Chrysotile asbestos:Hazardous to Humans,
Deadly to the Rotterdam
Convention

Photographs: Hein du Plessis, Bill Ravanesi, Noor Jehan and Eve Barker
Print: Russell Press
Design and layout: Eve Barker
For further information about this publication, please contact:
Fiona Murie, Director of Health, Safety and the Environment, BWI
email: fiona.murie@bwint.org
website: www.bwint.org
Laurie Kazan-Allen, Coordinator, IBAS
email: laurie@lkaz.demon.co.uk
website: www.ibas.btinternet.co.uk© BWI/IBAS – London, 2006

Chrysotile asbestos:hazardous to humans,
deadly to the Rotterdam
Convention
Published by the Building & Woodworkers International and theInternational Ban Asbestos Secretariat.

Asbestos sheet cutting unit located on themain road in a residential area of Mardan
City, Northwest Frontier Province, Pakistan.

Table of Contents

1. Preface - MEP Kartika Liotard

6

2. Appeal on Behalf of Global Labor
Anita Normark

7

3. Introduction: Listing of Chrysotile a Priority at COP3! Laurie Kazan-Allen

8

4. Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Preventing Information
Exchange Increases the Risks of Chemical
Exposures Carl Smith

11

5. Rotterdam Convention: 3rd Time Lucky?
Laurie Kazan-Allen

14

6. The Public Health Disaster Canada Chooses
to Ignore Dr. Jim Brophy

17

7. Asbestos is Not Banned in North America
Dr. Barry Castleman

21

8. Brazil's Position on Chrysotile - No Position!
Fernanda Giannasi

24

9. India’s Position on Chrysotile Asbestos
Dictated by Vested Interests!
Gopal Krishna

25

10. Canadian Asbestos Industry:
Exporting Human Misery MP Pat Martin

27

Appendix:
Chronological record of the Contributions of
National Delegations and Others at COP 1(Sept. 18, 2004)29

Prefaceby Kartika Liotard
Member of the European Parliament, the Netherlands
Chair of the European Asbestos Conference 2005

T

he battle over the categorization ofchrysotile asbestos as a hazardous chemical under the terms of the Rotterdam
Convention continues to rage. While theinclusion of chrysotile on the Prior Informed
Consent (PIC) list of the Rotterdam Convention
does not constitute a ban on global sales, it
should enable developing economies to makeinformed decisions on whether they wish toimport a chemical that has been found to becarcinogenic by the International Labor
Organization, the World Health Organization,
the International Agency for Research on
Cancer, the International Programme on
Chemical Safety, the Collegium Ramazzini and
the World Trade Organization. These international bodies agree that all types of asbestos
are deadly and should not be used. Evidence
on the toxicity of chrysotile (white asbestos)led the European Union to ban its use as ofJanuary 1, 2005. Most industrialized governments have either banned or seriously restricted the use of chrysotile. And yet, COP1 “failed
to reach consensus” on the inclusion ofchrysotile on the PIC list due to the orchestrated opposition of asbestos-producing and consuming stakeholders. The result of discussions
held in Geneva in October 2006 will determine
whether the global trade in this poisonous substance will continue unhindered for the foreseeable future; as such, these discussions can

6truly be said to be a matter of life and death.
Europe’s use of asbestos has caused unprecedented levels of disease and death; asbestos
remains the primary carcinogenic toxin affecting European workers. Asbestos products in
European homes and commercial/public buildings as well as asbestos waste in the environment constitute a clear and present threat to
public health and safety. The difficulties of ridding our society of this hazard were detailed at
the European Asbestos Conference which washeld in the European Parliament in September
2005. Speakers from new and old European
Union Member States confirmed the tragic
reality: Europe’s asbestos legacy is a complex
problem which will not be easily or cheaply
solved; hundreds of thousands of Europeans
will succumb to asbestos deaths before we areable to undo the contamination caused by thewidespread use of asbestos throughout the20th century.
If a substance such as chrysotile is too hazardous to be used by industrialized countries, it
should not be exported; if it is exported, thenfull disclosure of the hazards must be mademandatory. No one who knows about death byasbestos would wish this fate on others; forthis reason alone, the global trade in chrysotile
should be subject to the PIC protocol.

Appeal by the Building andWoodworkers International (BWI)
by Anita Normark
BWI General SecretaryIn recognition of the severity of the global
asbestos tragedy, the BWI is calling on allparties to the Rotterdam Convention tourgently support the PIC listing of chrysotile.
The Building and Woodworkers International(BWI) is a Global Trade Union Federation representing 350 trade unions with a membership ofapproximately 13 million workers in 135 countries. Our members, many of whom work in thebuilding trades, are amongst those most at riskof occupational exposure to asbestos. Today,
more building workers die each year from past
exposures to asbestos than are killed in falls.
Failure to include chrysotile on the PIC list will
ensure that the asbestos epidemic which hastaken so many lives in the developed world will
spread to developing countries. Reports received
from comrades in Brazil, Chile, Peru, Thailand,
Pakistan and Korea indicate that national incidences of asbestos disease are already increasing in Latin America and Asia.

For more than 20 years, the BWI has been at
the forefront of the global campaign to eliminate the asbestos hazard. In 1989, we adopted
an asbestos policy which stipulated that the
only “safe use” of asbestos is no use. Our sustained campaign on asbestos has included
national and international activities to raiseawareness amongst our members, the public,
governments and international agencies. In theyear 2000, the BWI launched a worldwide campaign among its affiliates reiterating the needfor a global ban and calling for the proper management of installed asbestos. The BWI has an
ongoing programme of activities with workers
and other partners in the building and construction materials industries giving advice and training on the hazards of asbestos and measures toprevent exposures. Our affiliated unions havebeen instrumental in achieving national bansand improving prevention in a number of countries. On April 28, 2006, International Workers’
Memorial Day, thousands of BWI members
engaged in: “peaceful demonstrations and petitions at Canadian Embassies and Consulates toconvince the Canadian government to call a halt
to its aggressive marketing and promotion ofasbestos in developing countries such as India,
Zimbabwe and Brazil.”“Our members,
many of whom
work in the building
trades, are amongst
those most at riskof occupational
exposure toasbestos.“

Why are we targeting Canada when there areother countries which produce or export moreasbestos than Canada? The fact is that no othercountry relies on federal funding to financemassive advertising campaigns focused on
developing countries to convince them thatasbestos use is safe. We call on Canada andother asbestos stakeholders at the COP3 toaccept that the time has come to include
chrysotile on the PIC list so that developing
countries can make informed decisions on a
subject of such deadly importance.

7

Introduction
Listing of Chrysotile –a Priority at COP3!1
by Laurie Kazan-Allen, Coordinator International Ban Asbestos Secretariat

T

he implementation of the Rotterdam
Convention after years of negotiation wasa remarkable achievement; it engendered
a new hope that order might be imposedon the flourishing global trade in hazardous
chemicals and pesticides, a trade which exposedvulnerable populations to avoidable risks. By
establishing protocols for supplying information
on chemicals included on the PIC list, exportersof hazardous substances would, for the firsttime, be required to share responsibility with
importing countries. As of 2006, dozens ofchemicals had been approved for listing including five types of asbestos: actinolite, anthophyllite, amosite, crocidolite and tremolite. Action
on only one substance nominated by theInterim Chemical Review Committee for inclusion has been stalled: chrysotile asbestos.
Despite the fact that chrysotile satisfied all theConvention’s criteria, national governments,
led by Canada, defeated attempts to obligate
exporting Parties to share information on thepotential health and environmental effects ofthis acknowledged carcinogen. Chrysotile proponents cited disingenuous and hardly credible reasons (Appendix A)2 for their resistance when, in
fact, their true motives were simple: barefaced
greed and national politics.
The objective of this publication is to place theConvention’s chrysotile debate in a wider context.
Whilst there has been extensive documentation
distributed by the PIC Chemical Review Committee
detailing the scientific and economic justifications
for the listing of this carcinogen, the Convention
Secretariat is, by the very nature of the Treaty,
not in a position to comment on non-administrative issues. The papers in this collection do justthat and will, hopefully, enable delegates to takea broader view on the urgent need for chrysotile
to be subjected to global trade restrictions.
Blocking proposals to list chrysotile, strikes atthe very heart of the Rotterdam Convention;
should the inclusion of chrysotile be prevented
yet again, the Convention could become little

8

more than a paper tiger. The chrysotile dilemmais explained succinctly in Carl Smith’s chapter
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: “The challenge before COP3
is not chrysotile, but fidelity to the aims of theRotterdam Convention. Conflicts between environmental protection and economic interests arecertain to arise again. If anything, the fact thata chemical is in wide circulation should increase
the importance of information exchange.
The early stages of the implementation process
will signal the strength of the Parties’ commitment to this fundamental, essential activity.
An ‘evader’s charter’ must not be establishedat the early stages of this vital instrument.”
Since COP1 (2004), the need to address thegrowing threat of chrysotile use in the developing world has been addressed at conferences
and meetings organized by ban asbestos campaigners, trade unionists and asbestos victims’groups. The Global Asbestos Congress 2004
(GAC 2004), held barely two months after COP1,
marked a landmark in the global asbestos
debate; this three-day event was the first conference to focus on asbestos use in Asia. Organizedby the Ban Asbestos Network of Japan (BANJAN)
and its partners, GAC 2004 provided the opportunity for speakers from Japan, Korea, India,
Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia
and Vietnam to discuss the national repercussions of asbestos consumption; their presentations confirmed the increasing use of asbestoscement building products by unskilled workers
who are unaware of the hazards. Building on
the momentum generated by GAC 2004, officials from the Ministry of Public Health andMinistry of Labor, Thailand organized the Asian
Asbestos Conference in July 2006. Many of therecent developments in the global asbestos
landscape, including new policies by the World
Health Organization and the International Labor
Organization calling for the elimination ofasbestos use, are discussed in the paper by
Laurie Kazan-Allen Rotterdam Convention:
3rd Time Lucky?

“The WHO and the ILO have joined a rapidly
expanding list of international organizations,
including the World Trade Organization, theCollegium Ramazzini, the European Union,
the United Nations, the World Bank, theInternational Social Security Association andthe International Commission on Occupational
Health that have recognized the tragic impact
asbestos has had on human health.”ers of chrysotile asbestos on the global scene
today are Canadian scientists, they carry on the
tradition started in the 1960s by spokesmen for
multinational asbestos corporations. But theywould be less effective as globe-trotting
asbestos industry propagandists, featured innews reports with titles like Asbestos cement
products are absolutely safe, if Canada banned
asbestos.”

During the 20th century, Canada and the Soviet
Union accounted for nearly 75% of worldwide
asbestos production. Canadian asbestos stakeholders, who nicknamed chrysotile asbestos“white gold,” used their formidable financial
resources to buy support from regional and federal politicians. The Canadian Government is in
an invidious position; it advocates the use ofchrysotile abroad but does not promote its use
at home. Canada exports more than 95% of all
the asbestos it produces; the cynical observer
might be inclined to ask: “If Canadian chrysotile
is safe enough for foreigners to use, why isn’t itsafe enough for Canadians?” The Ottawa
Government’s behaviour is immoral and issocial dumping of the most cynical kind. The
paper by Dr. Jim Brophy The Public Health
Disaster Canada Chooses to Ignore examines thedevastating impact Canadian asbestos production has had at home and the unscrupulous
methods used by stakeholders to promote
Canadian asbestos sales:

Brazil, the world’s 4th largest asbestos producer,
has retained a stony silence during COP discussions on chrysotile. In her paper Brazil’s Position
on Chrysotile – No Position!, Engineer Fernanda
Giannasi contrasts President Lula’s pre-election
ban- asbestos promise with the post-election
reality of a sham government commission which,after extensive contemplation and seemingly
endless discussion, decided not to make adecision:“The Canadian federal government has blocked
efforts through the United Nations to havechrysotile asbestos included in the Rotterdam
Convention… (Canadian) embassies throughout
the world are busy promoting asbestos in individual countries. The Canadian Embassy persuaded South Korea in 1977, for example, towithdraw labelling legislation that would
have warned about the possible dangers ofchrysotile. In the late 1980s, the Canadiangovernment intervened along with the asbestos
industry to block the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) from enacting aphase-out of asbestos use.”“This policy to actively do nothing is still theofficial line as reported by people who attended
a meeting in Brasilia on September 9, 2006 to
discuss our position on chrysotile at the upcoming meeting in Geneva. Better to let countries,
like Canada, India and Kazakhstan shout out
their objections and for Brazil to remain apparently neutral. This appearance of impartiality
would placate the industry even if it antagonized the asbestos victims, many of whom will
be too ill to vote in the coming elections in
October 2006.”“While other countries are banning asbestos,
India is expanding the asbestos sector andAction on only
one substancenominated by theInterim Chemical
Review Committee
for PIC listing has
been stalled:chrysotile
asbestos.

At the conference held in Bangkok this Summer(2006), Canadian MP Pat Martin criticized his
country’s asbestos policy: “Canada is acting likean ‘international pariah’ by exporting asbestos
to Third World countries despite the well-known
health hazards.” In the paper Asbestos is Not
Banned in North America, Dr. Barry Castlemanelaborates on this point:“Canada, like the U.S., uses very little asbestos
in domestic manufacturing. Canada’s asbestos
mines export virtually all of their output topoorer countries. Many of the perennial defend-9constructing factories where asbestos material
is produced 24 hours a day,” says Gopal Krishna,from Ban Asbestos India (BANI). The parasitic
relationship between politicians and asbestos
stakeholders dictates national policy and leads
to pro-chrysotile initiatives such as the loweringof duty on chrysotile imports. BANI’s position isunequivocal:“Asbestos is a public health issue which theGovernment has ignored for far too long. In the
public interest, BANI appeals to the Governmentof India to support the inclusion of chrysotile
asbestos on a trade ‘watch list’ that alreadycontains all other forms of asbestos.”
The final comments on the Rotterdam Convention’s chrysotile dilemma go to Canadian MP
Pat Martin who is appalled by the behavior of
his Government:“As a Canadian Member of Parliament, I believethat my government has a moral obligation tostop opposing the inclusion of asbestos in the
Rotterdam Convention. In fact, I believe strongly
that the Canadian government should be campaigning in favour of informed prior consent
and the use of the precautionary principle whenit comes to the handling of dangerous materials
like asbestos. Concerned Canadians must continue to tell the truth and expose the Canadianasbestos industry. Canada must share in thecollective responsibility for this human healthtragedy.”
Asbestos victims, trade unionists, public healthcampaigners, NGOs and politicians from developed and developing countries agree that continuing to ignore the asbestos hazard is not an
option. The Rotterdam Convention was foundedwith the specific intention of ending the imperialistic and economic exploitation of vulnerable
populations. Should the impasse on chrysotile
remain, sales to unsuspecting governments andconsumers will continue unabated. The growing
use of asbestos in the developing world will leadto more ill-health and more deaths; national
infrastructures and environments will be contaminated by a chemical which, as its names
indicates, is indestructible. Using the example
of chrysotile as a precedent, countries which sellother toxic chemicals will veto plans to list theirproducts. And so a vicious cycle will begin: onein which the human family will suffer at thehands of those who place profits before healthand politics before social justice. An ignoble
end to a promising global initiative.
Endnotes and References
1 COP3: the third Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam
Convention
2 See: Chronological Record of the Contributions of National
Delegations and Others. September 18, 2004 page 29.

10

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?
Preventing information exchange
increases the risks of chemical
exposures*by Carl Smith, Vice President, Foundation for Advancements in Science and EducationThe 2004 entry into force of the Rotterdam Convention was the culmination ofnearly two decades of dialogue between
governments, intergovernmental agencies, and nongovernmental organizations(NGOs). Its fundamental objective is to facilitate
information exchange regarding chemicals thathave been strictly regulated or banned by atleast two States, enabling governments indeveloped and developing countries alike tomake informed decisions regarding safe use
and trade.
The Parties to the convention,** which include
99 States and the European Community, have
now met twice. The decisions that they havemade thus far regarding chrysotile asbestos —or, more to the point, decisions they have notmade — raise troubling questions about theirability to fully enact the text they have negotiated. It is important to underscore what is atstake. The Rotterdam Convention exists to help
ensure that all governments — particularly
those in the developing world — are alerted
when a chemical is banned or severely restricted. By establishing procedures for collecting,reviewing, and disseminating such regulatory
decisions to parties, it can help to remedy
imbalances in infrastructure and technicalcapacity and provide regulators with essential
data.
The convention aims to facilitate “priorinformed consent”(PIC); that is, to ensure thatcountries are aware of the hazards of chemicals
before they introduce them to the workplace
and the environment. Some parties have suggested that adding a chemical to the conven* This article was reproduced by kind permission of theauthor and the International Journal of Occupational andEnvironmental Health** While it played a significant role in the process of negotiating the text of the Rotterdam Convention, the UnitedStates is not yet a Party.

tion’s “PIC” list—chemicals for which “decision
guidance documents” are prepared and distributed to parties to help them take decisions onwhether or not to allow import and under what
conditions—constitutes an incitation to a global
ban. However, there is nothing in the text thatprevents a country from importing a chemicalon the PIC list, or from selling it to a country
1

that, fully informed, still wants to import it. The
bar is set not at elimination but at equal accessto information. It would be hard to imagine amore laissez faire approach to “regulation” —yet the early stages of implementation suggestthat when economic interests are at stake, it ispossible for consensus regarding a chemical todevolve to “don’t ask, don’t tell.”At the first Conference of the Parties (COP1),
convened in Geneva in September 2004,
chrysotile asbestos loomed like an unwelcome
guest at an otherwise happy occasion. Likeother chemicals nominated for inclusion in the
PIC regimen, it met all criteria outlined in theconvention. It was different in one regard, however—the magnitude of its production andtrade. From an occupational health perspective,
there was and is no doubt that chrysotile isunusually hazardous. Three years earlier, theThe Rotterdam
Convention exists
to help ensure thatall governments—
particularly thosein the developingworld—are alerted
when a chemical isbanned or severely
restricted.
11

It is important topoint out precisely
what is being
negotiated:
willingness to
exchange
information.

Collegium Ramazzini* had called for a ban on
all mining and use of asbestos.2 As members of
the Collegium noted, even the strictest limits foroccupational exposure to chrysotile asbestos—
virtually unattainable in the developing world—
have been estimated to be associated with lifetime risks of 5 per 1,000 for lung cancer and 2
per 1,000 for asbestosis.2,3

COP2 was held in late September 2005. Early inthat year, members of the Collegium Ramazzini
repeated the call for an international ban on all
forms of asbestos, underscoring that “Scientists
and responsible authorities in countries stillallowing the use of asbestos should have noillusions that ‘responsible use’ is a realistic
alternative to a ban.”10

However, inclusion of chrysotile in the PIC procedure was anything but pro forma. A final meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating
Committee for the convention, held immediately prior to COP1, failed to reach consensus thatthe chemical belonged on the PIC list.4 At the
COP, Canada (a party) and the Russia
Federation (present as an observer) — bothasbestos exporters** — provided a core of
opposition to the listing that attracted a number of other delegations. No consensus wasreached.5

In February 2005, the Chemical Review
Committee for the Rotterdam Convention that
met to consider new candidates for PIC listing
concluded that all conditions established in theConvention were met, and recommended thatchrysotile asbestos be added.11 As foreseen in
the working procedures for the convention, thepotential listing was not part of the agenda of
COP2.12 After finalization of the decision guidance document, a decision on inclusion must be
taken at COP3. However, at COP2 the process
seemed on the verge of taking a step backwards
when one delegation suggested that since thelisting of chrysotile had been “rejected” by theparties, all work done on the chemical to dateshould be considered cancelled and all submissions by governments that had banned thechemical, and the review of these submissions
by the Chemical Review Committee, should bedisregarded.13

When interviewed by Reuters, representativesof both the Canadian government and thechrysotile industry stated that adding the chemical to the PIC list could be interpreted as a“ban” of the chemical.6 These utterances weredoubly misleading — first, as noted above, theRotterdam Convention does not impose bans,and second, from the perspective of the international occupational health community, a worldwide ban would be entirely appropriate. (Somegovernments share this view; the European
Communities have banned chrysotile — amove Canada contested at the World Trade
Organization, but which was upheld by the
WTO dispute panel.)7,8
It is true that PIC listing leads todisclosure of the international
community’s best assessment of
the hazards of a chemical and of
the strict risk management measures taken by at least two countries. As Principle 10 of the Rio
Declaration makes clear, citizens
as well as governments shouldhave access to such information:“each individual shall haveappropriate access to information
concerning the environment thatis held by public authorities,
including information on hazardous materials and activities intheir communities, and theopportunity to participate in decision-making processes. Statesshall facilitate and encourage
public awareness and participation by making information widely available.”912Again, it is important to point out precisely
what is being negotiated: willingness to
exchange information. Clearing this hurdle must
become routine for governments that are also
parties to other international agreements that
aim to bring about the elimination of hazardous
chemicals, such as the Stockholm Convention
on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). It is difficult to imagine how a “don’t ask, don’t tell”
approach to chrysotile asbestos — or any otherdangerous but profitable chemical — could bejustified. Would a friend or neighbor pass on acontainer of poison and make no mention of
the dangers of its contents?
Proposals to include pesticides still in international trade in the PIC process of informationexchange have not met similar opposition.
A code of conduct for pesticide distribution,
developed at FAO and embraced by industry
and governments alike, includes labelling*Founded in 1982 in honor of Bernardino Ramazzini, author(in 1700) of the first comprehensive book on occupational
diseases. By holding conferences and symposia, by publishing research papers, and publicizing its views, the Collegium
seeks to help legislators, regulators, and other decisionmakers to better understand the public policy implications ofscientific findings. Its goal is to work towards possible solutions to occupational and environmental health problems.
** According to a report published in June 2005 by theEuropean Trade Union Institute, Canada and the former
Soviet Union account for nearly three fourths of world-wideasbestos production during the 20th century.

requirements to ensure the hazards of pesticide
products are clearly communicated.14
The suggestion that “informed consent” should
apply to chemical trade arose more than two
decades ago,15 in response to the migration of
banned and hazardous pesticides from thedeveloped world to developing-world users who
did not fully understand their dangers.16,17 Thishistory must not be forgotten. Developing countries are the primary beneficiaries of the information exchange mechanisms of the Rotterdam
Convention and stand to lose the most if they
are not rigorously implemented. Determinedcommitment to the opportunity provided by PIC
has ramifications beyond environmental health.
In an extensive report examining the ways thatnatural systems form the basis of wealth andsurvival for the world’s poor, the World Resources
Institute suggests that the proportion of households with access to environmental information
would be a useful indicator of progress towardachievement of the poverty reduction sought by
the Millennium Development Goals.18
In February 2006, the PIC Chemical Review
Committee again reviewed the evidence
supporting the inclusion of chrysotile in the PIC
procedure and again recommended that theParties add it to the PIC list.19 Attendees also
received a report from a WHO meeting assessing chrysotile substitutes.20 The meeting wasmarked by sharp divisions along the lines seen
at COP2 Clearly, this did not set the stage for asmooth ride when the Parties meet again.
COP3 will take place in October 2006. It will
mark two years since the parties faltered inwhat should have been a routine step towardshared responsibility for a chemical whose hazards have been well characterized for more thanseven decades.21 The difficulty asbestos
exporters (and countries with domestic industries that benefit from importing this hazardous
substance) are having in implementing the convention is all the more baffling in view of thisreality: the “secret” is out. Following the 2006
COP, the parties do not meet again until 2008.
The challenge before COP3 is not chrysotile, but
fidelity to the aims of the Rotterdam
Convention. Conflicts between environmental
protection and economic interests are certain toarise again. If anything, the fact that a chemical
is in wide circulation should increase the importance of information exchange.
The early stages of the implementation process
will signal the strength of the Parties’ commitment to this fundamental, essential activity.
An “evader’s charter” must not be establishedat the early stages of this vital instrument.

References

1 Rotterdam Convention on the
Prior Informed Consent
Procedure for Certain
Hazardous Pesticides andChemicals in International
Trade. Geneva, Rome:
UNEP/FAO, rev. 2005.
2 LaDou J, Landrigan P, Bailar
JC 3rd, Foa V, Frank A;
Collegium Ramazzini: A callfor an international ban on
asbestos. Can Med Assoc J.
2001;164:489-90.
3 Stayner L, Smith R, Bailar J,
Gilbert S, Steenland K,
Dement J. Exposure–response
analysis of risk of respiratory
disease associated with occupational exposure to
chrysotile asbestos. Occup
Environ Med. 1997;54:64652.
4 Report of the intergovernmental negotiating committee for an international legally binding instrument for theapplication of the priorinformed consent procedure
for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade on the work of its
eleventh session. Geneva,
Switzerland: United Nations
Environment Program, 2004.
5 Report of the conference ofthe parties to the Rotterdam
convention on the priorinformed consent procedure
for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade on the work of its
first meeting. Geneva,
Switzerland: United Nations
Environment Program, 2004.
6 Cartier C. Canada blocks
asbestos type from global
toxic list. Reuters, September
22, 2004.
7 European Communities—
Measures Affecting Asbestos
and Asbestos-Containing
Products, Appellate Body
Report and Panel Report,
adopted on 5 April 2001.
8 World Trade Organization.
Environment backgrounder:
environment-related disputes:
an overview.
<http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_
e/envir_e/envir_backgrnd_e/c8s2_e. htm#back_fnt_39>.
9 United Nations: Report of theUnited Nations Conference on
Environment andDevelopment, Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil, 3–14 June 1992.
10 Landrigan P, Soffritti M.
Collegium Ramazzini call for aninternational ban on asbestos.
Am J Ind Med. 2005; 47:471-4.

11 United Nations Environment
Program/FAO. Report of the
Chemical Review Committee
on the work of its first meeting. April 2005.
12 United Nations Environment
Program/FAO. Provisional
agenda, COP2. March 2005.
13 International Institute on
Sustainable Development.
Summary of the second conference of the parties to theRotterdam Convention on theprior informed consent procedure for certain hazardous
chemicals and pesticides ininternational trade. Earth
Negotiations Bulletin. 15(25),2005.
14 FAO. International code of
conduct on the distribution
and use of pesticides (revised
edition). Rome, Italy: FAO,
2002.
15 Hough P. Return to sender:
regulating the international
trade in pesticides. European
Consortium on Political
Research, Joint Sessions,
Copenhagen, Denmark,2000. <http://www.essex.
ac.uk/ECPR/events/jointsessions/pap erarchive/copenhagen/ws19/hough. PDF>.
16 Bull D. A growing problem:
pesticides and the third world
poor. Oxford, England:
OXFAM, 1982.
17 Weir D, Shapiro M. Circle ofpoison: pesticides and people
in a hungry world. San
Francisco, CA: Institute forFood and Development
Policy, 1984.
18 World Resources Institute in
Collaboration with United
National Development
Programme, United Nations
Environment Program andWorld Bank. World Resources
2005: The Wealth of thePoor–Managing Ecosystems
to Fight Poverty. Washington,
DC: WRI, 2005. 19 United
Nations Environment
Program. Report of the chemical review committee on its
second meeting. Geneva,
Switzerland: UNEP, 2006.
20 World Health Organization.
WHO workshop on mechanisms of fibre carcinogenesis
and assessment of chrysotile
asbestos substitutes. Geneva,
Switzerland: WHO, 2006.
21 McCulloch J: Mining andmendacity, or how to keep a
toxic product in the marketplace. Int J Occup Environ
Health 2005;12:398-403.

13

Rotterdam Convention
3rd Time Lucky?
by Laurie Kazan-Allen, Coordinator International Ban Asbestos Secretariat

As international momentum grows fora worldwide ban on asbestos, global
asbestos pushers are, even now, finalizing
their defensive strategy to prevent the listing of chrysotile as a toxic substance under the
Rotterdam Convention. Having succeeded inblocking United Nations recommendations on
two previous occasions, there is little doubt thatasbestos stakeholders will repeat their obstructive
behaviour at the Conference of the Parties to theRotterdam Convention to be held in Geneva in
October 2006.1

Much has changed, however, since the proasbestos lobby’s last attempt to stonewall thelisting of chrysotile under the PIC protocol.2 On
April 28, 2006, International Workers’ Memorial
Day, trade unions highlighted the urgent need fora global asbestos ban; at demonstrations, rallies,
information sessions and marches all over theworld this issue was given the highest priority.
Simultaneously, support for labor’s demands toban asbestos were forthcoming from other sectors of civil society, including asbestos victims’
associations, community groups, international

bodies and politicians from 42 countries who
issued a petition stating:“In the spirit of humanity and equality, wedeclare that each human being has the right tolive and work in a healthy environment. It is not
acceptable that a substance which is too harmful
to be used in the European Union is used in Asia,
Africa and Latin America; it is not acceptable for
an industrialized country to dump asbestos -contaminated ships in a developing country. A global
asbestos ban is the first step in the campaign torid humanity of the threat it faces from asbestos.
As Parliamentarians we will endeavour to lobby
national governments, regional and international
bodies and work with international labor, NGOs,
groups representing asbestos victims and others
to secure a global ban. The time for action isnow!”
On May 5, 2006, a letter written by a Senior
Official from the World Health Organization(WHO) confirmed a huge shift in the organization’s position. Whereas formerly the WHO’s
focus on asbestos was directed “towards assessment of the health risks of different types ofasbestos and substitutes,” the WHO has now concluded that:
1. all types of asbestos cause asbestosis,
mesothelioma and lung cancer;
2. there is no safe threshold level of exposure;
3. safer substitutes exist;
4. exposure of workers and other users ofasbestos-containing products is extremely
difficult to control;
5. asbestos abatement is very costly and difficult
to carry out in a completely safe way.
This Summer, the WHO began a consultation
exercise on a draft policy paper on the elimination of asbestos-related diseases; the objective of
this policy being:“to integrate the conclusions of risk assessmentsof asbestos carried out under the auspices of

14

WHO, to outline the magnitude of the problem
of asbestos-related diseases and to provide general recommendations for their elimination
through regulatory, engineering and medical
interventions.”3
Simultaneously, the International Labor
Organization announced plans to tackle theglobal nature of the asbestos problem with
Dr. Jukka Takala, Director of the ILO’s SafeWork
Programme saying:“Asbestos is the most important single factor
causing death and disability at work, some
100,000 fatalities a year… There is no ‘safe use’of asbestos… the ILO should have a campaign of
its own to eliminate future use of asbestos, andproperly manage asbestos in place today... The
task is now to increase the number of countries
that have already eliminated future asbestos
use from the present 40 countries to at least
100 in the coming 10 years. This should certainly reduce the asbestos use radically. The priority
order is to concentrate on the present biggest
producers, importers, and users of any kind ofasbestos.”
On June 14, 2006, the ILO adopted a Resolution
Concerning Asbestos which stated:“the elimination of the future use of asbestos
and the identification and proper managementof asbestos currently in place are the most effective means to protect workers from asbestos
exposures and to prevent future asbestos-related disease and deaths…”
The WHO and the ILO have joined a rapidly
expanding list of international organizations,
including the World Trade Organization, theCollegium Ramazzini, the European Union,
the United Nations, the World Bank, theInternational Social Security Association andthe International Commission on Occupational
Health that have recognized the tragic impact
asbestos has had on human health. Europe isall too familiar with the tragic repercussions ofwidescale asbestos use. Weeks before statistics
detailing a 15% rise in the incidence of asbestosrelated disease4 in France were announced, theFrench Government called for a global asbestosban. Junior Employment Minister Gerard Larcher
told a meeting of delegates from the ILO’s 178
member states:“France strongly urges the International Labour
Organization to host a far-reaching debate witha view to rapidly ending the use of this material
which has caused a major catastrophe.”5
On previous occasions, there was little doubtthat Canada orchestrated the opposition to theinclusion of chrysotile on the PIC list. On May

23, 2006, the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Canadian Minister of Natural Resources,
Christian Paradis, reaffirmed Canada’s
entrenched position vis-à-vis chrysotile, saying:“It is the position of the Government of Canada
not to list chrysotile under the Rotterdam
Convention.”6 In his speech to an asbestos
industry conference organized by the Chrysotile
Institute, Paradis said that his Government
did: “NOT promote the sale of this fibre… theGovernment promotes the safe use – and NOT
the sale – of chrysotile.” And yet, in early 2006,
the Canadian High Commission in
Johannesburg expressed concern about theSouth African Government’s proposed asbestos
ban which could impact adversely on asbestos
markets worth $5 million in Africa.7 That such ahigh-level Canadian official attempted to interfere in a sovereign country’s legislative process,citing the rules of the World Trade Organization,
is not part of the diplomatic remit but is mostdefinitely the behavior of a traveling salesman.
In March 2006, the Canadian embassy inJakarta donated the sum of $4,000 to a local
trade association, the Indonesian Association of
Cement-Fibre Producers, for an industry-run proasbestos show event. Is this generosity an
expression of diplomatic beneficence or yet
another commercial decision?
To add insult to injury, in his speech Paradis
also emphasized the humanitarian reasons for
Canada’s leadership of the pro-chrysotile lobby:“Because of this work – because of Canada
applying safe-use principles on an international
level – facilities in many countries now havefibre concentrations as low as the ones I justcited for mines in Quebec. And today, countries
such as Brazil, Russia, China and India look to
Canada for continued cooperation in promoting
the safe use of chrysotile. One must wonder, if
Canada had not stepped up to the plate in1984, who else at the time would have done
so? And what might have been the consequences of Canada’s inaction?
We will continue to step up to the plate to facechallenges such as those (sic) within theEuropean Union who see commercial advantage in having chrysotile listed under the
Rotterdam Convention…”
In years gone by, Canada’s support for theasbestos industry had gone virtually unnoticed
by the Canadian public. They were not asked
and were certainly not told of their Government’s generosity to the asbestos industry;
since 1984, Ottawa has spent $20 million supporting the Chrysotile Institute (CI), the asbestos
industry’s trade association; the current level of15

It is not acceptablethat a substancewhich is too harmful to be used in
the European
Union is used in
Asia, Africa andLatin America.

federal funding for the CI is $250,000 a year. In
the bad old days, the asbestos industry had amonopoly of media coverage on the asbestos
issue; recently, journalists in Canada’s Englishspeaking press have begun to investigate theclose ties between the industry andGovernment. On August 25, 2006, Journalist
Martin Mittelstaedt’s article Ottawa Weighs
Renovation of Third World Asbestos Policy,
which appeared in the Globe and Mail, exposed
the hypocrisy of a country which no longer uses
much asbestos flogging it to developing countries where it “is added to cement to makedurable building materials, such as the roofing
and wall boards commonly used in shantytowns
and similar housing,” despite the fact that exposure to asbestos causes a range of deadly diseases. When Mittelstaedt interviewed GaryNash, Assistant Deputy Minister at Natural
Resources, he was told that the government
does not promote the sale of asbestos but
rather encourages its “safe use.” “Canada is,”said Nash “performing a vital public-health service by encouraging safer asbestos use… Would
you expect Kazakhstan to do it? Would you
expect Brazil to do it? Who would you expect to
do it, other than Canada.”
It could be argued that Nash has a vested interest in the financial viability of the asbestos
industry; he was, after all the Founding
President /Chief Executive Officer of theAsbestos Institute (now known as the Chrysotile
Institute). In a memo referred to in the
Mittelstaedt article, Nash petitioned theCanadian Government to continue its funding of
the CI beyond the March 31, 2007 deadline,
warning that failure to do so could seriously
destabilize the fragile Canadian federation by
upsetting voters in Quebec, the only Province
still producing asbestos.
In light of Ottawa’s pro-asbestos bias, the statements by Paradis and Nash and Canadian opposition to the listing of chrysotile, it seems morethan likely that the Canadian veto will once
more be a feature of the discussions at theupcoming conference on the Rotterdam
Convention. Canada’s self-serving behavior on
asbestos contrasts badly with progressive steps
being taken in the European Union (EU). On
January 1, 2005, the new uses of all forms ofasbestos were banned throughout all 25
Member States. On September 1, 2006, an initiative was launched by the EU Commission and
the Senior Labor Inspectors Committee to further minimize hazardous asbestos exposures of
EU workers and the public:"The campaign will be uniformly conducted in
all Member States and focus on the removal

16

work of weakly-bonded asbestos, the maintenance and removal work of asbestos cement
and other tightly-bound asbestos products, andon the disposal of waste. The main target
groups of the campaign are employers, employees and labour inspectors."8
In July 2006, the elimination of asbestos use
was a key objective of the resolution adopted
by delegates at the Asian Asbestos Conferencein Bangkok. Representatives from asbestos-consuming developing countries agreed that a substance too hazardous for use in the developed
world should not be used in their countries.
Strategies for phasing out asbestos use werediscussed and plans are on-going for future programs to protect Asian workers and societies
from the scourge of asbestos. Placing chrysotile
on the Prior Informed Consent List of theRotterdam Convention would be a major step
towards achieving this goal. By continuing it’s
opposition to the listing of chrysotile, Canada
could fatally undermine the viability of a multilateral environmental agreement designed toprotect vulnerable populations from hazardous
chemicals. Even Canadian MP Christian Paradis
admits the Rotterdam Convention “provides auseful mechanism for information exchange for
substances for which information might not otherwise be accessible, and for helping countries
build capacity in controlling these substances.”
Isn’t it time for Canada, a country jealous of its
international reputation, to take that first step
towards rehabilitation; supporting the listing ofchrysotile would be a start.
Endnotes and References
1. Smith C. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? Preventing Information
Exchange Increases the Risks of Chemical Exposures.
Int J Occup Environ Health. Jul/Sept 2006;12,3.
2. The listing of a chemical does not amount to a ban; it
requires that appropriate information is provided so thatimporting countries can make informed decisions onwhether or not they can safely manage designatedchemcials.
3. http://www.who.int/occupational_health/publications/asbestos_policy/en/index.html
4. On July 11, 2006, Ban Asbestos France published dataon the number of cases of asbestos-related occupational
disease which were diagnosed: 6134 in 2003 and 7071 in
2004.
5. Agence France-Presse. France Calls for Worldwide
Asbestos Ban. June 5, 2006.
6. Notes for a Speech by Christian Paradis, MP. May 23,
2006.http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/media/speeches/2006/200607_e.htm
7. Mittelstaedt M. Ottawa Weighs Renovation of Third
World Asbestos Policy. The Globe and Mail. August 25,
2006. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
8. Press Release:
http://www.ttl.fi/Internet/English/Information/Press+
releases/Asbestos+is+deadly+serious+prevent+exposure+warns+the+new+European+Asbestos+Campaign.htm
European Asbestos Campaign 2006 website:
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/health_safety/sl
ic_en.htm

The Public Health Disaster
Canada Chooses to Ignore
by Dr. Jim Brophy, Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers, Sarnia, CanadaAccording to the International Labour
Organization (ILO) over 2 million workers die each year of occupational causes. Over 75% of these preventable
deaths are due to work- related disease.
Shockingly 10% of these fatalities occur amongchildren. Cancer represents the single largest
component of the global occupationally-relateddisease mortality. The single largest contributor
to this public health crisis is without question–“the Magic Mineral” – asbestos. Asbestos has
been called the “most pervasive environmental
hazard in the world”. Over 300 million tons ofasbestos have been mined in the last century
and it has found its way into thousands of products because of its resistance to heat, exceptional strength and insulation properties. The mostprevalent use of asbestos today is in construction materials, mainly manufactured and usedin developing countries.
It is unimaginable that public health advocatesand professionals could meet about occupational cancer in any industrialized country – with thepossible except of Canada – without highlighting the tragedy of mesothelioma and otherasbestos-related cancers and respiratory diseases. Throughout Europe for instance, wherescientists estimate over half a million cases ofmesothelioma and asbestos-related lung cancer
will occur over the next 35 years, a total ban of
this product has been legislated after considerable public pressure. Asbestos forums are regularly organized that involve medical and legal
professionals, trade unionists and representatives of victims’ groups; all of whom are committed to focusing attention on this grave, andtotally preventable cancer epidemic.
And yet in Canada, one seldom finds muchmention of asbestos disease, even from theinformed scientific community. It is the “elephant in the room” that no one wishes toacknowledge. The federal government continues to argue for the “controlled use” ofchrysotile asbestos. The concept of “controlleduse” is based on the belief that, in developing
countries, there exists the legal infrastructure
and the technological capacity to reduce
asbestos dust exposure to almost zero. In addition, the Government maintains that Canadianasbestos – chrysotile or white asbestos – is nota strong carcinogen. The major health organizations such as the International Agency for the
Research of Cancer (IARC) and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classify
all forms of asbestos, including chrysotile, as
human carcinogens and have determined that
there is no safe threshold at which there is nocancer risk. The current Ontario asbestos standard of 0.1 fibres/cc, which stipulates severe
precautions and controls, carries a lifetime riskof 5 excess lung cancers per 1000 workers anda 2 per 1000 workers risk of developing asbestosis. So, even at the legal level – the supposed
safe standard – which corresponds to what is
considered the lowest level technically feasible,
workers in Ontario continue to bear a high lungcancer and respiratory disease risk!
Countries like Sweden, which have the mostadvanced health and safety regimes in theworld, believe that they cannot control asbestos
exposure even with their clear social capacity
and therefore have banned its use. How can it
be possible for poorer economies in the Third
World to undertake such preventative measuresand seriously prevent occupational disease? It
would be more honest to acknowledge that thecurrent conditions in many of these countries
resemble the historic conditions that were tolerated in industrial countries like Canada decades
ago and that the asbestos epidemic we are now
confronting will more likely than not be reproduced there as well.
It is difficult to talk about asbestos dispassionately. For over 75 years the asbestos industry
knew about the potent carcinogenic potential ofasbestos but for decades actively kept this information from its employees and the public. It isdue to this lawlessness that almost the entire

17

The Canadianfederal governmenthas blocked efforts
through the United
Nations to havechrysotile asbestos
included in the
Rotterdam
Convention.

asbestos industry has now either been forcedout of business or is under bankruptcy protection facing billions of dollars of liability for its
negligence.
We are in the midst of a global disease epidemic that is unfolding primarily in industrializedcountries. The ILO has calculated that, worldwide 100,000 to 140,000 people are suffering
premature deaths from asbestos-related cancers
each year. As the number of people who
already have been exposed to asbestos cannot
be known with exactitude, the estimate ofadversely affected people has to be somewhat
imprecise, but sober respected public healthorganizations contend that, even if exposure toasbestos were to stop soon, somewhere
between 5 and 10 million people would ultimately die from asbestos-related diseases. If thecontinued use of asbestos is allowed, the consequences are too horrendous to contemplate.
How we in Canada decide to address the issueof continuing to mine and export asbestos has
significant implications in both a public healthand ethical sense. How we resolve this dilemma
will reveal much about the nature of our society.
Canada has historically been the leading
asbestos producer in the world. While currently
the asbestos market has collapsed in mostindustrialized countries, Canada continues toexport over 97% of its asbestos to developing
countries. Our federal government acts in partnership with this industry to maintain the global
asbestos market through direct funding of theindustry sponsored Chrysotile Institute, diplomatic pressure, legal challenges and economic
threats. It has twice brought legal challenges tothe World Trade Organization (WTO) to stop the
European asbestos ban. It has twice lost; unable
to disprove the overwhelming scientific evidence
regarding the carcinogenicity and harm causedby chrysotile asbestos. At the time of the WTO
dispute, Canada was the world’s largest
exporter of asbestos. By 2003 it was no longer
among the top five countries exporting
asbestos. The raw material is now more profitably mined in developing countries but it is in
the technical areas and political processes that
Canada continues to work in tandem with thediscredited global asbestos industry.
The Canadian federal government has blocked
efforts through the United Nations to havechrysotile asbestos included in the Rotterdam
Convention, a global treaty that obligates
exporting countries to warn of the possible
harm posed by its product. While the federal
government works on the more global arenas,
its embassies throughout the world are busy
promoting asbestos in individual countries.

18

The Canadian Embassy persuaded South Korea
in 1997, for example, to withdraw labelling legislation that would have warned about the possible dangers of chrysotile. In the late 1980s,
the Canadian government intervened alongwith the asbestos industry to block the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fromenacting a phase-out of asbestos use. The U.S.
Court of Appeals upheld the challenge on a narrow legal technicality – regarding the toxicity of
substitutes – not the toxicity of asbestos. The
EPA asked the U.S. Department of Justice toappeal to the Supreme Court but was blocked
in its efforts. Today although there is no formal
U.S. ban on asbestos use, in practice its actual
use is almost non-existent. A de facto ban exists
because asbestos litigation remains the single
biggest complaint in front of the courts with
U.S. corporations holding hundreds of billions ofdollars of liability, while over 10,000 Americans
continue to die each year from its historic use.
A recent Senate bill to create a $140 billion dollar compensation fund failed because this represents an insufficient amount of money to cover
the vast number of claimants with asbestos
disease.
Canada’s positive global reputation allows it topromote this hazardous product with less scepticism than many of its rivals. And yet, the trustthat many countries have in Canadian institutions makes the federal government’s role all
the more pernicious. It is important for those of
us who care about public health, human rights
and social justice to understand how the realtragedy of asbestos and its health consequences
have been allowed to unfold in Canada. The
health effects have been hidden except, in a few
selective cases, and Canadian and Quebec workers were allowed to pay the price of government and industry collusion. Quebec is wherechrysotile asbestos was first mined in the 1870s.
It remains the epicentre of this economic andpublic health dilemma. Since the 1930s the corporations belonging to the Quebec Asbestos
Mining Association have been aware of thehealth consequences facing asbestos-exposedminers and textile workers, but, as decades ofcourt cases have revealed, they actively suppressed medical and scientific information about
the dangers of asbestos in order to protect theirproduct. Like its evil twin – the tobacco industry– asbestos corporations exploited “medical
uncertainty” by employing a host of medical
and scientific experts who were prepared to protect the corporate interests over the health ofthe exposed populations.
Johns Manville was aware in the 1930s, forinstance, that over half of the Quebec asbestos

textile workers showed signs of respiratory damage – the majority of who were women. In the
1940s over 700 Quebec miners were given xrays without being told that only 4 of theirgroup were without radiographic signs ofasbestos exposure.
In the 1970s the Quebec mining unions requested the help of Dr. Irving Selikoff, the renowned
physician and researcher from Mt. Sinai
Hospital in New York City, to determine whether
asbestos disease was as prevalent as their own
perceptions indicated. Selikoff’s team foundwidespread disease among the workers; ofthose employed for over 20 years, 60 per centhad abnormalities on their X-rays. The Mt. Sinaiteam found that the asbestos workers weredying of lung cancer at a rate 4 times higher
than the unexposed population. These findings
triggered a strike by 3,500 Thetford asbestos
mine and mill workers. The Quebec Asbestos
Mining Association attacked the validity of thesefindings citing “studies by McGill University
researchers (which) since 1966 have foundthat the death rate among asbestos workers
is lower, in general, than that of the Quebec
population as a whole”.

fellow citizens when chrysotile asbestos is the
culprit. The asbestos disease tragedy hasreached such a stage in Sarnia, Ontario that
our clinic has registered for the last two years
on average one new patient with either
mesothelioma or asbestos-related lung cancer
or asbestosis each week. This does not include
the cases of other asbestos-related cancers or
respiratory disease. It also does not include the800 workers we have identified with pleuralplaques – an asbestos marker on the lining of
the lungs – of which 42% are below 65 yearsof age. Nor does it include the hundreds ofworkers for whom we have already obtainedcompensation.

Canadacontinues toexport over
97% of its
asbestos todeveloping
countries.

With the strike and adverse publicity generated
by the appalling Mt. Sinai findings, the Quebec
provincial government set up a commission to
examine the working conditions of asbestos
workers in Quebec. To cite just one short excerpt
from the Beaudry Commission:“It is inconceivable to have to report that in1976 certain employers were still requiring theirworkers to handle asbestos fibre by hand. It isequally inconceivable to see that in 1976, a
recently-built mining operation would knowingly be built with no dust control systems. It iseven more inconceivable to find that in 1976
these companies would have the right tooperate in such unsafe conditions.”
The medical and scientific evidence producedwith industry collaboration had created such an
atmosphere of misperception, that Quebec waswithout an asbestos dust standard until 1978even though it was the world’s leading producer.
I mention this history in order to demonstrate
the atmosphere that was tolerated in Canada
to safeguard an industry, in spite of the healthconsequences it posed to its workers. Canada,of course, was not alone in being caught in thisweb of deceit and neglect. Nor was the asbestos
industry the only corporate group operatingwith such malfeasance. What is rather unique isthat the Canadian government and indeed its
scientific agencies continue to cast a shroud
over the harm that has occurred among our19In an unpublished paper, Cancer Care Ontario
documented approximately 1,489 male cases ofmesothelioma between the years 1980 and
2001. While this is an underestimate of theactual incidence because of the poor history of
diagnosis and recording, it nevertheless represents a shocking statistic. This same report compares mesothelioma by county in Ontario. Itgraphically demonstrates that Sarnia/Lambton
County has age-adjusted rates of mesotheliomathat are comparable to some of the worst international asbestos disease hot spots, such as
Scotland, where shipbuilding exposed tens of
thousands of workers to the asbestos hazard.
The Compensation Board in Ontario, theWorkplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB),
recognizes mesothelioma as a Schedule 4
Disease which means that there is a presumption that the disease is work-related if one canshow at least two years of asbestos exposure.
In a four year period – 1999 to 2003 – 274
mesothelioma cases were registered with theOntario compensation board. According toCancer Care Ontario data, there are approximately 150 cases per year in Ontario which
would mean that in a four year period there
should be roughly 600 cases diagnosed. Basedon these approximate calculations, the compensation board in those four years recognized lessthan 50% of the cases registered with Cancer
Care Ontario.
The failure of cancer agencies and compensation boards to properly recognize the level ofharm and the serious impact these diseases
are having on the lives of ordinary Canadians
is further matched by the federal government’s
silence on the incidence of asbestos disease inthis country. A recent scientific article, which
provides estimates of the incidence of mesothelioma based on the global use of asbestos,
contains some disturbing figures. Canada in
the year 2000 exported over 300,000 tons ofasbestos to developing countries while domestically consuming less that 5,000 tons and that
overwhelmingly in Quebec. While Canada wasdominating the world trade of asbestos,
Canadian regulators were failing to provide

20

any national data on the incidence of mesothelioma amongst its own population. The major
Western European nations, the United States,
Australia and New Zealand, had publicly tracked
and published incidence data on mesothelioma
occurring among their citizens, and yet Canada,
the centre of this industry for decades, did not.
In Canada, the subversion of public trust andscientific integrity to preserve asbestos corporate interests has had a deleterious effect on
the health of Canadian workers. The risk of
new cases of asbestos disease is now posed tocontinue with the same pattern in developing
countries where there is little or no protection
but only the desperate desire for employment.
There are now a growing number of Canadianvoices demanding an end to this century- long
failure to protect workers from preventableasbestos diseases. A national network of tradeunions, environmentalists, medical and scientific associations, and victims’ groups from
Quebec and English Canada have formed anorganization called Ban Asbestos Canada. The
Canadian Association of Researchers in Workand Health (CARWH) supports the internationalban. The Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) and theCanadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE)
support the ban along with the Sierra Club andthe Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario
Workers. The City of Sarnia was the first
Canadian community to demand the federal
government: cease its efforts to promoteasbestos use, ban its export and provide a justeconomic transition for the asbestos mining
communities. There is an increasing consensus
within our society that we must address theissue of occupational and environmental cancer
if we are ever to truly win the long anticipated“War on Cancer”. We can not improve thehealth of our own citizens while ignoring oreven harming the health of people in othercountries. If we intend to place human rights
and health ahead of individual aggrandizement, we need to be guided first and foremostby the precautionary principle and not theneeds of our market-driven economy.

Asbestos is Not Bannedin North America
1by Dr. Barry I. Castleman, Environmental Consultant

Around the world, when public healthworkers call for national bans on
asbestos, one of the things they hearfrom the local asbestos industry is that
the U.S. has not banned asbestos. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued
regulations to phase out the use of almost allasbestos products in 1989, and these rules were
overturned in a court challenge in 1991. Industry
spokesmen accordingly emphasize that the saleof almost all asbestos products is still allowed in
the U.S. and point to the existence of a 1986
International Labor Organization (ILO) convention on asbestos to assert that there are international standards in effect for “controlled use”
of asbestos.2
The U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans decision of 1991 criticized EPA for not identifying all
the substitute products that would replace theasbestos products and evaluating their toxicity,in order to justify the ban.3 EPA wanted toappeal this ruling to the Supreme Court andasked the U.S. Department of Justice to take on
the appeal. After the Justice Department
refused, EPA asked Justice to reconsider and wasturned down again. EPA had to settle for issuinga statement criticizing the court for "significant
legal errors" in interpreting the law and substituting its judgment for that of EPA in balancing
the costs and benefits of asbestos products
banned under the rule.4
When the EPA issued its asbestos ban rule,the companies that had constituted the U.S.
asbestos industry were beset by many thousands of personal injury lawsuits, based on theirlong-term failure to warn product users that
there were lethal, non-obvious hazards from thedust created when these products were used.
U.S. industry was acutely aware that substituteproducts had better be a lot safer than asbestos,or the manufacturers would wind up facing new
liabilities, dealing with adverse media reports
and facing government regulations. But the

court -- by setting the requirement that EPA,
in effect, look into a crystal ball and predict the
future breakdown of substitute usage thatwould follow an asbestos ban, and then do arisk analysis on all of these substitute products -set an impossible burden for the EPA in banningasbestos products. EPA has not banned any substance for any use since 1991 under the provision of the law used for the asbestos ban.
Sweden and other European countries led inforcing technological advance in the replacement of asbestos in vehicle brakes, the last
major application in which it could be claimed
that asbestos use was essential. EPA tried in
1992 to get auto makers to voluntarily agree tostop using asbestos in vehicle brakes, gaskets,
etc., and seemed to be successful at first.
General Motors, for example, wrote that it
would honor the deadlines for elimination ofasbestos in various products that were contained in the overturned EPA regulation. Thatwould have ended sale of asbestos in somevehicle friction products and gaskets in 1994
and the rest in 1997. The asbestos industry thencharged that the proposed agreement of the
auto makers would be illegal, and EPA's effort
to get auto makers’ voluntary agreement collapsed. In 1998, General Motors was still sellingasbestos brakes on two models of new cars in
the U.S. -- even though all its sales of new carsand replacement parts in major European countries were by then required to be asbestos-free.5
At that time, I realized that the U.S. classification of imported "asbestos" products allowed
non-asbestos products to be counted in thesame categories. My request to the U.S.
International Trade Commission to separate
these commodity classifications into asbestosand non-asbestos product categories wasturned down, and to this day the extent towhich the U.S. imports most asbestos products
is not clearly evident from import statistics.6
Trends of imports from asbestos-using countries

21U.S. is estimated at 10,000 deaths per year.7
Legislation debated in the U.S. Senate, to closethe courts to asbestos victims in exchange for a$140 billion, industry-financed, government-run
trust fund, failed to be adopted in February of
2006. A major concern was that the trust fundwould run short and become a burden on the
taxpayers. Asbestos litigation had cost U.S.
manufacturers and insurers $70 billion by theend of 2002. With such experience, you might
think the U.S. would be ready to join such countries as Argentina, Chile, Gabon, Honduras,
Japan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Uruguay, andall 25 countries of the European Union thathave banned asbestos. In 2002, Senator Patty
Murray and others introduced the "Ban
Asbestos in America Act." This would accomplish
what EPA was unable to, and it would initiate
additional efforts to examine the usage of otherminerals that may be contaminated withasbestos (e.g., talc, vermiculite, and stone usedin construction). Unfortunately, this legislation
has not been brought to a vote in the Senate.

It is ridiculous
for the U.S. tocontinue to allow
the importation ofasbestos products
no longer evenmade in the U.S.

are nonetheless apparent. Worldwide importsof brake linings and pads for cars and trucks
composed "of asbestos and other minerals"
went from $59 million in 1996 to $110 million in2005. Imports of these products from Brazil,
China, Colombia, and Mexico went up in value
from $23 million to $76 million between 2000
and 2005.
The U.S. imported 60 million kg of "asbestos
and cellulose-based cement sheet, panel” from
Mexico in 2005, triple the quantity in 2000,
accounting for about two-thirds of worldwide
imports of this commodity. Mexico also supplied
all U.S. imports of "asbestos yarn and thread,"over 99,000 kg, in 2005 (about doubled sincethese imports began in 2002). If such imports
are allowed to continue, the U.S. government
should examine Customs information on
importers and exporters to identify imports ofparticular asbestos products and see how they
are used in the U.S. These asbestos products
have not been made in the U.S. for many years.
Consumption of asbestos fiber for manufacturing in the U.S. has gone steadily down. Worker
and public concern, insurers’ aversion, and costs
imposed by EPA and OSHA regulations forasbestos have combined to all but end the useof asbestos in manufacturing in the U.S. The
country's use of asbestos, mainly in asphalt
roofing shingles, was 2,500 m.t. in 2005, downfrom 803,000 m.t. in the peak year of 1973 and35,000 m.t. in 1991. It is ridiculous for the U.S.
to continue to allow the importation of asbestos
products no longer even made in the U.S.
The current toll from historic asbestos use in the

22

Canada, like the U.S., uses very little asbestos
in domestic manufacturing. Canada’s asbestos
mines export virtually all of their output topoorer countries. Many of the perennial defenders of chrysotile asbestos on the global scene
today are Canadian scientists, they carry on the
tradition started in the 1960s by spokesmen for
multinational asbestos corporations. But theywould be less effective as globe-trotting asbestos
industry propagandists, featured in news reports
with titles like “Asbestos cement products are
absolutely safe”8, if Canada banned asbestos.
Canada’s continuing efforts to promoteasbestos included a seminar this January,
co-sponsored by the Canadian Embassy inJakarta and the Fiber Cement Manufacturers
Association of Indonesia. At this event, despite
his expressed willingness to participate, theworld-renowned authority on asbestos,Dr. Douglas Henderson of Australia, was
excluded from the program.
When Canada unsuccessfully challenged
France’s asbestos ban at the World Trade
Organization in 1999, Canada was the world’s
largest exporter of asbestos and the second
largest producer.9 By 2003, Canada was nolonger among the five largest asbestos producing countries. Canada’s asbestos mines now
employ only hundreds of workers, yielding anannual output of over 200 metric tons for eachminer. It has been estimated that, for every 170
m.t. of asbestos mined and consumed in theworld, one person has contracted mesothelioma.10 Noting the proportionality between
asbestos-caused mesotheliomas and lung

cancers in the epidemiology studies, themesothelioma mortality can be used to project
the added cases of lung cancer resulting fromthe same usage of asbestos. Even taking theconservative estimate that there is one deathfrom lung cancer for every death from mesothelioma caused by asbestos, the toll for every yearthat a Canadian asbestos miner mines asbestos
is at least two lives in the asbestos-importing
countries (and Canada).
The remaining markets in Asia, Africa, andLatin America are rapidly being taken over bycompetitors in Russia, Kazakhstan, Zimbabwe,
and Brazil. The competition will close theQuebec mines before long, if Canada doesn’t
ban asbestos and pension off the miners first(as recommended by Selikoff over 25 yearsago). Though most business lost by Canada may
be picked up by others, Canada’s withdrawal as
an advocate for asbestos use on the world stage
would make a major difference.11 In recent
years, there have been organized efforts to getasbestos banned in Canada by unionists,
environmentalists, asbestos victims, publichealth scientists, and doctors.
If Canada limited its exports to countries thathave ratified ILO Convention 162 on safeguards
for the use of asbestos, the asbestos mines
would probably have to close. Only 11 countries
have ratified this convention that still permit theuse of asbestos and are not asbestos exporting
countries themselves; and none of these mostly
small countries are in Asia. Actual conformity
with the terms of the ILO convention to protect
workers would make the prices of asbestos
products far less competitive, and such measures are probably not achieved even in most of
the asbestos-consuming countries that have
ratified the ILO convention.12 The profitability of
the asbestos business depends on avoiding thecosts of prevention and compensation of occupational disease.
Bans of asbestos in the U.S. and Canada would
have great symbolic, political, and public healthvalue outside North America, even though themarket for asbestos products in each of thesecountries is only a miniscule part of the global
asbestos trade.

Endnotes and References
1. This paper was published in the European Journal of
Oncology 11:85-88 (2006) and is reprinted with thekind permission of the author.
2. Range J. Globally asbestos-free automobiles. Int. J.
Occ. Env. Health 5: 242 (1999).
3. Leary WE. Appeals court strikes down major parts offederal asbestos ban, New York Times, Oct. 22, 1991
4. Fisher L. U.S. EPA, letter to Z. Anavi, Israel Ministry ofEnvironment, Aug. 17, 1992.
5. Castleman BI. Globally asbestos-free automobiles(Editorial), Int. J. Occ. Env. Health 4: 277-278 (1998).
6. U.S. import statistics from U.S. International Trade
Commission are available at:
http://dataweb.usitc.gov
7. Environmental Working Group, Asbestos: Think Again
2004 www.ewg.org/reports/asbestos
8. Surjit E. Asbestos cement products are absolutely
safe. Times of India, Sept. 13, 2004.
9. Castleman BI. WTO Confidential: the Case ofAsbestos. Int. J. Health Serv. 32: 489-501 (2002).
10. Tossavainen A. Global Use of Asbestos and theIncidence of Mesothelioma. Int. J. Occup. Envir.
Health 10: 22-25 (2004).
http://www.ijoeh.com/pfds/1001 Tossavainen.pdf
11. Castleman BI. Controversies at International
Organizations over Asbestos Industry Influence.
Internat. J. Health Serv. 31: 193-201 (2001).
12. Information on ILO’s Asbestos Convention #162 canbe found at http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/english/convdisp2.htm

23

Brazil’s Position on Chrysotile
No Position!
by Engineer Fernanda Giannasi, Coordinator of Latin American Virtual
Ban Asbestos Network, Founding Member of Brazilian Association ofAsbestos-Exposed Victims (ABREA)

A

t the COP1 discussions (2004) on the
inclusion of chrysotile on the PIC list,
there was a deafening silence from theBrazilian delegation, despite a public
commitment given by the (Brazilian) Environment Minister (1999, 2001)1,2 the Health Minister(1999)3 and Labour Ministry representatives(2004)4 to ban asbestos. Brazil was silent in2004 and looks likely to stay silent when thesubject is discussed at the COP3 (October 2006).
From the world’s 4th largest asbestos producer
and a major exporter, this silence is,at the very least, suspicious!

References
1. In “Ministro decide proibir uso deamianto no País”, Jornal “O Estadode São Paulo”, 29/7/1999.
2. In “Amianto deve ser banido do País
até 2003, Jornal ”O Estado de São
Paulo”, 11/3/2001.
3. In “Pesquisa inédita vai mostrar seamianto tem impacto na saúde”,
Jornal “O Globo”, 24/1/1999.
4. In Jornal “Governo vai banir uso doamianto no país”. Jornal “Folha deSão Paulo”, Caderno Dinheiro,
28/3/2004.
5. In “O governo vacila, a sociedadeavança”. Revista Época. 363:50, 02/05/05.http://revistaepoca.globo.com/Epo
ca/0,6993,EPT954475-1659,00.html
6. In “Um Mundo de Coincidências: Asrelações entre congressistas e financiadores de campanhas eleitorais”.
Revista Carta Capital, 348(XI),
29/6/2005.
7. In “Lobby Mortal: Vida e Morte pelo
Amianto”. Revista Época, Caderno
Negócios, 360:10-13, 11/4/2005,
http://www.abrea.org.br/epoca_lobb
y_amianto.pdf
8. In “Asbestos: Slow Death”. FrenchCanadian video documentary by
Sylvie Deleule, featured at TVs Arte(in France) and Radio Canada in
Nov./Dec., 2004.

24

When Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva became President(2002), the first trade unionist to hold this post,
the ban asbestos commitment of his politicalparty (the Workers’ Party) and trade union
wavered, no doubt under intense pressure fromthe powerful asbestos industry lobby. Instead ofa ban, Lula established an Internministerial
Commission on Asbestos. Delegates from 7
Ministries took evidence and deliberated; thenthey deliberated some more. After producing
a 1,000 page document, the major decision
taken was… not to take a decision5.
This policy to actively do nothing is still theofficial line as reported by people who attended ameeting in Brasilia on September 9, 2006 to discuss our position on chrysotile at the upcoming
meeting in Geneva. Better to let countries, like
Canada, India and Kazakhstan shout out theirobjections and for Brazil to remain apparently
neutral. This appearance of impartiality would
placate the industry even if it antagonized theasbestos victims, many of whom will be too ill tovote in the coming elections in October 2006.
While many ABREA members have deserted theWorkers’ Party in sheer disgust at its impotenceover asbestos, industry lobbyists remain supportive, both politically and financially. It is publicknowledge that selected federal politicians havereceived donations from asbestos stakeholders; inreturn, they defend Brazilian chrysotile fromadverse publicity and act against moves to regulate or ban its use. The purchase of these politicalallies has attracted some coverage from thenational and international mass media and hard
criticism from the public.6,7,8
According to ABREA’s President, Eliezer João de
Souza: “Since the formation of ABREA we haveworked closely with scientists and doctors to produce statistics on the numbers of people whohave contracted asbestos-related disease fromexposure to Brazilian chrysotile; in the absenceof any official Brazilian register of asbestos disease, ABREA’s data documents the devastating
impact asbestos has had in the country. Despite
the Government’s uncertainties and the industry’s propaganda, Brazilian chrysotile is not safe!
It is a sad fact, but true nonetheless, that there
are thousands of Brazilians whose health has
been ruined by exposure to asbestos at work,at home and in the environment. There is no‘controlled use’ of asbestos in Brazil; Brazilian
chrysotile is neither ‘pure’ nor ‘harmless.’
Asbestos is a public health problem on a colossal
scale in our country. Globally it is considered thebiggest sanitary catastrophe of the XXth Century!
The Rotterdam Convention is therefore a muchneeded multilateral environmental agreement
under which countries would be provided with
documentation explaining the hazards posedby the use of toxic chemicals such as chrysotile
asbestos. As asbestos victims ourselves, we feelthat full prior disclosure of all the risks is a moral
imperative. ABREA and the global asbestos victims’ movement believe that the PIC listing ofchrysotile should be approved as a matter ofurgency at COP3!”

India’s Position on Chrysotile
Asbestos Dictated by Vested
Interests!
by Gopal Krishna, Coordinator Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI)

A

lthough the Supreme Court of India has
ruled that the Government of India mustcomply with International Labour
Organization (ILO) resolutions, ourGovernment has chosen to ignore the ILO resolution (June 14, 2006) stating “the eliminationof the future use of asbestos and the identification and proper management of asbestos currently in place are the most effective means toprotect workers from asbestos exposures and toprevent future asbestos-related disease anddeaths.” For a veteran observer of India’s official
policy on chrysotile, this is not a surprise. Whenthe inclusion of chrysotile on the PIC list was initially proposed, it was blocked by India alongwith other asbestos stakeholders, led by
Canada. Full prior disclosure of all the risks fromthis killer fiber is an ethical, legal and humanitarian necessity; therefore, the PIC listing ofchrysotile should be approved as a matter ofutmost urgency at COP3 in October 2006.
Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI), an
alliance of scientists, doctors, public healthresearchers, trade unions, activists and civilsociety groups, condemns the Government’s
continued pro-industry bias and lack of concern
for the asbestos-injured. On August 18, 2003,
the Union Minister of Health and Family Welfare
and Parliamentary Affairs, Mrs Sushma Swaraj,
told the Indian Parliament that: "Studies by the
National Institute of Occupational Health(NIOH), Ahmedabad, have shown that longterm exposure to any type of asbestos can leadto development of asbestosis, lung cancer andmesothelioma." This was not the first official
acknowledgment of the asbestos hazard. OfficeMemorandum No. 6 (6)/94 – Cement, (Sept 1,
1994) of the Ministry of Industry states:“The Department has generally not been recommending any case of Industrial License to
any new unit for the creation of fresh capacity ofasbestos products in the recent past due to theapprehension that prolonged exposure toasbestos leads to serious health hazards.”

Bagging asbestos in India

25

undiminished. Recently, permission was granted
for the construction of a huge asbestos-cement
plant in Mrs. Gandi’s constituency in Raebarelly,
Utter Pradesh. While other countries are banning asbestos, India is expanding the asbestos
sector and constructing factories where asbestos
material is produced 24 hours a day. It is publicknowledge that the Deputy Leader of the Indian
National Congress in the Lower House of
Parliament owns asbestos factories. To increase
national demand for asbestos products, theGovernment has taken the perverse step of lowering import duties on chrysotile, much of whichcomes from Canada. Although non-asbestos
technology certainly exists in India, in fact insome factories the two technologies exist sideby-side, consumers will inevitably opt for thecheaper product: more demand will translate
into higher sales which will generate morechrysotile rupees that can be used to obtain aneven higher level of political support. As thequid-pro-quo relationship between Government
officials and asbestos businessmen exists outside the media spotlight, journalists and the
public remain unaware of the pernicious reasons which motivate the decisions being taken;
decisions which will expose current and future
generations to the deadly asbestos hazard.

India is expanding
the asbestos sector
and constructing
factories whereasbestos material
is produced 24
hours a day.

26

In light of these statements and the new positions taken by the ILO and World HealthOrganization regarding the urgent need to eliminate asbestos use, the Government should beinitiating a range of measures to protect the
population from the asbestos hazard. That it is
not doing so demonstrates the parasitic relationship which exists between politicians eager
for campaign contributions and industry shareholders greedy for profits. Even after Sonia
Gandhi’s electoral victory, which was achieved
under the slogan: Aam Aadmi (ordinary people), her Government’s pro-chrysotile bias was

BANI, the Occupational and Environmental Health
Network of India (OEHNI), civil society groups,
trade unions and human rights groups havedemanded an immediate ban on all uses ofasbestos including an immediate end to theimport of chrysotile. Other measures to identify,
compensate and treat the asbestos-injured andregulations to minimize harmful exposures arealso being proposed. BANI demands the criminal
prosecution of those responsible for asbestos
exposures such as factory owners and company
directors. Asbestos is a public health issue which
the Government has ignored for far too long. In
the public interest, BANI appeals to theGovernment of India to support the inclusion ofchrysotile asbestos on a trade “watch list” that
already contains all other forms of asbestos.

Canadian Asbestos Industry:
Exporting Human Miseryby Pat Martin Member of Parliament, Winnipeg Centre, Canada

Canada is a progressive, modern western
democracy with an admirable commitment to equality, human rights andsocial justice. Having said that, I hang myhead in shame that Canada continues to be oneof the world’s leading producers and exportersof asbestos – the greatest industrial hazard theworld has ever known. Sadly, the Governmentof Canada remains directly involved with promoting and marketing this deadly material
around the world. While much of the rest of thedeveloped world is banning asbestos in all its
forms, Canada is busy exporting over 220,000
tonnes per year (2004) into under-developed
countries. In some cases, these countries have
health and safety regulations that are non-existent or not enforced. This exposes millions of illinformed and unsuspecting people to the deadly hazards of asbestos. Without exaggeration,
we are exporting human misery. And doing sowith an aggressive marketing strategy endorsedby the Government of Canada – otherwise acountry with a pretty well-deserved reputationfor ethics, compassion, and decency. They hopepeople will say: “If a nice country like Canada
says it’s OK, then it must be ok.” But it is not ok.
Most Canadians would be horrified to learn
what an international pariah we are whereasbestos is concerned.
Canada not only refuses to ban asbestos theway Australia, Japan, and all the countries of
the European Union have done, but instead it
sends teams of Department of Justice lawyers
around the world at great expense to prevent
other countries from doing so. It uses its influence to twist arms to oppose international conventions restricting asbestos use, and it uses
Canadian Consulates to host marketing junkets
by the asbestos industry (120 times in 60 countries!) It has even been exposed in the media
for pressuring importing countries to not put
hazardous material warnings on the packaging
of Canadian asbestos in Thailand and South
Korea and probably elsewhere. Canadian government officials have taken on the role ofglobe-trotting, asbestos industry propagandists.
It is reprehensible that the asbestos industry has
been allowed to trade on our credibility as anation.
Decades of asbestos mining continues to take aheavy toll on Canadians’ health. In fact, according to a June 2005 study by the Quebec
National Institute of Public Health, men in that
region have the fourth highest rate of mesothelioma in the world. Women there have the highest rates. Concerned Canadians are asking theCanadian government to ban asbestos in all its
forms. We want them to shut down the minesand provide early retirement and transition
measures to affected workers. We are asking

Canadian government officials havetaken on the roleof globe-trotting,asbestos industry
propagandists.

27

the Government of Canada to undertake a comprehensive testing and removal program toeradicate asbestos-laden products from private
and public places. We are demanding heavy
investment in medical research for better diagnostics and treatment of mesothelioma andasbestos related diseases – so that Canada canexport solutions to asbestos exposure, insteadof just the causes.
Given these facts, and as a Canadian Member ofParliament, I believe that my government has a28

moral obligation to stop opposing the inclusionof asbestos in the Rotterdam Convention. In
fact, I believe strongly that the Canadian government should be campaigning in favour of
informed prior consent and the use of the precautionary principle when it comes to the handling of dangerous materials like asbestos.
Concerned Canadians must continue to tell thetruth and expose the Canadian asbestos industry. Canada must share in the collective responsibility for this human health tragedy.

Chronological Record of theContributions of National
Delegations and Others
Geneva, Switzerland September 18, 2004 by Laurie Kazan-Allen

Russian Federation: Whilst appreciating the consensus process, theposition held by the RussianFederation remains as detailed in
the letter submitted to Jim Willis,
the Executive Secretary of theRotterdam Convention Secretariat.
Chrysotile has not been established as a carcinogen. According
to the 1998 IPCS/WHO book on
Chrysotile: “Information on the
carcinogenic risk of chrysotile tothe human population is lacking;data on threshold exposures islacking.” ILO Convention 162 supports the position that chrysotile
can be used under controlled conditions in a manner which is riskfree. American, Finnish andRussian group of scientists support
this position. The ILO and WHO
should be asked for further data.
In the 5th Session of the ICRC neither the WHO or IPCS provided
additional information on the carcinogenic risk of chrysotile tohumans. “There is not an adequate basis for inclusion ofchrysotile on the PIC list.”
Russian scientists have been working on this issue for more than 10
years and have accumulated a lotof information on chrysotile andare willing to share this information.
Ukraine: Chrysotile should not be
included as there is no scientificbasis to do so. “I like other participants received a copy of theasbestos issue of the International
Journal of Occupational andEnvironmental Health in which
Richard Lemen stated that “there
is not an adequate basis for banning asbestos.” Chrysotile should
not be included.
Ukraine favors putting aside thisdecision until there is adequate
scientific data. It “could create
great harm for human health if
we reduce the use of chrysotile on
the basis of inadequate threats.
Ukraine cannot join in the proposal.”
Kazakhstan: We believe it is necessary to delay consideration of

the inclusion of chrysotile. There isno basis for including chrysotile inAnnex 3; “we fully support theRussian position. There is no reason to include chrysotile.”
Kyrgyzstan: We support theRussian position. It is “possible to
make the use of chrysotile riskfree.”
Chile: Rodrigo Espinosa said Chile
supports the inclusion of chrysotile
in the PIC list; Espinosa objected
to comments made about theChilean process for banningasbestos which appeared in a letter from the Russian Federation.
The ICRC analysed the Chilean
notification of its national
asbestos prohibitions and verified
the process. Having received ICRC
validation, it is unacceptable for
the Russians to object to Chile’s
notification process. The information in the Russian letter is inconsistent.
Canada: Barry Stemshorn said
that Canada supports the principleof the Rotterdam Convention but
also supports the controlled use ofchrysotile at home (stress on theword home) and abroad. “Canada
has concerns that prevent it fromsupporting inclusion at this time.”
This was a very short statement.
European Commission (EC): Klaus
Berend said:“The EC and its 25 member statesstrongly support the inclusion ofchrysotile in the interim PIC procedure. Until now, the Convention
procedures have worked well andsome 12 chemicals have been
added to the list. The case ofchrysotile should be no different.
All the criteria for inclusion havebeen met and all the procedures
followed. We regret that there
seems to be several delegations
who are missing the point. We are
not here to discuss the substance.
All the criteria for inclusion ofchrysotile have been met and the
ICRC unanimously recommended
to INC2 the inclusion ofchrysotile.”

The objections being voiced seemto be based on a serious misunderstanding of the Convention:
1. the inclusion of a chemical in
the interim PIC procedure does
not constitute a ban. The
Rotterdam Convention is for information exchange so parties candecide for themselves whether touse designated chemicals;
2. some delegations are also arguing that the Convention is deficient. The European Commission
finds it difficult to see what fundamental difference there is between
the controlled use policy advocated by some delegations and theConvention’s concept of “severe
restriction.”
The Convention aims to establish
international means to minimize
risk; such decisions on whether touse designated chemicals can only
be made by the nations themselves but to do so they need adequate information. In the case ofchrysotile, some nations may
decide to ban it, others may consider that the controlled use ofchrysotile is possible.
“The decision to include chrysotile
should not be delayed; this creates a bad precedent which could
harm the Convention in the future.
There is no place in theConvention process for comparative risk assessment; each party
has to make its own decisions.”
If the inclusion of chrysotile isrejected, the future inclusion of
additional hazardous materials
could become impossible.
The Russian delegation maintains
that the EU ban on chrysotile was
motivated by the commercial
interests of the producers ofchrysotile alternatives. “This allegation is absolutely baseless. The
ICRC verified our motivation as did
the World Trade Organization.
Producers of asbestos substitutes
are located inside the EU and outside. The EU supports inclusion.”
Appealing to delegates’ sense of
responsibility, Berend urged dele-29

gations opposing inclusion toreconsider; depriving counties of
the information needed to makeinformed decisions is irresponsible. While the procedures of theRotterdam Convention haveworked well “until now,” therejection of chrysotile sets a“bad precedent for the future.”
Egypt: Work by 25 experts
including representatives fromthe Russian Federation, Ukraine
and elsewhere were part of theprocess of validation of theasbestos bans passed by theEuropean Commission and Chile.
This Committee was representative and had the option to recommend or reject the inclusion ofchrysotile. Following their decision
to recommend inclusion, under
Article 7, products passed by thisprocess must be added to the PIC
list. Egypt is in favor of including
chrysotile and agrees with theEuropean Commission. The provision of accurate information on
the use of this substance is important.
Indonesia: “Inclusion of chrysotile
will create a more complex
national situation. I would havedifficulty to support inclusion.”
Zimbabwe: The delegation gives
full support to the RussianFederation, Canada and others
rejecting the inclusion of chrysotile.
“It should not be listed.” “Further
reflection” is needed.
Norway: Norway supports theinclusion of chrysotile. The ICRC
received adequate notification on
chrysotile which fulfilled all therequirements specified in theConvention. If chrysotile is not
added, this will be difficult to
explain to the public. The inclusionof chrysotile on the PIC list does
not constitute a ban. The role of
the Rotterdam Convention could
become limited as exporting countries will block inclusion of materials which have economic implications. “This is an unfortunate
precedent.”
Colombia: We reiterate our position; Colombia does not agreewith the inclusion of chrysotile due
to “lack of evidence of the realrisks to human health.”
Mexico: We support the noninclusion of chrysotile because ofmany scientific aspects andbecause for Mexico it would be
difficult to support such a decision.
Iran: We acknowledge concerns
about the use of chrysotile, so wehave regulations to control theuse of chrysotile. Before confirming the existence of safer alternatives, more time is needed.
New Zealand: New Zealand isconcerned about exposure to30

asbestos and thinks national control of its use is important. We use
occupational safety and healthregulations to achieve this. It is
important to flag the risks at multilateral levels as this will support
national action. Chrysotile should
be included on the PIC list as such
multilateral action would support
national decisions to restrict its
use.
Ghana: We are not in a position
to add chrysotile. Rejecting the
ICRC recommendation to include
chrysotile is a good precedent as it
shows we do not automaticallyrubber-stamp ICRC opinions.
India: We have studied this issueduring the past twelve months
with an “open mind” said Ramesh
Inder Singh. “We are not convinced that the opinion of putting
chrysotile on the PIC list is correct.” “More time (is needed) to
dwell on this issue.” We support
the statement by the Canadiandelegation and endorse the viewthat “this house is not a rubber
stamp of the ICRC.” We oppose
inclusion.
Tanzania: We support inclusion.
Such a decision would strengthen
management of this chemical atnational and international levels.
China: Having studied the ICRC
report, we believe, based on current evidence, that the inclusionof chrysotile to the PIC list is premature. More evidence is neededon the risks of asbestos alternatives. We support Russia andCanada’s opinions that chrysotile
should not be included.
Argentina: In favor of the inclusion of chrysotile.
Gambia: We were a member of
the ICRC and advocate the inclusion of chrysotile. Only throughthe PIC listing can we access theinformation needed to protect
ourselves
Jamaica: During this discussion,a general consensus has emergedthat chrysotile needs to be managed. I believe that the recommendation to list chrysotile needs
to be taken seriously. We need torecognize that countries have aright to continue or discontinue
their use of chrysotile. In my country, as in many others, it takes along time to get regulations on
health and safety passed; implementation also takes a long time.
The notification process specified
under the Rotterdam Convention
is important. “Jamaica strongly
supports the inclusion ofchrysotile.”
Congo: We support the inclusionof chrysotile as we “have no physical means to control” harmful
exposures to asbestos.
Guinea: In Guinea there are strict

regulations on the use of all forms
of asbestos; industry can still use it
but it is controlled. Guinea “favors
putting chrysotile on the PIC list
because of reasons of health, environment and prevention.”
WWF: Clifton Curtis said that the
Chairwoman’s summation of thetask at hand was an appropriate
reminder that this is a proceduraland not a substantive decision.
It is very clear under Article 5,
sub-paragraphs 5 & 6, thatchrysotile should be included on
Annex 3 as it unequivocally meets
the Conventions’ requirements.
The inclusion is an “early warning
system to alert governments ofissues of concern.” A decision
today, not to list chrysotile, is “abad omen” and indicates that theConvention’s requirements do notneed to be taken seriously.”
WHO: The IPCS 1998 document
on chrysotile [Environmental
Health Criteria 202: Chrysotile
Asbestos] concluded that:“Exposure to chrysotile asbestos
poses increased risks for asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma
in a dose-dependent manner. No
threshold has been identified for
carcinogenic risks.
Where safer substitute materials
for chrysotile are available, theyshould be considered for use.”
Research by the WHO, in conjunction with the IARC, is under way
on the hazards of asbestos substitutes; publication in 2005 is anticipated.
International Ban Asbestos
Secretariat: Laurie Kazan-Allen
pointed out that the statement
made referring to the opinion of
Dr. Richard Lemen by the Ukrainedelegate was a total misrepresentation; Dr. Lemen believes that
exposure to chrysotile is hazardous.
Kazan-Allen referred to the existence of thousands of global
asbestos victims and criticized the
proposal to omit from the official
record the positions taken by individual delegations:“It is not accurate to say simply
that consensus has not beenachieved in the official report ofthis meeting. Thousands ofasbestos victims in countries suchas Canada and India have a rightto know what has been done here
today by delegates representing
their countries.”