8 
Er. Berhs reminded the working group that RAC had charged the group with exam- 
ining the potential utility and benefits of medical surveillance. In response 
to that mandate a report on medical surveillance has been generated and it would 
be ^propriate for the working group to send that report to the RAC. Dr. Bems 
suggested that written comments to RAC concerning the report would be appropriate. 
Dr. Miller felt the CDC/NIOSH report would be more appropriately published 
elsevhere, rather than be discussed by the RAC. Et. McKinn^ said the CDC/NIOSH 
report suggests prudent and reasonable medical surveillance practices for this 
industry. It does not suggest regulations. Er. McKinney moved that the 
working group present the CDC/NIOSH report to the RAC, with the reccmmendation 
that the report be viewed as a framework against which specific medical sur- 
veillance programs could be designed. Dr. McKinney said it would be inappro- 
priate to dictate precisely vhat should be done in each medical surveillance 
program. 
Dr. Mason expressed concern that the CDC/NIOSH report may be too generic: he 
felt the fermentation industry in general (such as the beer industry) may not 
need to require pre-employment physicals; on the other hand ccmpanies producing 
hormones such as growth hormcxie or interferon might prudently implement medical 
surveillance programs. 
Dr. Landrigan said medical surveillance is a very simple, largely passive 
means of detecting disease. He pointed out that medical surveillance had 
detected the major hazard of the brewing industry: hearing loss in workers in 
bottling plants vhere caps are slammed onto bottles at high decibels. Following 
the inplementation of good hearing protection programs, the frequency of noise 
induced hearing loss is decreasing. 
[ 494 ] 
