{"word_count": 488, "character_count": 3376}
Entre 2012 et 2016, un groupe de travail résultant d'une auto-saisine de l'ANSES a travaillé sur l'exposition des travailleurs agricoles aux pesticides produisant un rapport conséquent comprenant 7 volumes.Certains des membres du groupe d'experts, associés à d'autres scientifiques, ont poursuivi certains travaux initiés dans le cadre de l'expertise. Ce groupe de quatorze scientifiques était coordonné par Alain Garrigou (Ergonome, Université de Bordeaux) et Catherine Laurent (Economiste, INRA et chercheuse associée à l'IRISSO). Il a effectué une revue de littérature pluridisciplinaire afin de déterminer si le rôle privilégié accordé aux équipements individuels de protection (EPI) dans les interventions et dispositifs visant à assurer la sécurité des personnes travaillant en agriculture exposées aux pesticides est justifiée.Ce travail a débouché sur un article publié dans la revue Safety Science qui montre que le rôle des EPI dans la prévention des expositions professionnelles aux produits phytosanitaires en agriculture est sur-estimé et que la centralité qui leur est accordée dans la délivrance des autorisations de mises sur le marché des produits phytosanitaires doit être questionnée. Il est accessible librement ici.Ces résultats principaux sont les suivants : • Cost, availability, and dangerous discomfort may make instructions to use PPE inapplicable. • The effectiveness of coveralls is not confirmed when PPE wearing practices are not controlled. • Nanotechnologies and low-dose effects are not considered in the assessment of PPE effectiveness. •The protective role attributed to PPE in the marketing authorisation of PPP should be questioned.&#160;et le résumé :"Personal protection equipment (PPE) holds a privileged position in safety interventions in many countries, despite the fact that they should only be used as a last resort. This is even more paradoxical because many concerns have arisen as to their actual effectiveness under working conditions and their ability to provide the protection attributed to them by certain occupational safety strategies and marketing authorisation procedures. Are these concerns justified? This article is intended to provide an update on what we know of the issue based on a critical analysis of the literature to date.Analysis focuses on the assessment of the effectiveness of coveralls used to protect from plant protection products in OECD countries. All forms of assessment were retained: discussion of the observed effectiveness of PPE in relation to the underlying assumptions of marketing authorisation procedures, laboratory tests of equipment, practical field tests in which PPE-wearing practices were controlled and uncontrolled, analyses of the efficiency of preventive instructions based on wearing such coveralls.Findings show that recommending the use of PPE is key to the granting of marketing authorisation. Some dangerous products only get marketing authorisation because it is assumed that wearing PPE will considerably limit exposure. They would be banned if it were not for this assumption of protection. However the actual effectiveness of PPE in working conditions may be over-estimated. In addition many factors (cost, availability, thermic and mechanical discomfort) may make instructions to wear PPE inapplicable. Advising the use of PPE does not always mean effective protection."