GLOBAL PANORAMA ON MESOTHELIOMA 2008
Laurie Kazan-Allen
Presented at conference: Malignant Mesothelioma in the 21st Century
Cairo, Egypt, February 20-21, 2008

1. Introduction
Malignant mesothelioma is an “orphan” disease that in most of the world goes
undiagnosed and unreported. There is little doubt that the national incidence ofmesothelioma is linked to historical asbestos consumption. In 2004, Dr. Antti
Tossavainen reported that “170 tons of produced and consumed asbestos will cause atleast one death from mesothelioma, most often as a consequence of occupationalexposure.” 1 In March 2007, Takahashi et al. confirmed the “clear and plausible”
correlation between the amounts of national asbestos consumption in 1960-69 and theincidence of asbestos-related mortality in 2000-2004; for each additional 1 kg of asbestos
used per capita yearly in a county, there was a 2.4-fold increase in mesothelioma. 2 In
November 2007, further research by Takahashi et al was presented at an international
conference in Japan. It revealed that countries with increasing trends in pleural
mesothelioma mortality substantially outnumber those with decreasing trends. The
highest period mortality rates for 1996-2005 were recorded in Northern European andOceania: 3•••the worst affected countries were: New Zealand (21.2 deaths/million/year), Italy(16.3), Belgium (15.3), Finland (12.3), Norway (11.3), Germany (11.2) and theUK (10.8);
there were statistically significant increases in mortality in: Greece, Czech
Republic, Japan, Italy and the UK and marginally significant increases in 5 othercountries;
only the Netherlands recorded a statistically significant decrease and Iceland amarginally significant decrease.

1Tossavainen A. Global Use of Asbestos and the Incidence of Mesothelioma. Int J Occ Env Health,Jan/Mar. 2004, pp 22-25. “In Western Europe, Scandinavia, North America, and Australia the manufacture
and use of asbestos products peaked in the 1970s. Current incidences of mesothelioma range from 14 to 35
cases/million/year in 11 industrialized countries that had used asbestos at 2.0 to 5.5 kg/capita/year about 25years earlier. A significant linear correlation (r=0.80, p0.01) exists between the two variables. Accordingly,
about 170 tons of produced and consumed asbestos will cause at least one death from mesothelioma, mostoften as a consequence of occupational exposure.” See also Appendix A.
2Lin R, Takahashi K, Karjalainen A et al. Ecological Association between Asbestos-related Diseases andHistorical Asbestos Consumption: an International Analysis. The Lancet. March 10, 2007. Vol 369 844849.
3
An International Comparative Approach to the Global Asbestos Epidemic, a paper presented by Dr. Ken
Takahashi on November 23, 2007 at the International Conference on Asbestos in Yokohoma, Japan. Thispaper has been submitted for publication.

12. Information VacuumIn themselves, these figures are grounds for concern but what is equally as worrying,
if not more so, is the lack of mesothelioma data:“Reliable figures on the incidence/mortality of/from mesothelioma are available forabout 15% only of the world population. In particular, mesothelioma epidemiology
is scarcely known for a majority of the big asbestos producer/consumer countries.
Where data are available, marked variations in incidence are observed. During thelast decades mesothelioma incidence showed a progressive increase in various
industrialized countries… The mesothelioma wave consequent on the very highworld asbestos consumption (which) occurred in the 1970s has yet to be seen.” 4In some countries the lack of mesothelioma data is an intentional oversight, in others it
is due to a lack of political will and/or medical capacity. It is beyond strange that in adeveloped country such as Canada which has, for over 100 years been one of the world
leaders in asbestos mining, there is neither a national cancer registry not a national
mesothelioma registry. Canadian observers maintain that this “oversight” is part of apolitical strategy of “plausible deniability.” In other words, what the public doesn’t know
can’t impinge on the federal government’s support for the national asbestos industry. InIndia, a country which has a seemingly unquenchable thirst for asbestos, mesothelioma isalmost never diagnosed; even if it were, there are no procedures for collecting data on
this or any other occupational disease.
3. A Case Study: India
The absence of epidemiological data on the incidence of mesothelioma in India is usedby the Government to justify the continued use of asbestos, a substance banned or strictly
regulated by most developed countries. According to data collected by the U. S.
Geological Survey, in 2006 consumption of asbestos in India was 373,931 metric tons;
since 2004, asbestos imports to India have almost doubled increasing from 172,398
metric tons to 354,308 metric tons. 5 Dr. Tushar Kant Joshi, Director of the Center for
Occupational and Environmental Health in New Delhi, is concerned about therepercussions of hazardous exposures being experienced by up to 1 million workers inIndia every day. He has good reason to be worried:“studies by the National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH), an Ahmedabadbased autonomous government scientific body, have found lung impairment andradiological abnormalities in asbestos milling workers (54.8 per cent) and miners(19.5 per cent). The workplace asbestos fibre concentration in milling facilities was
4

Bianchi B. Geography of Mesothelioma: An Overview. Abstract to Global Asbestos Congress 2004;
website:http://park3.wakwak.com/~gac2004/
5There is some domestic asbestos mining in India. In 2006, this was estimated at 20,000 metric tons. Thevast majority of fiber used, however, is imported. According to UN trade statistics, from 2004-2006
asbestos imports to India mainly came from Russia (47%), Canada (20%), Brazil (12%) and Kazakhstan(12%). Data obtained from the Canadian government in 2007, revealed that India is now the biggest market
for Canadian chrysotile, absorbing 48% of all Canadian exports; sales of chrysotile to India were worth$25,196,357 for the period January-August 2007.

2

found to be 33 times higher than the Indian standard for chrysotile asbestos of 2f/cm3…
Indian researchers have reported numerous instances of high exposure levels toasbestos fibres in the workplace, which indicates a potential epidemic-like situationof asbestos-related diseases in the coming years.” 6In 2007, the Indian Government commissioned new “research” on the hazards ofchrysotile use in India. Seventy-four per cent of the funding for the proposed study camefrom the Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals and 26% came from the (Indian)asbestos industry. Independent scientists have described this “research” exercise as: “awaste of valuable resources,” having “serious methodological shortcomings, nonconventional data presentation, and interpretations,” and being “methodologicallyincomplete and (having) insufficient evidence with misinterpreted data.” 7 The fact thatindustry stakeholders have been involved in this project from the beginning and that tradeunions, environmental NGOs and public health campaigners have been excluded isrevealing. Whatever spin the Government puts on the final report, there is little doubt that
this is nothing more than a propaganda exercise intended to justify the Government’s 3rdveto of UN action on chrysotile asbestos. 8 In India, in Canada and in other countries withprofitable asbestos sectors, the human tragedy of the asbestos-injured is overlooked forthe “good” of national economies and matters of political expediency.
4. Ban Asbestos Mobilization
In India, where there is no official recognition of or compensation for asbestos-relateddisease, grass roots organizations have been working with injured workers to raiseawareness of the consequences of hazardous exposures. Groups like Ban Asbestos India,
Toxics Link and The Other Media initiate local projects to support workers and bringcourt cases to expose the government’s collusion with the asbestos industry. Similaractions are on-going around the world. Using the internet and innovative outreachprograms, civil society in countries such as Japan, Brazil, Korea and Indonesia has
succeeded in raising public and professional awareness of asbestos issues. Increasingcollaboration amongst asbestos victims’ groups, trade unions, international agencies,
global labor federations and other bodies has succeeded in maximizing the effectivenessof the ban asbestos campaign. 95. Asbestos Use in the Eastern Mediterranean (EM) Region
Reliable information on consumption of asbestos in the EM region has proved elusive.
Nevertheless, some data on EM imports have been obtained for the years 2003 and 2006

6Krishna G. The Plight of Asbestos Victims in India. Presentation at the Global Asbestos Congress. Tokyo
2004.
7
Dutta M. Briefing Note on Asbestos. February 1, 2007. Private Communication.
8
Chrysotile Asbestos: Hazardous to Humans, Deadly to the Rotterdam Convention. IBAS, BWI
publication 2006. http://ibasecretariat.org/chrys_hazard_rott_conv_06.pdf
9For more information on the work of these activists, see the International Ban Asbestos Secretariatwebsite: www.ibasecretariat.org

3

(see table 1). 10 Although all of the countries listed in table 1 are members states of theInternational Labor Organization, not one of them has signed has ratified ILO Convention
No. 162, Concerning Safety in the Use of Asbestos. 11 This suggests that even the mostminimal health and safety precautions for protecting workers from hazardous exposures
are likely to be lacking.
Table 1: Chrysotile Asbestos Imports for EM Region (tonnes) 12Country2003

2006% Change

IranUnited Arab Emirates
Egypt
Pakistan
Syrian Arab Republic
Morocco75,8529112
2382
31291209
1478

52,776
19,713
64
6,991
1,858
1,944

-30%
+116%
-97%
+123%
+54%
+32%

Total

93,181

85,947-8%

Calculations were done which showed the following:•••

dramatic increases in consumption in the majority of countries; the averageincrease exceeded 80%;
decreases in only 2 countries with an average decrease of 63.5%;
an overall decrease in EM consumption of 8%.

There is no way this is a definitive or scientific analysis; much more information isrequired before an accurate assessment of the EM mesothelioma risk can be made. Let us,for the moment, however, use these figures to calculate the mesothelioma incidence
which could be expected from such levels of consumption. At the current rate of usage
annual mesothelioma deaths in these countries could, in 40 years, be around 500. 13

10

As there is no asbestos mining in the EM region, asbestos imports equal the level of nationalconsumption.
11
http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/english/convdisp1.htm
12
The data in tables 1 & 2 come from statistics compiled by the United States Geological Survey.
13
The annual incidences of mesothelioma which could be expected based on the consumption figures for2006 are calculated using the figure suggested by Dr. Antti Tossavainen; see page 1.

4

Table 2: Chrysotile Asbestos Imports for EM Region (tonnes)
Country

1960

1970

1975

1980

Iran
United Arab Emirates
Egypt
Pakistan
Iraq
Saudi Arabia
Syrian Arab Republic
MoroccoLebanon1246--6583--450----2676
2258

11,197--6609--2000----3551
6418

24,814
2000
5477
7000
1482
10,405
3391
7160
---

23,3924631
4387
10,679--52,225
4076
6770
---

Total

13,21329,77561,729106,160

To predict the number of EM mesothelioma fatalities in 2015, we divided 1975 EM
consumption of 61,729 metric tons by 170 and produced an estimate of 363; using thesame method, the predicted mesothelioma incidence for 2010 is 175. 14 Putting thesefigures into context, Dr. Tossavainen commented:“The population of these 9 countries is about 350 million which means thatcurrently the average incidence would be around one case/million/year. Please notethat the per capita use of asbestos is rather low in this region (about 0.2kg/year/inhabitant) due to their low stage of industrial development.
Certainly all the above calculations are rough estimates but they give a reasonableestimate on the magnitude of the problem.” 15
Of course, mesothelioma is not the only disease caused by exposure to asbestos. Whenfatalities from asbestos-related lung cancer, asbestosis and other conditions are added, theregional asbestos death toll is substantially increased.
6. Wait a Minute!
Having ruminated on these figures, I decided to conduct a back-of-the-envelope attempt
to corroborate these predictions by comparing them with the UK experience. Assuming alatency period for mesothelioma of 40 years as we have done earlier, 16 I ascertained thatBritish asbestos consumption in 1965 was 175,000 tons. Using Tossavainen’s figure of
170 tons consumed/1 mesothelioma, the predicated level of British mesothelioma deaths
14

There is a very important qualification that should be noted. Tossavainen’s figure of 170
tons/mesothelioma was based on data from Europe where some regulations on asbestos use and exposures
had been introduced. In countries where no such regulations were in place, it is logical to believe that thetonnage per mesothelioma would be somewhat lower.
15See Appendix A.
16The latency period for mesothelioma is usually given as 30-50 years.

5

in 2005 would be 1029. The actual mesothelioma incidence was 2037, 17 more thandouble that suggested by the AT calculations. 18
The true impact of asbestos use in the Eastern Mediterranean region will only be known
when accurate data is available and when the conditions which prevailed in the EM
region about occupational, environmental and domestic asbestos exposures are known.

7. The Way Ahead
When the problems which remain in the industrialized world from its asbestos past areconsidered, it is inexplicable that decision makers in EM countries continue to allow theuse of this acknowledged toxin. Current asbestos exposures will lead to higher healthcosts, lost productivity and increasing mortality from a range of asbestos-related diseases.
Incorporating even more asbestos into national infrastructures will only worsen an
already deadly situation. Contaminated buildings and transport systems constitute a risk
to all who use, work in or maintain them; over time, the presence of asbestos will attracthigher maintenance bills as governments mandate stricter regulations for minimizing
hazardous exposures. And, in the end, any asbestos used will have to be removed anddumped as hazardous waste, incurring yet more avoidable costs
The mesothelioma epidemic which has already killed so many in the West is coming to
the EM; judging by figures produced by Drs. Rabab Gaafar and Nelly Aly Eldin it has
already arrived in Egypt. 19 Where asbestos prohibitions have been enacted, consumption
reduces twice as fast as in non-ban countries. 20 Although Saudi Arabia and Egypt havebans, historical consumption and increasing use by some EM countries suggest thatmesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases will be a growing problem in the future.
Banning the use of asbestos throughout the EM is a vital component of a regional healthstrategy.

17

The 2,037 British mesotheliomas in 2005 are just part of the country’s asbestos-related death toll. The
Health and Safety Executive postulates a total of 4,134 asbestos-related deaths (including mesothelioma,lung cancer and asbestosis); postulated because the vast majority of asbestos-related lung cancer cases
remain unrecognized.
18
As a side note, it is interesting to note that a graph showing the correlation between UK asbestos
consumption and male mesothelioma deaths which was part of the paper Continuing increase inmesothelioma mortality in Britain by Peto J, Hodgson JT, Matthews FE, Jones JR (1995) Lancet 345: 535539 is a very good fit; it shows 1900 male mesothelioma deaths in 2005; the actual figure was 1955.
19
Gaafar R. M., Aly Eldin N. H. Epidemic of Mesothelioma in Egypt. Lung Cancer (2005) 4951, 517-520.
20
An International Comparative Approach to the Global Asbestos Epidemic, a paper presented by Dr. KenTakahashi on November 23, 2007 at the International Conference on Asbestos in Yokohoma, Japan. This
paper has been submitted for publication.

6

Appendix A
Correspondence from Dr. Antti Tossavainen 21
An email received from Dr. Tossavainen clarified several issues behind the figure of
170 tons of asbestos consumption per mesothelioma. He wrote:“The number comes from the correlation between the annual use of asbestos about
40 years ago and the current annual incidence of mesothelioma (cases/year/million).
It means that all exposures related to industrial asbestos products are accounted for,including production, manufacture, use and environmental pollution from all
occupational, nonoccupational and domestic sources.
Exposures from natural sources (unrelated to industrial production or use, andtherefore not included in the use values) are not significant for the mesothelioma
incidence except in some very limited areas, e.g. in Turkey, Greece or China.
Although the national incidences cover all mesotheliomas, this natural exposure isof minimal importance at national level or in comparison to occupational exposures.
Since year 1980 over 1000 mesotheliomas have been registered as occupational
diseases in Finland and not a single case has been attributed to exposure to natural
sources (please note that over 2000 mesotheliomas were recorded in our cancer
registry).
For your preliminary calculations for EM region countries, you must use theANNUAL estimate for the asbestos use in the 1960s for the estimation of current
incidence (or the use of asbestos in 2006 for the incidence estimate in 2046). Thismeans that the use of 61729 tons in 1975 would induce 360 mesotheliomas in 2015
(or 85947 tons in 2006 equaling about 500 mesotheliomas in 2046).
The population of these 9 countries is about 350 million which means that currently
the average incidence would be around one case/million/year. Please note that theper capita use of asbestos is rather low in this region (about 0.2 kg/year/inhabitant)
due to their low stage of industrial development.
Certainly all the above calculations are rough estimates but they give a reasonableestimate on the magnitude of the problem.”

21Received by Laurie Kazan-Allen on February 1, 2008.

7