Background: Cancer is the leading cause of death in Canada and a major cause of death worldwide. Environmental exposure to carcinogens and environments that may relate to health behaviors are important to examine as they can be modified to lower cancer risks. Built environments include aspects such as transit infrastructure, greenspace, food and tobacco environments, or land use, which may impact how people move, exercise, eat, and live. While environments may play a role in overall cancer risk, exposure to carcinogens or healthier environments is not equitably spread across space. Exposures to carcinogens commonly concentrate among socially and/or economically disadvantaged populations. While many studies have examined inequalities in exposure or cancer risk, this has commonly been for one exposure. Methods: This scoping review collected and synthesized research that examines inequities in carcinogenic environments and exposures. Results: This scoping review found that neighborhoods with higher proportions of low-income residents, racialized people, or same-sex couples had higher exposures to carcinogens and environments that may influence cancer risk. There are currently four main themes in research studying inequitable exposures: air pollution and hazardous substances, tobacco access, food access, and other aspects of the built environment, with most research still focusing on air pollution. Conclusions: More work is needed to understand how exposures to these four areas intersect with other factors to reduce inequities in exposures to support longer-term goals toward cancer prevention.

Objectives: Night shiftwork has been linked to various health outcomes. Knowing where and to what extent workers are exposed to this type of shiftwork can help prioritize areas for intervention and further study. This study describes recent estimates of exposure to night shiftwork in Canada for 2011, and temporal trends from 1997 to 2010. Methods: Estimates by occupation, industry, province, and sex were calculated using data from the Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics (SLID) from 1996 to 2011. Workers who reported rotating or regular night shifts were classified as exposed to shiftwork involving nights, while those reporting other types of shiftwork, outside of regular daytime and evening shifts, were classified as possibly exposed. Results, with 97.5% confidence intervals (CIs), were summarized for three exposure categories: exposed workers, possibly exposed workers, and evening shift workers. Trends in 3-year rolling averages were described. Results: In 2011, approximately 1.8 million Canadians (97.5% CI, 1.7–1.8 million), or 12% of the working population (97.5% CI, 11–12%), were exposed to night shiftwork; 45% were female. An additional 2.6 million were possibly exposed (97.5% CI, 2.5–2.7 million workers), and 745 000 worked evening shifts (97.5% CI, 701 000–792 000). This amounts to 17% (97.5% CI, 17–18%) and 4.9% (97.5% CI, 4.6–5.2%) of the labour force, respectively. Industries with the highest prevalence were accommodation and food services (20%; 97.5% CI, 18–22%), forestry, fishing, mining, oil, and gas (19%; 97.5% CI, 16–23%), and healthcare and social assistance (18%; 97.5% CI, 17–19%). By occupation, the highest prevalence of exposure was in occupations in protective services (37%; 97.5% CI, 32–42%), professional occupations in health (35%; 97.5% CI, 32–39%), and machine operators and assemblers in manufacturing (24%; 97.5% CI, 22–28%). The overall number of exposure workers increased by 29% from 1997 to 2010, but the overall proportion remained relatively the same (11% and 12%, respectively). The proportion of female workers exposed increased by 2%. Conclusions: These estimates characterize exposure to night shiftwork in Canada. Continued collection of shiftwork data, with greater detail on scheduling, workplace and personal factors, is needed for high-quality surveillance and investigations of shiftwork and health.

Objectives: Certain pesticides have been associated with adverse health outcomes including cancer and reproductive harms. However, little is known about the prevalence of occupational pesticide exposure among agricultural workers in Canada. The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence and likelihood of occupational exposure to pesticides in Canada’s agricultural industry, using three commonly used, potentially carcinogenic pesticides [chlorothalonil, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), and glyphosate] as an example. Methods: Estimates were calculated using the Canadian Census of Population and the Census of Agriculture. The number of workers and the proportion of farms applying ‘herbicides’ or ‘fungicides’ by farm type was estimated using survey data from the Census of Agriculture. These values were multiplied to yield the potential number of workers at risk of exposure. Likelihood of exposure (i.e. exposed, probably exposed, and possibly exposed) was then qualitatively assigned using information on crop type, primary expected tasks, crop production practices, and residue transfer data. Additional agricultural workers who are at risk of exposure but not captured by the Census of Agriculture were identified using the 2016 Census of Population. Results: An estimated range of 37 700–55 800 workers (11–13% of agricultural workers) were exposed to glyphosate in Canada while 30 800–43 600 workers (9–11%) and 9000–14 100 (2.9–3.2%) were exposed to 2,4-D and chlorothalonil, respectively. Approximately 70–75% of workers at risk of exposure were considered probably or possibly exposed to any of the pesticides. Glyphosate exposure was most common among workers in oilseed (29% of oilseed farm workers exposed) and dry pea/bean farms (28%), along with those providing support activities for farms (31%). 2,4-D exposure was most common in corn (28%), other grain (28%), and soybean farms (27%), while chlorothalonil exposure was more likely among greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers (42%), workers on farms (28%, for occupations not captured by the Census of Agriculture, specifically), and those providing support activities for farms (20%). Regional variations broadly reflected differences in farm types by province. Conclusions: This study estimated the prevalence of occupational exposure to three pesticides in Canada. Seasonal and temporary agricultural workers, which were captured by the Census of Agriculture, contributed to many additionally exposed workers. A large percent of the workers who were considered at risk of exposure were considered probably or possibly exposed, indicating a need for enhanced data collection and availability on pesticide use data in Canada. The study’s methods can be applied to estimate workers’ exposures to other pesticides within the agricultural industry.

Objective: To assess the prevalence and determinants of sun protection behaviours among outdoors workers at work and leisure in Alberta, Canada. Methods: We collected outdoor workers’ demographics, skin cancer risk factors, job information, and sun habits at work and leisure using self-completed questionnaires. For both settings, we compared use of specific behaviours and modelled determinants of sun protection behaviour scores. Results: At work, wearing a sleeved shirt (81% often/always) and hat (73%) were most prevalent, while seeking shade (12%) and applying sunscreen (36%) were least prevalent. Workers had higher sun protection scores at work than leisure. Hours spent outdoors was a strong determinant for both models. Additional leisure model predictors were eye colour, sex, skin type, and job group. Conclusions: Differences in behaviours across settings were observed and should be considered when developing solar UVR exposure reduction initiatives.