Health and safety body slams “shameful” £1.4bn PPE write off

Criticism from the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) follows a BBC investigation which revealed the shocking numbers of aprons, masks and goggles which were due to be disposed of, despite them being fully compliant. In response, the biggest supplier of the PPE has claimed the products may have been spoiled because they were left in shipping containers after delivery.

Fresh from attending the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) International Labour Conference, where a new global standard governing biological hazards at work came under discussion, UK-based IOSH is critical of the fact that 1.57 billion items of PPE provided by NHS supplier Full Support Healthcare will never be used, despite being manufactured to the proper standard.

This also comes after delegations from 194 Member States¹ of the World Health Organization (WHO) attended the 77th World Health Assembly to discuss current and future priorities for public health issues. As part of these discussions, the international negotiation body continues to draft and negotiate a global pandemic agreement which aims to strengthen pandemic prevention preparedness and response (with these negotiations continuing till 2025 or sooner).

With this in mind, aside from the UK’s large-scale waste of public funds on PPE that has been burned, destroyed, thrown away or recycled, including the cost of that disposal, IOSH is concerned by the preparedness and response approach adopted. It is also troubled by the adopted procurement strategy, which appeared to have prevented PPE from being stored appropriately and ultimately not used.

Threat continues

“Biological hazards of all kinds, not just Covid-19, pose significant risks for many people working in different environments,” said IOSH Head of Policy and Public Affairs Ruth Wilkinson.

“Exposure to contagious and non-contagious biological risks in 2021 is estimated to have accounted for at least 550,000 fatalities – that’s nearly 10 per cent of all estimated work-related fatalities”², she added.

“The Covid-19 pandemic highlighted the global impact that biological hazards can have on the workforce, and the wider impacts this brings to delivering key frontline services, supply chain resilience and so on. It also evidenced the need for a more proactive approach to the prevention, preparedness and response to existing, as well as new and emerging biological hazards.

International progress on biological hazards

Last month, IOSH was represented at the 112th International Labour Conference, in Geneva. Nearly 5,000 delegates meet annually from across the 187 Member States of the ILO, comprising delegations from governments, employers’ and workers’ organisations, as well as observers, including international non-profit organisations, like IOSH. They continued their progress in crafting an international Convention and Recommendation to firmly establish emergency preparedness and anticipation of biological hazards and risks.

As these discussions continue, with a final outcome yet to be reached, it is expected this global development will lay down the basic minimum protective measures to be considered when managing current, emerging and re-emerging biological hazards in work environments. It’s hoped this will ensure protection of the health and lives of all workers. It will also facilitate a more structured approach to responding to emerging risks from biological agents.

References

1. With Member States agreeing to amendments of the International Health Regulation (2005), the WHO explained to IOSH that these amendments to the Regulations will strengthen global preparedness, surveillance and responses to public health emergencies. This includes the introduction of a pandemic emergency plan and a commitment to solidarity and equity on strengthening access to medical products and financing. Given this commitment happened at the 27 May – 1 June 2024 meetings, Member States now have the right under the Regulations to evaluate each and every amendment before making a sovereign choice of whether to accept all the amendments or opt out.
2. Jukka Takala et al., Global Estimates on Biological Risks, commissioned by the ILO.