of the total of the food manufacturing and trade industries, as mentioned in the previous section.
Table 4.1.2. Occupational accidents in the cooperative sector of the meat and poultry industries in France, 1992-94
| Information concerning the industries and occupational accidents | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | |||
| Average No. of employees for trimester | 11 661 | 11 585 | 11 920 | |||
| Total No. of hours worked (10,000 hours) | 2 067.6 | 2 075.0 | 2 143.7 | |||
| No. of accidents resulting in loss of workdays | 2 006 | 1 960 | 1 958 | |||
| Total No. of accidents | 3 028 | 3 045 | 2 927 | |||
| No. of serious accidents | 205 | 193 | 182 | |||
| No. of workdays lost ('000) | 62.28 | 66.94 | 63.05 | |||
| Average No. of workdays lost per case | 31.05 | 34.15 | 32.20 | |||
| Frequency rate | 97.02 | 94.46 | 91.34 | |||
| Total cost of accidents (in million Fr.)1 | 27.35 | 33.48 | 34.43 | |||
| Average cost per case with lost workdays ('000 Fr.) | 13.27 | 15.96 | 16.01 | |||
| 1 This includes the cost of medical treatment, daily compensation and unearned revenues. Data provided by the Ministry of Agriculture, France. | ||||||
Table 4.1.3 shows occupational diseases also in the cooperative sector of the meat and poultry industries in France. Contrary to the frequency rate of accidents (Table 4.1.2) which declined, the disease rate increased. If the figures for meat and poultry are combined and the employment data in table 4.1.2 are used for calculations, the disease rate increased from 7.5 to 13.1 per 1,000 workers between 1992 and 1994. This is reflected in the total cost of cases, which more than doubled.
Data on occupational accidents per 1,000 full-time workers in Germany show that the rate for food, drink and tobacco industries as a whole was 63.2 in 1993, one of the highest in manufacturing. The rates for other sectors were 27.7 in chemical, 25.4 in precision engineering and electronics, 41.3 in paper and printing, 34.8 in textile and leather, 32.3 in gas and water, 29.7 in trade and administrative service and 24.6 in health service. The sectors that reported a higher rate than that of the food, drink and tobacco industries were mining (67.0), quarrying, ceramic and glass (80.3), metal work (70.3), wood (112.8) and construction (120.9).52
Table 4.1.3. Occupational diseases in the cooperative sector of the meat and poultry industries in France, 1992-94
| Information concerning occupational diseases | Meat | Poultry | ||||||||||
| 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | |||||||
| No. of cases resulting in workdays lost | 76 | 71 | 117 | 11 | 22 | 39 | ||||||
| No. of serious cases | 15 | 15 | 22 | 1 | 3 | 6 | ||||||
| Total No. of workdays lost ('000) | 7.3 | 8.0 | 11.5 | 1.8 | 2.4 | 3.9 | ||||||
| Average No. of workdays lost per case | 95.8 | 112.2 | 98.2 | 159.9 | 109.0 | 99.6 | ||||||
| Total cost of cases with/without lost workdays ('000 Fr.)1 | 2 085.8 | 3 672.3 | 4 484.2 | 406.8 | 663.8 | 1 072.7 | ||||||
| Average cost per case with lost workdays ('000 Fr.) | 26.5 | 47.7 | 37.8 | 37.0 | 30.2 | 27.5 | ||||||
| 1 This includes the cost of medical treatment, daily compensation and unearned revenues. Data provided by the Ministry of Agriculture, France. | ||||||||||||
The above rates can be compared with the information in table 4.1.4, which shows accident rates among meat processing workers in Germany. Although the rate per 1,000 meat workers declined remarkably from 201 to 127 between 1985 and 1994, the rate for 1993 was still as high as 145. (Even when commuting accidents are disregarded, the rates were as high as 136 and 119 for 1993 and 1994, respectively.) This was higher than the rates for any other industries reported above. This table suggests that the risk of accidents of meat workers is one of the highest among all sectoral groups.
According to the Ministry of Labour in Hungary, a total of 2,294 occupational accidents were reported in the meat, poultry and fish processing industries in 1988. This represented 2.9 per cent of the total accidents for all workers in the country. The number rose to 2,505 cases in 1990 (or 3.7 per cent), before declining to 1,611 cases (or 5 per cent) in 1994. Since improvement in safety records in all industries was remarkable for the period 1988-94 (nearly a 60 per cent reduction), the proportion for the meat, poultry and fish industries rose despite a decline in the actual number of cases. There were also one to three cases of fatal accidents each year. However, since more recent employment data were not made available, it is not known what percentage of the workforce in these sectors was affected by accidents.
Table 4.1.4. Workplace and commuting accidents among meat processing workers in Germany, 1985-94
| Year | Reported accidents | New cases of disability | ||||||||||||||||||
| Workplace accidents | Commuting accidents | Total | Change over previous year (%) | Per 1,000 full-time workers | Workplace accidents | Commuting accidents | Total | Change over previous year (%) | Per 1,000 full-time workers | |||||||||||
| 1985 | 46 138 | 2 191 | 48 329 | -1.0 | 201 | 636 | 130 | 766 | -10.8 | 3.2 | ||||||||||
| 1986 | 45 465 | 2 134 | 47 599 | -1.5 | 195 | 669 | 158 | 827 | +8.0 | 3.4 | ||||||||||
| 1987 | 43 198 | 2 114 | 45 312 | -4.8 | 188 | 641 | 136 | 777 | -6.1 | 3.2 | ||||||||||
| 1988 | 41 950 | 2 124 | 44 074 | -2.7 | 183 | 639 | 157 | 796 | +2.5 | 3.3 | ||||||||||
| 1989 | 40 220 | 2 236 | 42 456 | -3.7 | 179 | 510 | 131 | 641 | -19.5 | 2.7 | ||||||||||
| 1990 | 40 004 | 2 080 | 42 084 | -0.9 | 179 | 485 | 100 | 585 | -8.7 | 2.5 | ||||||||||
| 1991 | 51 288 | 2 760 | 54 048 | +28.4 | 186 | 492 | 118 | 610 | +4.3 | 2.1 | ||||||||||
| 1992 | 47 202 | 2 684 | 49 886 | -7.7 | 173 | 479 | 126 | 605 | -0.8 | 2.1 | ||||||||||
| 1993 | 40 958 | 2 607 | 43 565 | -12-7 | 145 | 530 | 124 | 654 | +8.1 | 2.1 | ||||||||||
| 1994 | 36 272 | 2 356 | 38 628 | -11.3 | 127 | 511 | 135 | 646 | -1.2 | 2.1 | ||||||||||
| Source: Fleischerei-Berufsgenossenshaft: Verwaltungsbericht 1994, Mainz, Germany. | ||||||||||||||||||||
Notes:
27 Meat Research Corporation: The Australian Meat Industry Occupational Health and Safety Best Practice Project: Noise control for abattoirs, Sydney South, New South Wales, Australia.
28 Zinal Z. Ahmed and Mark Sieling: "Two decades of productivity growth in poultry dressing and processing," in Monthly Labour Review, Apr. 1987, pp. 34-39.
29 ibid.
30 Joel Novel: "Peripheralizing core labour markets? The case of the Canadian meat packing industry", in Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 3, No. 2, June 1989, pp. 157-177.
31 Australian Government Publishing Service: Occupational Health and Safety Performance Overviews, Selected Industries, Issue No. 3 -- Meat products industry, Dec. 1994, Canberra.
32 Martin Personick and Katherine Taylor-Shirley: "Profiles in safety and health: Occupational hazards of meatpacking", in Monthly Labour Review, Jan., 1989, pp. 3-9.
33 IUF News Bulletin, No. 9-12/1995.
34 "Viande de volailles, une activité à risques élevés", in Travail et Sécurité, Feb. 1996, No. 545, pp. 14-15.
35 Joel Novek, Ch.2, fn.11.
36 ibid.
37 See Schottland and Kirschberg et al.: "Median nerve latencies in poultry processing workers: An approach to resolving the role of industrial cumulative trauma in the development of carpal tunnel syndrome", in Journal of Occupational Medicine, Vol. 33, No. 5, May 1991, pp. 627-631.
38 See Saurel-Cubizolles et al. "Douleurs péri-articulaires des membres supérieurs et conditions de travail dans les abattoirs de volailles et les conserveries", in Société de médicine du travail, d'hygiène industrielle et d'ergonomie de l'ouest, Sèances des 24 et 25, Oct. 1991, pp. 474-476.
39 An excerpt from Newsletter Bilaga 4, a quarterly review of the Swedish National Board of Occupational Safety and Health, provided for ILO's Food and Drink Industries Committee, 1991.
40 The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union and the Meat Industry Federation of Australia (AMIEU & MIFA): National Guidelines for Health and Safety in the Meat Industry, July 1995.
41 M. Aptel: "Baisse de la dextérité des salariés travaillant au froid", Institut National de Recherche et de Sécurité (INRS), Cahiers de notes documentaires No. 128, 3e trimestre, 1987, 369-374.
42 ILO: Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety, Third edition, Vol. 1, 1983.
43 AMIEU & MIFA, op. cit.
44 ibid.
45 Safety Line 20, Nov. 93.
46 S. Tomoda, Ch.1, fn.1.
47 Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety: Toxoplasmosis: A summary of the occupational health concern, Aug. 1989.
48 D. Dupas et al.: "Streptococcus suis Meningitis: A severe noncompensated occupational disease", in Journal of Occupational Medicine, Vol. 34, No. 11, Nov. 1992, pp. 1102-1105.
49 I.R. Furguson: "Rats, fish and Weil's disease", Safety and Health Practitioner, Vol. 11, No. 12, Dec. 1993, pp. 12-16.
50 N. Rosenberg and P. Gervais: "Allergie respiratoire professionnelle provoquée par les produits de la mer: Fiche d'allergologie respiratoire professionnelle No. 6", in INRS, 1987.
51 Administration de l'Hygiene et de la Médecine du Travail, Ministère de l'Emploi et du Travail, Brussels, Belgium.
52 Hauptverband der gewerblichen Berufsgenossenschaften (HVBG): '93 Geschäfts- und Rechnungsergebnisse der gewerblichen Berufsgenossenschaften, Sankt Augustin, Germany, 1994.
