The cost of that kitchen bench, on the lives of others

The recent debate surrounding the need for a potential ban on engineered stone (often used in benchtops) has brought to light the serious health risks such as accelerated silicosis, lung cancer and chronic pulmonary diseases associated with inhaling the dust from the cutting and grinding of this product. However, a ban is a narrow solution that misses the wider picture. Focusing exclusively on engineered stone does not address the broader issue of occupational exposure to other harmful dusts emitted by a range of industrial activities, which as a country we have long ignored.

By singling out the dust from engineered stone, the debate risks deflecting attention from the systemic shortcomings in New Zealand’s approach to dust health and safety issues related to industrial dust exposure. These shortcomings include: the lack of comprehensive data on occupational dust exposure and lung diseases; fragmented responsibility for managing worker safety; an over-reliance on industry to self-regulate and on market forces to solve problems; and a failure to provide the kind of proactive and accessible education that could help workers undertaking dust-producing activities to protect themselves. New Zealand’s light-touch approach may work in some sectors, but for industries where workers risk prolonged and repeated dust exposure, it can be fatal yet is preventable.

A glaring example of this systemic problem is the abandonment of the WorkSafe national asbestos exposure registry last year. The agency said that the reason for the registry’s wind-down was that data was not used for compensation or treatment decisions (other agencies hold data for that), only for research. They also said that the data was unreliable anyway, because of the self-reported nature of the registry.

However, a key purpose of exposure registries such as the asbestos exposure registry is to enable research such as tracing links, finding clusters, and spotting disease trends over time. Given the lag between some exposures and the onset of disease, tracing such clusters is critical. Without it, we can’t know the extent of a problem or the risk that exposure in different contexts poses for diseases to develop in the future. In the case of engineered stone, how will we know how many beautiful kitchens have come at the expense of workers’ lives?

The lack of a registry allows us to maintain our ignorance. But WorkSafe has a point. It is very difficult to ensure systematic recording and monitoring of exposure to industrial dust in a country where nearly a third of trades personnel in the construction industry are self-employed sole traders. Small operators have a lot to deal with and the burden of submitting yet another report can be a hurdle to compliance. At the same time, if taking an engineered stone (or any industrial dust-producing) job is necessary to support your family, it is hard to turn down on the basis of a long-term risk. In this context, there is an urgent need for a more systemic approach to tackling industrial dust and protecting the health of all workers – from big firms to solo operators – across all trades.

What would that approach look like and who would take the lead? Our experience studying the risk of erionite, a naturally occurring hazardous dust – which can pose a particular threat to roading and tunnelling industries in areas where it is present in the rock and soil – has revealed a fragmented landscape of responsibility. There are multiple potential entry points and types of policy intervention, depending on the means and type of dust exposure. If we can’t stay ahead of every new product that might cause harm, and we can’t require reporting of all hazardous dust-exposure events, then it is essential to consistently raise awareness of high-risk activities (cutting, grinding, filing, sanding, disturbing) and educate on how to stay protected.

The lack of transparent, proactive education for employers and workers, particularly in smaller businesses, is a critical gap in New Zealand’s approach to occupational health. Many workers may not be aware of the risks associated with industrial dust exposure. They may not know about the various long-term dangers of inhaling harmful particles, or how to properly use protective equipment or techniques available to reduce dust emissions. They may need encouragement and incentives to prioritise good practices and to invest in protective equipment.

In short, we need to think about how to make it easier for industry – especially small businesses – to do the right thing, even when consumers, focused on getting their kitchens and bathrooms renovated, are not.

Although some trade associations and unions do provide safety training, this is not standardised. There is an urgent need for broader, more accessible education on the avoidance of occupational dust exposure and proper protection. This could also encourage more informed consumer choices, if we are going to default to letting the market decide, as is often the case.

Education alone will not prevent all harm caused by hazardous industrial dust, but nor would a ban on specific products. And in our small country context where the capacity for regulatory compliance is thin on both reporting and monitoring, effective registries seem a long way off.

Still, getting to an agreed and enforceable regulatory framework for managing occupational dust-related risks has to start somewhere. Investing in proactive education campaigns that raise awareness about the long-term risks of industrial dust exposure among workers and their employers, and that equip industry with actionable knowledge to protect all workers, is long overdue.