Multidisciplinary Approach in the Abattoir and Meat Industry - Essay Example

Multidisciplinary Approach to OHS In The In Abattoir And Meat Industry Name: Lecturer: Course: Date: Introduction As Kopias (2001) explains, occupational health should seek to advance and sustain the highest possible level of mental, physical, and social well-being of the workforce in all kinds of occupations. Consequently, it should seek to prevent adverse health conditions resulting from the working conditions; protect the workforce from the risks that emanate from factors that are adverse to their health, as well as to position the workforce suitably and sustain it within their occupational environment by adapting it to their psychological and physiological abilities. These perspectives are based on a multidisciplinary perspective. In fact, the ILO Convention No. 161/1985 (1) advocates for the protection of the workforce against diseases, sicknesses, and injuries resulting from their employment by creating occupational health services for the entire workforce. For this reason, the ILO Convention suitably emphasizes the significance of employing a multidisciplinary approach in OHS. Despite such global emphasis, diseases and injuries related to workplace continue to pose significant challenge to the workplace internationally. The workforce across different industries faces constant risks of developing occupational diseases or injuries. One of the most affected industries is the meat industry. This paper critically evaluates the multidisciplinary approach to OHS, based on data from the Australian meat processing industry. It is evident from OHS data across the Australian meat industry that a multidisciplinary approach has not been used effectively. Indeed, there is a critical lack of awareness of the usefulness of multidisciplinary approach in the meat industry (Walker et al. 2005). Badri (2015) defines occupational health services as denoting the services intended to play preventive functions. Based on the multidisciplinary approach, the goals of an occupational health service are defined broadly. Its primary aim is to prevent all occupational risks, including accidents at work (Bohle & Quinlan 2000). The preventive role denotes the set of actions intended to perk up the working conditions and workplace to ensure that they are geared towards fulfilling the needs of the entire workforce (Quinlan et al. 2010). It is actually based on the reason that it can be argued that since the preventive action has to cover the all areas of working conditions, the occupational health service has to be multidisciplinary in nature. Extensive scholarly and industry researches give substantial justification for a multidisciplinary approach to OHS in the meat industry (Walker et al. 2005; Tadesse and Admassu 2006). In a past study, Tadesse and Admassu (2006) examined the trends of developing healthy and safe working conditions to conform to governments, employers, and workers’ interests globally and established that the idea of using a multidisciplinary approach has not gained universal meaning. In their view, millions of people across the globe are currently employed in conditions that expose them to health risks, as a result rationalising the need to employ multidisciplinary approach to OHS. It is significant to note that Tadesse and Admassu’s (2006) findings are credible, as annually more than 2 million people from across the globe are killed by work-related injuries and diseases. Indeed, this is significantly severe and justifies the need for a multidisciplinary approach, as the figure is greater than the number of deaths from malaria each year. Tadesse and Admassu (2006) further gives their findings weight by citing statistics indicating that more than 160 million new work-related cases of diseases are reported each year. Tadesse and Admassu (2006) named the diseases as including hearing loss, cancer, reproductive disorders, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory, neurological illnesses, and mental illnesses. Current studies also estimate that an increased number of employees in the industrialised countries experience increased cases of overwork and psychological stress (Badri 2015). While the evidence provided by current body of research bring valid evidence to rationalise the need to include the cases of overwork and psychological stress in the organisation OHS, most organisations have disregarded these stresses. In fact, it is safe to argue that by neglecting the psychological stresses, organisations have failed to foster and uphold multidisciplinary approach to OHS. Tadesse and Admassu (2006) found such psychological factors have been found to be linked to burnout syndromes, depression, insomnia, and fatigue. According Tadesse and Admassu (2006), only between 5 and 10 percent of the workforce in the developing nations and 20 and 50 percent of the workforce in developed nations have access to sufficient occupational health services that can be truly said to be anchored in multidisciplinary approach. Amponsah-Tawiah and Dartey-Baah (2012) also provides evidence showing that more than 10 million people suffer from Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) due to lack of multidisciplinary approach to OHS. Again, it reduces the labour force’s working capacity may lead to economic loss by between 10 and 20 percent of the Gross National Product of a country. In a landmark study by Kopias (2001), the researcher examined the multidisciplinary model of occupation health services based on the medical and non-medical dimensions. Following review of literature, Kopias (2001) contended that the multidisciplinary OHS model should be defined as a model of safety or occupational hygiene services instead of a medical model services. Critically, what Kopias (2001) intended to show was that occupational health services, when based on a multidisciplinary approach, traversed a range of fields rather than just the field of medical services. The evidence Kopias (2001) provides is substantially credible, as it is widely substantiated by Nuwayhid (2004) whose review of literature also revealed the broad aspects of OHS. At any rate, Nuwayhid (2004) was of the view that OHS should as well be placed on broader cultural and social context. This perspective is well supported, and is consistent with current literature by Nawar (2012), indicating that occupational health research should be perceived as an essential component of public and environmental health research, as well as positioned within the more extensive cultural and social context by resolving concerns like globalisation, child labour, imported health hazards, gender and the issues of migrant workers. Indeed, the issue of globalisation extensively affects the meat processing industry. One of the greatly affected sectors of the Australian economy is the meat processing industry, as the workforce is at high risk of occupational diseases and injuries. A past study by the Kermode et al. (2003) established that the workers in the meat processing industry are highly at risk of zoonotic bacterial infections, which are passed from animals to humans. The study further established that abattoir and meat industry employees risk getting Q fever, Brucellosis, and Leptospirosis. While the underlying weakness of the study is that it failed to reveal the OHS approach prevalently used in the industry, it is critical to argue that failure to take the risks of diseases into perspective in the industry leads to a valid conclusion that the multidisciplinary approach is significantly neglected. Indeed, this findings are worrying since despite the fact there is sufficient evidence showing that the meat processing industry has received increased focus based on the development of occupational diseases that are passed from bacteria in animals to humans, the players in the industry have failed to use a multidisciplinary approach. The risks of such occupational diseases in the meat industry affect abattoir employees, stock transporters, stock workers, hide processors, shearers, farmers, and lab workers. Indeed, to further indicate the level of divergence from a multidisciplinary approach, Fragar et al. (2005) attempted to show that the key challenge underlying occupational diseases is that most employees within the meat industry may fail to understand the changes in bodily or psychological functions. For this reason, therefore, the general knowledge on occupations diseases in the meat industry is significantly anchored in risk assessments (Woodruff 2005). In a later study, Piller and Lising (2014) further indicated the lack of multidisciplinary approach in the industry by indicating that a high number of employees in the meat industry who are immigrants or illegal immigrants, which makes it impossible to effectively implement OHS. Indeed, what this shows is that the industry has failed to use a multidisciplinary approach. In which case, using a multidisciplinary approach would ensure that the issue of immigrants are taken into perspective. For this reason, the multidisciplinary approach would call attention to the multidisciplinary nature of OHS in the globalised world, as well as the economic and social development in the wider social context. At this juncture, there is a need to reach a consensus on the breadth of OHS. Still, some researchers like Zanko and Dawson (2012) have attempted to bring evidence attesting to the fact that occupational health research approach needs to include also the pool of people actively or passively involved in OHS, to include also social activists, community organizations, professionals, and unions. Zanko and Dawson’s findings (2012) seem valid. Aside from being greatly logical, it is consistent with the findings, which also established that community organizations and trade unions should be involved in defining the occupational health agenda if it has to have a holistic approach. Conclusion It is evident from OHS data across the Australian meat industry that that a multidisciplinary approach has not been used effectively. Indeed, there is a critical lack of awareness of the usefulness of multidisciplinary approach in the meat industry. The risks of such occupational diseases in the meat industry affect abattoir employees, stock transporters, stock workers, hide processors, shearers, farmers, and lab workers. However, the key challenge underlying occupational diseases is that most employees within the meat industry may fail to understand the changes in bodily or psychological functions. Fortunately, the occupational health service, when based on a multidisciplinary approach, traverses a range of fields rather than just the field of medical services. The OHS used in the Australian meat industry should as well be placed on broader cultural and social context This is since the occupational health research approach needs to also include the pool of people actively or passively involved in OHS, to include also the social activists, community organizations, professionals, and unions. The community organizations and trade unions should be involved in defining the occupational health agenda if it has to have a holistic approach. Reference List Amponsah-Tawiah, K & Dartey-Baah, K 2012, "Occupational Health and Safety: Key Issues and Concerns in Ghana," International Journal of Business and Social Science vol 2 no 14, pp.119-126 Badri, A 2015, "The Challenge of Integrating OHS into Industrial Project Risk Management: Proposal of a Methodological Approach to Guide Future Research (Case of Mining Projects in Quebec, Canada)," Minerals vol 5, pp.314-334 Bohle, P & QUinlan, M 2000, Managing Occupational Health and Safety: A Multidisciplinary Approach, New York, Macmillan Education Dreyfus, A, Wilson, P, Collins-Emerson, J, Benschop, J, Moore, S & Heuer, C, 2014, “Risk factors for new infection with Leptospira in meat workers in New Zealand,” Occup Environ Med, vol 72 no3, pp.219-225 Fragar LJ, Pollock K & Morton C 2005, Occupational health and safety risk in the Chart-book of Summary Information 2005 Australian Beef Cattle Industry, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Sydney. Kermode, M, Yong, K, Hurley, S & Marmion, B, 2003, “An economic evaluation of increased uptake in Q fever vaccination among meat and agricultural industry workers following implementation of the National Q Fever Management Program,” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, vol 27 no 4, pp.390-398. Kopias, J 2001, "Multidisciplinary Model of Occupational Health Services. Medical And Non-Medical Aspects Of Occupational Health," International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, Vol. 14, No. 1, 23−28 Nawar, G 2012, Managing Occupational health and Safety using Dynamic Learning Systems, viewed 15 Oct 2015, Nuwayhid, I 2004, "Occupational Health Research in Developing Countries: A Partner for Social Justice," American Journal of Public Health, vol 94 no 11, pp.1916–1921 Piller, I & Lising, L, 2014, “Language, employment, and settlement: Temporary meat workers in Australia,” Multilingua, vol 33 no 1-2, Quinlan, M, Bohle, P, & Lamm, F 2010, Managing occupational health and safety: A multidisciplinary approach, 3rd ed, Palgrave Macmillan, South Yarra, Chapter 1, ‘Work and health: an overview’, pp. 1-68. Tadesse, T & Admassu, M 2006, Occupational Health and Safety, viewed 14 Oct 2015, Walker, P, Rhubart-Berg, P, McKenzie, S, Kelling, K & Lawrence, R 2005, "Invited Paper Public health implications of meat production and consumption," Public Health Nutrition, vol 8 no4, pp.348–356 Woodruff, J 2005, “Consequence and likelihood in risk estimation: A matter of balance in UK health and safety risk assessment practice,” Safety Science, vol 43, pp345–353 Zanko, M & Dawson, P 2012, “Occupational health and safety management in organizations: A review,” International Journal of Management Reviews, 14 (3), 328-344 Read More