The workshop examined the issues involved in assessing whether companies acted responsibly or irresponsibly. The facilitators asked the participants to consider the application of knowledge by employers and how it should be used in the best interest of the environment and the health and safety of workers.

If a producer of a product has knowledge about any effects the product might have on the environment or health of anyone who is exposed to it they should make such knowledge available to anyone using it.

If a user did not use this knowledge to take the necessary steps to prevent harmful exposure to other people or the environment then they would be guilty of knowingly causing harm. This knowledge is referred to in law (UK) as Guilty Knowledge. The user would be deemed to be irresponsible

If the user is a responsible person this will not arise. They would make the information readily available to anyone likely to be exposed to the product. They would also take any action necessary to ensure that the exposure to others would be eliminated or its effects minimised.

There have been many cases of the irresponsible application of new technologies over the ages. Asbestos is probably the best known recent example. The producers of asbestos products knew that it could cause mesothelioma, a cancer caused by asbestos fibres, but chose to suppress the information at the cost of many peoples lives. They are now paying for their irresponsibility.

The use of Formaldehyde in various treatments of textiles can cause problems further down the manufacturing processes such as when the fabrics are processed into garments and steam pressed. Workers at this part of the process are unaware of the hazards in the formaldehyde treated fabric.

OPs are used as pesticides in the farming industry particularly in sheep dips for treating sheep against pests. Information about their toxic effects on human beings was not passed to sheep farmers and shepherds nor was it passed to the British Army who used Organo Phosphate sprays to kill insects in the tents of soldiers during the Gulf War. OP based insecticides are still on sale to the public for use in dealing with garden pests.

The producers of semi-conductors for the electronics industry have been guilty of paying more attention to the purity of the product than of monitoring the health of their workers. They refused to accept the evidence presented by medical experts that processes used in the manufacture of semi-conductors could effect the health of workers employed in "clean rooms"; certain substances, particularly glycol ethers, were suspected of causing spontaneous abortions in females. The semiconductor industry eventually commissioned a study of clean room workers with a view to proving the campaigners wrong. The outcome of the epidemiology study however proved there was a link between the abortions and the use of glycol ethers.

The effect of glycol ethers on human health is still being studied and evidence is emerging that they may also effect the reproductive systems of both male and female workers.

Research: The use of epidemiology and toxicology were examined by the participants.

Epidemiology: Is the a method of studying causes of illness. This involves observing the difference between the affected people and a control group of people who have not been exposed to the hazard concerned with a view to establishing proof that the illness was related to that hazard .

Toxicology: Is the discipline of experimenting with toxic hazards to establish their toxicity to humans. It can provide evidence that a substance or process is toxic and will need to be managed carefully to avoid causing illness in people exposed to it.

Experience shows that even if toxicology identifies the probable cause of illness employers will still call for epidemiology studies. (In this respect the workers are used as experimental guinea pigs)

Cost vs safety:

The participants discussed the historical situation of employer savings costs at the expense of safety.

For example: If the cost to the producer or employer in implementing environmental or health and safety measures is likely to be financially high they may decide to take a risk rather than take the necessary measures to prevent exposure to the workers or the pollution of the environment.

It was agreed that any short term financial gain will quickly be wiped out if it is established that they knowingly took such a risk. (Guilty knowledge. )

The cost in health and quality of life to those affected, however is not so easily measured.

Therefore it made sound economical sense to act responsibly

Legislation: The workshop then examined existing European legislation which could be used by campaigners to ensure a responsible attitude by employers and producers.

Article 6.3 and 9.1 - Provides guidelines on Risk Assessment.

Directive 88/364 - Banning Certain Specified Agents and/or Certain Work Activities.

Calls on employers to:-

Reduce exposure

Replace carcinogens

Training and information for workers.

Occupational Diseases - The Commission will establish criteria of recognition and recommend their introduction into national laws of member states.

The workshop participants agreed that the issue of responsible technology needed to be tackled in a global strategy since transnational companies tended to export hazards to countries where labour was least organised. It was also agreed that information and knowledge was the key to responsible technology.

High on the agenda was the right of people to know what hazards were associated with the exposure to substances and processes. This information should be easily accessed.

That an International Campaign for Responsible Technology be established.

With the following aims and objectives:

a) That the campaign use every legal means available to force companies to act responsibly and to highlight responsible alternatives, and to influence big companies to conform especially those with a vulnerable image. The use of international communications would be essential in this respect.

b) to encourage trade unions to work with communities to force companies into good neighbour agreements aimed at minimising the hazards of pollution to the workplace and the local environment.

c) To campaign for the introduction of independent quality training programmes for workers which is industry specific and accessible to non trade union organised workers.

d) To make better use of the knowledge gained by workers serving on health & safety committees, and to network with universities and academics friendly to trade unions and workers to use the information for research purposes.

e) To campaign for the establishment of an international database accessible to all.

f) TLVs - Campaign for an independent body to set Threshold Limit Values.

- For the limits to be set at the lowest and highest standards.

- To set standards for the whole work environment.

- To examine synergistic affects of substances collectively rather than individually.

- To continually monitor threshold limits and health including an effective structure for reporting and recording clinical observations, especially the symptoms of workers exposed to chemicals, and for more accurate monitoring of new and developing technologies.

g) To campaign for the continual monitoring of the way temporary workers are used, and how companies use private employment agencies to employ workers on zero contracts, and how sub-contracting methods are used to transfer hazards.

h) To campaign at all levels for legislation which puts the burden of proof on the producer rather than the victim of new processes and substances.

i) Campaign for rigorous testing of all new chemical substances similar to the criteria applied to new drugs

j ) To campaign for technology to be used for responsible peaceful purposes.