ASBESTOS: AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Laurie Kazan-Allen
Presented at seminar: Asbestos – Still a Killer
European Parliament, Belgium, June 30, 2011
Data received earlier this month confirms that global asbestos consumption is still overtwo million tonnes a year. Why, in the face of all that is known about the asbestos hazard, isthis class 1 carcinogen still being used? And used by countries which are least able toprovide measures to protect their populations; in 2010 69% of global consumption was inAsia, 22% in Eastern Europe. The answer is simple: politics. And let’s not forget the oil
which greases the political process: Russian Roubles, Kazakhstani Tenge, Ukrainian Hryvna
and, lest we forget, Canadian dollars! There seems to be no limit to the greed of theinternational asbestos mafia, no deed to which it will not stoop to protect this industry ofmass destruction. As far as asbestos stakeholders are concerned, when there is money to bemade the threat to human life and the contamination of the environment are irrelevant.
Events which took place last week in Switzerland bear this out.
On June 20-24, the 5th Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention met inGeneva. The Rotterdam Convention is a multilateral United Nations protocol underwhich vulnerable populations are provided a modicum of protection from dangerous
substances. When a consensus has been achieved regarding the hazardous nature of adesignated chemical or pesticide, that substance is included on the prior informed consent
list of the Convention. This listing is not a ban; it is however a requirement that exporting
nations provide documentation on the nature of the substance so that importers can makean informed decision as to whether or not they are capable of using it safely.
The subject of listing chrysotile (white) asbestos was on the agenda last week. Efforts
to achieve the listing of chrysotile had been defeated on two prior occasions by asbestos
refusniks led by Canada. Since the listing of chrysotile was defeated in 2008, however,Canadian civil society has been mobilized and the hypocrisy of the CanadianGovernment’s pro-asbestos position has been exposed. Canadian citizens are asking whyis asbestos being taken out of the Canadian Parliament and the Prime Minister’sresidence, if it is safe enough to be exported to developing countries? Why indeed.
Canadian doctors, public health experts, human rights activists and trade unionists havedeclared their support for the campaign to shut down asbestos mining and officially banasbestos; although a de facto ban already exists whereby virtually no asbestos is used in
Canada, there is no legislation prohibiting its use.
In light of the outrage expressed at home, the 2011 Canadian delegation to theRotterdam Convention decided to let others do its dirty work. During the course of theplenary session debate on June 21, objections to listing chrysotile were expressed by 5
out of the 143 Parties to the Convention (3%); Canada stayed silent. The announcementon June 22 that India, one of the objectors, had reversed its position paved the way for
productive negotiations with other dissenters. When it became clear that the asbestos veto1was about to melt away, Canada – “the very silent elephant in the room” – emerged fromthe shadows.
With the statement: “Canada is not in a position to support the listing of chrysotile
in Annex 3. Canada is unable to join the consensus," by Canadian delegate David
Sproule “all hell broke loose.” The intensive efforts made by the Chair, delegates andnegotiators to find a way through this impasse were fruitless. Canada continued tostonewall attempts to ascertain its sticking point and repeatedly said “for over 30 years
Canada has actively promoted the safe and controlled use of chrysotile.”
Asbestophiles, ever anxious to create doubt in order to forestall the introduction of
trade restrictions, state publicly that scientific data are lacking which definitively provesthat asbestos exposure can damage human health. And yet documents obtained by
Canadian researcher Ken Rubin under the Freedom of Information Act show that HealthCanada, which is the Canadian government’s health department, has no doubt as to theharm caused by asbestos. A 2006 memo from civil servant Paul Glover at Health Canada(HC) noted:“We can not say that chrysotile is safe… HC’s preferred position would be tolist… (HC acknowledges that) the final decision (regarding Canada’s position atthe Rotterdam Convention) will not be made on the basis of health alone, andother key factors will need to be considered.”Two years later, a HC draft memo was more explicit about the asbestos hazard:“Health Canada’s Expert Panel presented a report to Health Canada that confirmed
chrysotile asbestos poses a risk to human health. Health Canada’s current
position is that asbestos is a carcinogen which can cause lung cancer andmesothelioma.”
Clearly the “other key factors” prevented the Canadian delegation from taking theadvice of its own advisors, for by the end of last week (June 24), Canada’s position had
not wavered; it refused to elucidate or explain its rock-solid stance on not listing
chrysotile. The frustration amongst delegates was palpable, with the African Group ofcountries going as far as to “register its extreme disappointment in the manner in which
Canada has acted…” Pointing out the financial and human costs incurred by the African
delegations to attend the Geneva conference, the Group held Canada directly responsible
for the failure to progress the chrysotile discussion.
In a virtually unprecedented move on June 24, a Declaration on Chrysotile wasadopted by scores of delegations which expressed their disappointment at the chrysotile
stalemate, highlighted the veto exerted by a “a small number of Parties for threeconsecutive Conferences of the Parties,” and resolved “to move forward to list chrysotile
asbestos in Annex III...” Unfortunately, the next Convention meeting is at least 2 years
away – 2 more years for global asbestos pushers to dump chrysotile on unsuspecting
populations.

2Before the dust from Geneva could even begin to settle, Prime Minister Harper
reaffirmed his support for Canada’s asbestos industry by joining in celebrations to markSaint Jean Baptiste Day, Quebec’s national holiday (June 24), at Thetford Mines, theheart of Canada’s asbestos mining region. The timing of his trip to asbestos central was
not lost on Canadian journalists, one of whom said it reinforced the Harper Government’s“political marriage to asbestos.” Thetford Mines resident Real Couture, who called thePrime Minister’s visit “historic,” was proud of the asbestos industry which has, he said,“brought a lot of wealth to the region.” As far as he and the retired asbestos miners
gathered in the local restaurant were concerned the risks are exaggerated and asbestos“can be used safely if handled properly.” Where have we heard that before?
If Canada was occupying the role of head bully boy in Geneva, it had ample support
from the asbestos industry’s enforcers; lobbyists at COP5 included at least 15
representatives from Russia, Ukraine, Canada, Kazakhstan, India, Brazil, Mexico andVietnam. The names of their paymasters constitutes a veritable who’s who of global
industry lobbying groups:
Asbestos Lobbying Groups Present at COP5RussiaUkraineCanadaKazakhstanIndiaBrazilMexicoVietnam

Organization

Delegates

International Chrysotile Alliance of Trade Union
Organizations
Ukrainian Chrysotile Association
Trade Union of Building and Building MaterialWorkers
Chrysotile InstituteConfederation of Employers
Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers
Association, India
Asbestos Information Centre
Sao Paulo Federation of Construction Workers
International Federation of Chrysotile Workers
Brazilian Chrysotile Institute
Mexican Institute of Fiber Industries
Vietnam National Roof Sheet Association211311111111I have gone into detail regarding the events last week in Geneva as I feel that what tookplace was a classic example of how vested interests have manipulated international
agencies, deceived regional bodies and lobbied national governments to achieve theirobjective: a continuation of the status quo which permits the unfettered sale of asbestos
around the world.
How can we accept this? Some of us are old enough to remember when tobacco
advertisements carried endorsements from medical professionals urging us to smoke aparticular brand of cigarette. The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, a“global trend-setter,” signaled the end to tobacco industry participation in meetings of theInternational Labor Organization (ILO) and World Health Organization (WHO). The
3

Convention recognized “that the spread of the tobacco epidemic is a global problem withserious consequences for public health.” Nowadays, the ability of the tobacco industry toinfluence global and national leaders is very much curtailed. Not so the asbestos industry.
At the 2008 ILO meeting in Seoul, members of the asbestos lobby were everywhere.
With their hired scientists, spin doctors and translators, they made up a large and highly
visible contingent. The double-fronted booth staffed by Russian Chrysotile advocates inthe exhibition hall dispensed glossy commercial propaganda in Korean, English andRussian. At official sessions, speakers aligned with the chrysotile industry made personal
attacks on ban asbestos campaigners and accused reputable labor federations ofcorruption for their ban asbestos positions. The behavior of the Russian lobbyists which
was aggressive and thuggish, led to calls for security staff to eject disruptive participantsfrom one seminar.
No doubt the same practices will be put into play at the 19th World Congress on Safetyand Health at Work: Building a Culture of Prevention for a Healthy and Safe Future due
to take place in September 2011 in Istanbul. The ability of the ILO to improve
occupational health standards through education and awareness raising at this highprofile event will be diminished by the presence of asbestos industry representatives.
Bearing in mind the expense of holding such a gathering and the cost of delegates
attending, what possible benefit can result from the attendance of the asbestos lobbyists?
ACTION POINTS
1.

MEPs are requested to issue a denunciation of the obstructive behavior of theCanadian delegation at the Rotterdam Convention meeting last week. Measures
should be considered such as sanctions and trade boycotts which would translate
outrage into action. The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement(CETA) between Canada and the EU, called the “most comprehensive trade
agreement that either side has ever negotiated,” should be put on ice until theasbestos issue has been resolved.

2.

MEPs are requested to challenge the $58 million loan guarantee that the Quebec
government offered the international consortium that plans to open a newasbestos mine in Quebec; this mine will export 5 million tonnes of asbestos toAsia over the next 25 years. This financial support is not only morally repugnant
but is also an unfair trade subsidy, the purpose of which is to give an advantage
to a deadly industry, contrary to World Trade Organization and CETA rules.

3.

MEPs are asked to lobby the European Commission and Directorate General(DG) for Health and Consumers, DG Environment, DG Employment, Social
Affairs & Inclusion, and DG Justice to explore all possible options for effecting
a change in Canada’s asbestos policy.

44.

MEPs are urged to raise their concerns about Canada’s reckless endangerment of
human life, especially the lives of vulnerable people in asbestos-consuming
countries, at all possible forums.
In October 2011, the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting will takeplace in Perth, Australia. The subject of asbestos should be on the agenda of thismeeting as Canada, a Commonwealth member, is exporting deadly asbestos toother Commonwealth members: India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Nigeria and SriLanka. This issue should also be debated at meetings of the G7, G8. G20, NATO,the UN, and OECD.
In a similar vein, the Quebec Government’s position on asbestos and its exportof asbestos should also be challenged.

5.

MEPs are requested as a matter of priority to place on record their support for a
WHO Framework Convention on Asbestos Control and to work with their WHOand ILO partners to progress this initiative.
Prior to this being accomplished, MEPs are asked to make urgent representations
to the WHO and the ILO to have asbestos lobbyists declared persona non grata
at their meetings. Correspondence received by EU and EC officials fromasbestos industry representatives should be treated with the same contempt as
missives from the tobacco industry.

Conclusion
I have been studying the global asbestos industry for over 20 years. In that time, I havewitnessed political dishonesty, industrial thuggery, corporate malfeasance, judicial
manipulation, the misuse of science, the abuse of the legal process, physical andprofessional intimidation. What transpired last week in Geneva, transcended this – it waspure evil.
Tomorrow, Canada Day, we expect a decision to be announced by the Quebec
Government regarding the finalization of plans to build a new asbestos mine. Should thisproject get the green light, we can expect that Canadian exports will fuel the deadly
epidemic of asbestos diseases for many more decades. Canada is now a rogue state andshould be dealt with in the same way as other administrations which have breached theacceptable level of behaviour expected of civilized societies. MEPs, European Union andEuropean Commission officials are asked to play their part in achieving for all theworld’s citizens the right to an asbestos-free life.

5