a gue / ngl publication

asbestos
the human costof corporate greed

european united left/nordic green left
european parliamentary group

European United Left/Nordic Green Leftrue Wiertz 43
1047 Brussels
Tel: +32 2 284 26 83 / 26 86
Fax: +32 2 284 17 74
www.guengl.eu
Written by Laurie Kazan-Allen.
Editing: Gay Kavanagh, David Lundy.
Proofreading: Edoardo Boggio Marzet, Charles Canonne, Nora Chaal,
Vivienne Gadeyne, Myriam Losa, Nana Pantazidou, Fania Antoniou,
Gianfranco Battistini.
Photos: Jason Addy, Angel Cárcoba, Hein Du Plessis, Julia Garlito Y Romo,
Daniela Pelclova, Bob Ruers, Dmytro Skrylnikov.
For further information about this publication, please contact:
Vivienne Gadeyne — vgadeyne@europarl.eu.int
Produced by the GUE/NGL website and publications unit
Contact: Gay Kavanagh — gkavanagh@europarl.eu.int
David Lundy — dlundy@europarl.eu.int
Design and layout: Liz Morrison
Printing: Arte Print, Brussels
This publication is printed on eco-friendly recycled paper.
© GUE/NGL — Brussels, 2006

asbestos the human cost of corporate greed

contents
Preface by Francis Wurtz

5

Introduction by Kartika Liotard

6

Setting the scene: background and history of asbestos use

8

Defining the scope of the problem

12

Occupational asbestos exposure

20

Environmental asbestos exposure23

The human dimension

28

Country profiles

32

Avoiding more needless deaths

35

Author’s conclusions

37

Appendix A: Declaration from the conference

39

Appendix B: Conference programme

41

Appendix C: Useful links

42

Endnotes42

gue/ngl[ Aside from gunpowder,asbestos is the mostscandalous substance people
have had to work with. The
dark forces which profit
from asbestos think little ofusing blackmail, deceit andunscrupulous practices toprotect the bottom line; they
willingly sacrifice workers’
health for corporate profits. ]Remi Poppe
Former MP, Socialist Party, the Netherlands

This publication is dedicated to all thosethroughout the world who have sufferedand died from asbestos-related diseases.

asbestos the human cost of corporate greed

prefacean exemplary battle
The conference on asbestos, held in the European Parliament on 22 and 23
September 2005, which this booklet reports on, is a new milestone on the roadmapped out in Europe and throughout the world over the past decades by tradeunion organisations, associations and many individual men and women who, in
one way or another, decided to commit themselves to making the truth known
about the dangers of asbestos, helping the victims and obtaining the eradicationof this devastating risk for human health. The European United Left/Nordic Green
Left group considers it to be its duty to contribute to these information, awareness raising and mobilisation efforts. A big thank you to all those conference participants who came from across Europe and other regions in the world.

Francis Wurtz

Their testimonies illustrated first and foremost the timeliness of this battle.
Although the discovery of the link between asbestosis and the risk of lung cancer
dates back to 1935, although all varieties of asbestos have been classified as
carcinogenic by the International Cancer Research Centre since 1977, and although
the European directive providing for the prohibition of asbestos dates back to
1999, the effective prohibition of asbestos throughout the European Union only
entered into force on 1 January 2005!
However, not only will the massive use of asbestos in the past continue to kill inyears to come — the number of deaths due to asbestos is even rising in Europe
and is likely to continue doing so for ten to fifteen years still! —, but the monitoring of the effective implementation of legislation, the protection of workers
charged with asbestos removal, support for the countless recognised asbestos
victims or those needing to be recognised as such, and the prevention of risks,in particular professional risks, constitute as many fields of action for the years
to come. And this is not forgetting our responsibility as Europeans regarding theshameful practices of exporting the danger to other countries, particularly in thesouth of the planet.
This is why the “Brussels Declaration”, adopted at the end of the European
Conference in September last, conveys requests by medical associations and international organisations to make 2006 a year of action against asbestos and invites the European institutions to implement a detailed action plan (see Appendix
A).
A special homage should be paid to Laurie Kazan and all the other players in thisexemplary battle.

Francis WURTZ
President of the GUE/NGL Groupgue/nglintroduction
ending the conspiracy of silenceAsbestos remains the primary carcinogenic toxin affecting European workers.
Outside the workplace, asbestos is second only to tobacco as an environmental
source of cancer. Asbestos products in European homes and commercial buildings,
as well as asbestos waste in our environment continue to cause unprecedented
levels of disease and death in Member States of the European Union.

Kartika Liotard

The widespread use of asbestos in the Netherlands, my home country, has haddire consequences; thousands have died from asbestos-related diseases afterworking with asbestos or asbestos-containing products, sharing a home with relatives who had been occupationally exposed to asbestos, or living in the vicinityof asbestos consuming factories. In the town of Goor, where the Eternit cement
asbestos factory was the major employer, many local people — not only workers— have contracted asbestos-related diseases. For a long time there was a conspiracy of silence and initially the victims received no assistance or recognition.
The formation of the Dutch Asbestos Victims’ Committee in the 1990s and thecommitment of its members have transformed the plight of asbestos victims in
the Netherlands. Nowadays, many of the asbestos-injured in the Netherlands receive appropriate medical treatment and financial compensation. Unfortunately,others do not. Neighbourhoods remain contaminated and workers continue to be
exposed to asbestos products hidden within our infrastructure…
Asbestos is not just a European problem; multinational companies are exporting
the evil to countries where social and health protection is not as developed as inEurope.
As Xavier Jonckheere, president of ABEVA, said: “asbestos affects all countries on
the planet. It is like an octopus spreading out its tentacles. What is prohibited inour countries is now being done elsewhere — where labour laws are not so stringent, where levels of protection are non-existent, where asbestos lobbying is still
powerful.”More than 25 countries were represented at the Asbestos Conference in theEuropean Parliament on the 22nd and 23rd September 2005. Participants included
workers affected by asbestos and their relatives, asbestos victim support workers,
public health activists, medical professionals, legal personnel, journalists, civil
servants, factory inspectors, asbestos removal experts and academics.
During the conference, we examined the EU asbestos policy, pinpointing its successes and exposing its failures. Delegates described national asbestos experiences in new EU Member States and highlighted the problems they faced. The
purpose was to find answers on questions such as how can we improve thesituation for all asbestos victims? How can we prevent future generations fromcontracting these deadly diseases?

asbestos the human cost of corporate greed

At the end of the conference, we adopted The European Asbestos Action Plan for
2005-2006. It calls on the European Parliament, the European Commission and
the Council to support an international ban on asbestos. EU legislation should
ban the use of asbestos by EU-based companies anywhere in the world. The
transfer of asbestos production and contaminated products from Europe todeveloping countries should be rendered impossible.
The effectiveness of such action was clearly demonstrated by the denouementof the sustained campaign by NGOs in France, Egypt and India surrounding the
Clemenceau, formerly one of the French Navy’s most prestigious ships, which
was being sent to India for decommissioning. France’s top administrative court
finally agreed with the activists that the export of this toxic waste infringed
international protocols, global agreements and French law and ruled that theClemenceau’s export to India should be stopped. On 15th February 2006, French
President Jacques Chirac ordered the Clemenceau to be brought back home! This
joyful moment came just a few months after the conference.
To conclude my introduction to this publication, I would like to quote Laurie
Kazan, its author:“The European Asbestos Conference was a landmark event which marked a newstage in Europe’s asbestos debate. Corporations, governments, trade associations
and individuals that have foisted this carcinogen on civil society and continue toprofit from its use will be held to account. The struggle continues!”[ Asbestos is not justa European problem;
multinational companies
are exporting the evil tocountries where social andhealth protection is not as
developed as in Europe. ]Kartika Liotard
Member of the European Parliament, GUE/NGL Group
Socialistische Partij Delegation, the Netherlands

gue/nglsetting the scene

background andhistory of asbestos use

At the beginning of the 20th century, Ludwig Hatschek invented
a process for combining asbestos fibres with cement to produce
asbestos-cement (AC), a material which had excellent technicalproperties and could be used for a wide range of applications.
As asbestos would “last forever,” Hatschek named the process
Eternit, for eternal, and proceeded to sell the patent tocompanies all over the world, many of which took the name
Eternit.

asbestos the human cost of corporate greed

The asbestos-cement industry spread rapidly andwas hugely successful. Global production peakedin 1975, after which time sales in the developed
world began to fall. Fears about the health risks
linked with asbestos had surfaced repeatedly over
the years as evidence showed that fine asbestos
fibres were easily inhaled, and were shown tobring about several respiratory illnesses, including
an acute lung fibrosis called asbestosis. Research
has confirmed that exposure to the substancecan cause an extremely dangerous kind of cancer in the chest and abdomen. It is estimated that
100,000 people die each year from asbestos-related diseases, such as mesothelioma, asbestosis,
and various cancers.
As restrictions were imposed on asbestos consumption in developed countries, new markets
were cultivated in developing economies; in recent years, sales of asbestos-cement products in
India, Pakistan, Indonesia and Thailand haverisen significantly. Despite the knowledge that exposure to asbestos can cause debilitating and fatal
diseases, asbestos producers continue to advancethe case for the safe use of asbestos, and deny theexistence of safer alternatives.

A long history of lobbying
Documents show that the asbestos industry has,since the 1930s, been active in lobbying national
governments as well as international agencies,
such as the International Labour Organisation(ILO), on asbestos issues, eager to “safeguard its
position.”
In 1929, Eternit Belgium and Eternit Switzerland
entered into a joint venture at the suggestion of
Ernst Schmidheiny, from Swiss Eternit, who believed that competition for raw materials andmarkets was not as cost-effective for asbestos-cement producers as cooperation. An exclusive groupof asbestos-cement producing companies wasformed; it was named the International Asbestos
Cement AG (SAIAC). Its aims were:• exchange of technical knowledge, experience,
propaganda and patents;• joint purchase of raw production materials;• joint research;• setting up export arrangements;• establishing new companies in ‘neutral’countries;• arranging markets and market prices.
Turner & Newall Ltd., the UK’s biggest asbestos
group, was proud of its membership of the cartel,
referring to it as a “miniature League of Nations”
in an annual company report.
Today, aggressive marketing campaigns, backed bymillions of asbestos dollars, are targeting decisionmakers and consumers in developing countries.
The increase of asbestos consumption in countries
which have little information on the long-term
consequences of asbestos exposures, no specificasbestos laws, no enforcement of the laws which
do exist, no official workplace inspections, nocompensation, no health services and no social
security, is cause for serious concern. The vulnerability of construction workers in these countries
makes exploitation routine; often illiterate, manyof them live with their families on building sites
or by the sides of roads. In this context, the notion of the “controlled use” of asbestos is, according to Fiona Murie, Director of Health and Safety
at the International Federation of Building andWoodworkers (IFBWW), a “sick joke.”

IFBWW and the campaign for a
global asbestos ban
The IFBWW has been campaigning on asbestos
since the 1980s. Trade unionists in Chile were at
the forefront of the ‘ban asbestos’ movement;
working with an asbestos victims’ group, they
were able to expose the nefarious practices ofPizzarreno, a member of the Eternit Group, whichrefused to acknowledge or compensate the grieving families of 300 employees, dead from asbestos
diseases, from 11 asbestos-cement factories. Using
demonstration techniques honed during the yearsof the Pinochet dictatorship, “funas,” 1 were held
outside the homes of Pizzarreno executives to expose their personal involvement in the company’s
shameful behaviour and build pressure for a na-

Eternit advertisements

gue/ngltional asbestos ban. In 2001, Chile became the first
country in Latin America to ban asbestos.
The IFBWW, working with other global labour organisations, has been lobbying the ILO to adopt a
health-based position on a global asbestos ban.
Unfortunately, many European governments havebeen “unhelpful”; the UK, Holland and Denmark,among others, are resisting new laws, multilateraltreaties and new conventions on labour standards
in their determination to exploit the status quo.
ILO Convention 162 is being purposefully misusedby asbestos lobbyists in Brazil and elsewhere whocite it as justification for industry’s “controlleduse” propaganda. Conference delegates need topush national delegations to progress the pro-ban
position at the ILO. The World Health Organization(WHO), which has agreed to make the eliminationof asbestosis a priority, also needs to address theconsequences of environmental exposures.

Amongst the IFBWW objectives are:• the need for a global ban on asbestos;• the inclusion of chrysotile (white asbestos)on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) list of theRotterdam Convention;• the protection of workers such as carpenters andplumbers from hazardous asbestos exposures;• the elimination of dry stripping for asbestos
removal by unlicensed companies employing
untrained operatives and the illegal dumpingof asbestos;• the need to improve workers’ rights and conditions and to end informal and uncontrolledworking practices.

Eternit’s corporate clout
Eternit (Netherlands), part of the Belgian Etex Group, has caused ill-health and deathamongst many former workers, family members and local residents. There is widespreadasbestos contamination of communities near the Eternit factories; the cost of the asbestos decontamination work needed in the Netherlands has been estimated at 50 million
euros. Eternit is adamant that it will not pay. Dutch Parliamentarians have been asked toapply “the polluter pays principle” to force the company to remedy the environmental
devastation it is has wrought. The arrogance of asbestos-cement executives and corporations is not a thing of the past.
A recent newspaper article which appeared in Switzerland criticised Italian prosecutors who, in their attempt to obtain justice for asbestos victims, are contemplating legal
action against Mr. Schmidheiny. The Swiss entrepreneur claims he is being “hounded
without cause” by the (Italian) legal authorities.
In Belgium, Eternit wields enormous influence. The publication of a newspaper article,
entitled The Veil of Silence in Belgium, about the country’s tragic asbestos legacy, wasscheduled to coincide with the European Asbestos Conference; it did not appear. The
suppression of the article illustrates that in 2005, censorship and corporate influence isstill stronger than free speech and democracy in Belgium.

10 asbestos the human cost of corporate greed

gue/ngl

11

defining the scopeof the asbestos problem

In the European Union, the existing legislation to protect
workers against exposure to asbestos dates from 1983. Morethan twenty years on, research shows that this legislation isinadequate and that compliance with it remains substandard inmany Member States.

12 asbestos the human cost of corporate greedAs specified in EU Council Directive 83/477/EEC of
September 19, 1983 Protection of Workers fromthe Risks Related to Exposure to Asbestos at Work,
medical checks are required before the beginningof hazardous exposures and, thereafter, every
three years. 2 Article 16 of this directive states that
medical records must be retained for 30 years andArticle 17 states that a register of recognised cases ofasbestosis and mesothelioma shall be kept.
Between July 2004 and April 2005, research was
carried out by Dr. Olaf Hagemeyer of the Universityof Aachen, Germany, into current practices inMember States. Questionnaires about how the
EU directive was being implemented were sentout which asked specifically about post-exposure
medical examinations. Answers were received
from 23 Member States; Cyprus and Malta did not
respond. An analysis of the responses showed that
post-exposure medicals were carried out in only
14 Member States (60%); examination procedures
differ: some consist of regular lung X-rays, examination of sputum is carried out in seven countries
and occasional high resolution computer tomography is done in 12 Member States. Only 15 States
retain medical records for three years. “The absence of records will,” Hagemeyer said, “have an
impact on our ability to access data.”
In September 2005, the EU decided that the collection of gender-related data was unnecessary.
Judging by the statistics collected on the German
distribution of mesothelioma, this decision isshort-sighted, Dr. Hagemeyer says. The underclaiming of government compensation by womenwith mesothelioma is significant; in 2002, there
were more than 250 female mesothelioma deaths
and only 75 claims. On the other hand, the datacollected shows that the percentage of males
claiming for mesothelioma has increased dramatically over the last 20 years. One possible explanation for this is the failure of doctors and coroners
to ask about the exposure history of women withmesothelioma. In Germany, if you can’t prove occupational asbestos exposure then the recognitionof the disease as occupationally related, which isessential to receive government compensation, iscompromised. With the long latency period of asbestos-related diseases, it can be difficult to prove
occupational exposure. Therefore, Hagemeyer
suggested that a central register of all asbestosexposed workers should be compiled.

denmarkIn the collection of information on the problem,
and in the general fight against asbestos, Danish
trade unions have been on the front line. At theend of the 1980s, local branches of the Danish
Confederation of Construction Workers’ Unions
looked at a map of Denmark drawn up by theCancer Institute showing the distribution of mesothelioma. There was a prevalence of mesotheliomas in areas in which dockyards, glass factories
and other asbestos-using factories were located.
The union wrote to several hundred former workers, asking if they had worked at the dockyards,
handled asbestos-containing insulation or had
symptoms of lung disease. Over one hundred
former dockyard workers were interviewed and 50
were sent for medical examinations. A significant
aspect of the examination programme was thecooperation of the union officials, local medical
practitioners and doctors working in occupational
disease clinics. As a result of this initiative, 24 of
the workers were able to obtain payments fromthe National Compensation Board.
In Denmark, every worker has to contribute to theGovernment Work Injuries Scheme; hospital doctors must report all occupational diseases as wellas suspicions of diseases which could be workrelated. If, for example, a carpenter is diagnosed
with lung problems which might be occupationally-linked, the illness must be notified. Asbestosrelated diseases have been officially recognised
as occupational diseases for more than 40 years:
asbestosis in 1954, lung cancer in the late 1950s
and mesothelioma in 1963. Nevertheless, there
is no automatic recognition procedure and there
are instances when trade unions have had to takelegal action to force employers to pay compensa-

gue/ngl 13

tion. In 1986, a union took a case to the Supreme
Court to force the defendant, Danish Eternit, to pay
compensation.
Two to 5% of all cancers diagnosed in Denmark are
work-related; this translates into 650-1300 occupational cancers per year. Unfortunately, only afraction of these, 208, are recognised. To ascertain
whether under-reporting has taken place and toassess the impact a simple work history could haveon the recognition procedure, research was undertaken by the Danish Cancer Institute. Nearly 700
mesothelioma patients, diagnosed between 1994
and 2002, fulfilled the criteria specified by the researchers; less than half (300) had been reported
to the National Compensation Board. The study,
published in 2005, concludes that a serious under-reporting of occupational cases of mesothelioma exists. Another revelation was uncoveredby further enquiries among male mesothelioma
patients on the Danish Cancer Registry who had
not applied for their illnesses to be recognised as
occupationally-caused. The researchers were able
to establish that information available on the jobs
these men had undertaken and the potential forasbestos exposure at these jobs would have enabled an additional 105 male mesothelioma victims
to obtain compensation.

[ The lack of statistics on
the presence of asbestos inpublic and private buildings
is central to the asbestos
problem in Greece — once
one of the biggest asbestos
producers in the world. ]Dimitris Papadimoulis
Synaspismos, Greece“In economic terms this study demonstrates thatover an eight-year period insurance companies
cheated mesothelioma patients out of 16 million
Danish kroner (€2.15 million)” according to Lars
Vedsmand, Occupational and Safety Officer for
the Danish Confederation of Construction Workers’
Unions.
The conclusions of this study have come as abombshell in Denmark. Even though oncology wards ought to be familiar with the causation of occupationally-linked illnesses, patientsare not asked to provide occupational histories.
The proportion of women whose mesotheliomas
are reported is even lower than that for men.
Unfortunately, the Danish experience is not
unusual; in 2001, the European Cancer League
reported that only Finland, France, the UK and

Denmark were in a position, on the basis of publicly available information, to provide statistics on
mesothelioma. As a result of the under-reporting,the Danish Minister of Employment recently announced that action will be taken to make it compulsory for hospital staff and general practitioners
to take occupational histories; more professional
training and information will be provided.

greeceIn 1990, Greek Professor E. Velonakis estimatedthat the cumulative number of Greek workers who
had been exposed to asbestos was 150,000. In
1993, a study carried out by Professor M. Kogevinas
estimated that 10,000 workers were experiencing
harmful asbestos exposures every year. Until 1995,
Greece was amongst the world’s top seven suppliers of asbestos, producing 100,000 tonnes ofchrysotile every year with up to 300,000 tonnes a
year of Greek and imported asbestos processed atasbestos-cement factories in:• Nea Lamsakos, Evoia, placing a workforce of 250
at risk of occupational asbestos exposure from1961-1990;• Thessalonica, placing 416 personnel at risk of occupational asbestos exposure from 1968-2003;• Patras, placing 150 workers at risk of asbestos
exposure from 1969-2000.
Asbestos-containing brakes and fireproofing materials were also produced in Greece. In 1993, theuse of blue asbestos (crocidolite) was banned bylaw (article 1154/93); on December 31, 2004, Greece
became the last of the 15 EU Member States toban the use of all forms of asbestos as per the EU
Directive.
The incidence of asbestos-related disease is underestimated by Greek Government agencies; thenumbers of cases of asbestosis reported by theSocial Security Foundation were: three (1994), five(1995), three (1996), four (1999), three (2000) andone (2001). Dr. Patentalakis, a respiratory specialist practicing at a hospital specialising in lung diseases, has reported diagnosing 456 cases of asbes>

14 asbestos the human cost of corporate greed

Dangerous hypocrisy: the Clemenceau
The double standards of Western countries which export redundant asbestos-contaminated ships to ship-breaking yards in Asia are exemplified by the Clemenceau case.
Commissioned in 1957, the Clemenceau was, for forty years, one of the French navy’s mostprestigious ships. As with all ships of this period, large amounts of asbestos were used inits construction. According to the Basel Convention, an international convention whichbans the export of hazardous waste, and European Union regulations on the environment,each country should manage its own hazardous waste; the breaking up of asbestos-ridden ships should therefore take place in the ship’s home country.
In 2003, the Clemenceau toured the Mediterranean looking for a ship-breaking yard withlax rules; the ship was sold to a Spanish company which tried to carry out the decontamination in Turkey. The French Government stepped in and forced the ship to return to the
French military port of Toulon. On June 23, 2004, a contract for the decontamination of theship was signed between the French State and the Ship Decommissioning Industries Corporation (SDI), a subsidiary of a German multinational, which stipulated that after Phase
1 of the asbestos removal was completed in France, the ship would be sent to India where
the rest of the asbestos would be removed. 3 Decontamination work took place in France
between November 2004 and March 2005. In the meantime, Ban Asbestos France asked theMinistry of Defence to prevent the export of the contaminated ship to India.
Ban Asbestos France also started legal proceedings to make sure the ship did not sail. It
forged links with Indian associations and NGOs which had previously spoken out on similar
issues. Research undertaken by Greenpeace documented the reality of the occupational
hazards which persisted in the Indian ship-breaking yards. 4 Photographs showed abysmal
conditions in Alang Bay where strong waves continually crash along the beach. Shipbreaking is big business in Alang Bay, the proposed destination of the Clemenceau. In
2001-2002, 264 ships were broken up there by 25,000-40,000 workers, some as young as
17. Women carry away the lighter items from the ships including many which contain orare covered with asbestos. Asbestos is torn off steelwork with bare hands; people dryout crocidolite so it can be resold. The workers are mostly barefoot and protection fromthe many occupational hazards they are exposed to consists, in general, of a scarf overtheir mouths. Ban Asbestos France initiated legal action against the French State andthe SDI; what should have been a debate about principles descended into a squabble
over procedure. The battle of the Clemenceau has been fought in the French courts, on
French TV and in the media. It has given a high profile to the usually invisible transfer ofhazardous waste from the developed to the developing world. This case illustrates notjust the double standards which exist but the determination of national governments andmultinationals to ignore international conventions and laws which adversely affect theireconomic interests. 5

gue/ngl 15

>tosis and 22 cases of mesothelioma in the period
1994-2002. Groups found to be at higher risk ofcontracting asbestos-related diseases include:for setting up a Greek Mesothelioma Register, andlater a register of all asbestos-related diseases, arebeing considered. Plans to raise awareness of asbestos hazards amongst workers in the construction sector are being made; the Education Ministry
is devising a programme to deal with asbestos inschools, which will include measures to protect
workers removing asbestos from contaminatedschool buildings as well as building users.

• people in the Metsovo area, where there is ahigh incidence of mesothelioma due to environmental exposures;• merchant seamen and naval personnel, especially engineers, who have traditionally experienced high-levels of continual asbestos exposure while performing their duties on-board
ships.

czech republic
From 1991-2004, 638 cases of mesothelioma werediagnosed in the Czech Republic, of which 52 (8%)
were recognised as occupationally-linked; in
addition, a further 230 cases of asbestos-relateddiseases were recognised. In the Czech Republic,
recognised occupational diseases are specified
in the List of Occupational Diseases (Government
Order No. 290/1995), which is based on ILO classifications. 7 There are 18 clinics or outpatient departments specialising in occupational diseases.
Every case of occupational disease must be verified by one of the 18 branches of the Departmentof Occupational Diseases; the disease must be on
the List of Occupational Diseases and exposuremust be confirmed by industrial hygienists. The
Department recognises the claim (not an insurance company or law court) and decides on compensation, usually within a matter of weeks. 8
The breakdown of the 23 cases of occupational
asbestos disease which were recognised in 2004 isshown in the following table:

Although mesothelioma of the peritoneum isrecognised as an occupational disease in Greece,
pleural mesothelioma is not. 6 The Government,
while being aware of the contradiction, has done
nothing about it. In 2001, a 52-year-old sheet
metal worker was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma; due to intensive efforts by his doctors, his case was recognised as an occupational
disease.
Since the Hellenic Asbestos Seminar was held in
Athens in 2002, a dialogue on asbestos issues with
the Greek Government has been ongoing. At apress conference held in Athens on September 21,
2005, the Labour Minister confirmed the decision
to establish the Ministry of Employment & Social
Security National Committee for the Managementof Asbestos-Related Hazards. In collaboration with
the Department of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, at Imperial College, London, measures

diagnosis

numberrecognised

male/femaleage

exposure(years)Asbestosis

4

3/1

43-69

3-34

Pleural Hyalinosis with
Lung Function Impairment

12

4/8

55-79

2-38

Mesothelioma

3

2/1

45-64

16-22

Lung Cancer with Asbestosisor Pleural Hyalinosis

4

4/0

56-73

3-30

16 asbestos the human cost of corporate greed

These figures seem low considering that official
sources believe that up to 55,000 workers havebeen occupationally exposed to asbestos in the
Czech Republic; exposures are still taking place
amongst those involved in asbestos removal,demolition and construction work.

india
The (Indian) National Cancer Register does not
document cases of mesothelioma; the Indian
Government does not record the incidence of occupational disease. Only 7% of the Indian workforce is organised; the vast majority of workers,
especially in the construction industry, remain
unseen and unheard. No protective equipment
or respiratory protection is provided to protect
workers from hazardous asbestos exposures. Poor
governance in India, corruption and political influence obtained through the dispersal of asbestos industry profits combine to create a climate inwhich asbestos consumption is flourishing.
The asbestos-cement industry, which has a powerful lobby in India, has persuaded politicians
to lower duty on the import of asbestos; consequently, imports have increased by nearly 30%,
from 76,095 tonnes in 1998-1999 to 98,884 tonnes
in 2002-2003. According to information suppliedby the Indian Parliament:• Russia, Canada and Zimbabwe account for 82%
of the imported asbestos;• the production of asbestos-cement material
has risen from 681,000 tonnes in 1993-94 to
1,387,000 tonnes in 2002-03;• 32 asbestos-cement factories are distributed
throughout India; the States with the largest number of facilities are: Maharasthra (9),Tamilnadu (6), Andhra Pradesh (3) and West
Bengal (2).

lithuania
In 1997, it was estimated that the number of workers who had been exposed to asbestos in Lithuania
was 7,451, of whom 42% worked in the construction sector. Others at-risk of contracting asbestosrelated occupational illnesses included some 2,787
workers from the:• Daugeliai Building Products factory, which produced asbestos-cement sheets from 1956 to1997;• Akmenes Cementas factory, which manufactured asbestos-cement sheets and pipes from1963 to 2001 (for sheets) and 2004 (for pipes).
In the 1990s and early 2000s, surveys found asbestos in power plants, machinery factories andthe chemical, construction and transport industries. There has been little recognition of asbestosrelated disease in Lithuania. Despite the fact that
125 cases of pleural mesotheliomas were recorded
between 1992 and 2001 and 1,300 new cases ofmale lung cancers are diagnosed annually, notone case of either disease has been diagnosed orcompensated as an asbestos-related occupational
disease. There is a list of diseases, recognised by
the Government and including malignant andnon-malignant diseases, acknowledged to be due
to exposures to hazards encountered at work. The
process of evaluation and notification of occupational disease is rigid and cumbersome:Asbestos cement housing in India• a general practitioner, doctor or occupational
physician must inform the local labour inspection authority about the case;• a three-person commission is formed to investigate whether exposure at the workplace had
occurred;• the conclusions reached by the commission
form the basis for the subsequent judgment
made by a licensed occupational physician.

gue/ngl17

Patients, many of whom are seriously ill, must bepresent at time-consuming meetings throughout
the adjudication process. Due to the protracted
and complex nature of the system, doctors show
little enthusiasm for proposing cases. Proof of
causation is required even for people who worked
in high-risk sectors, like asbestos-cement, or
occupations, like insulators, and were affectedby specific illnesses, like mesothelioma or lungcancer. Research in Lithuania suggests that there
are at least 50 cases of asbestos-related lung cancers every year, none of which are recognised as
occupational.

turkey1970s asbestos cement housing in Nigeria

The incidence of mesothelioma is high in Karain
and Tuzkoy, villages in Cappadocia, Turkey, due
to the presence and use of naturally-occurring
erionite. To explore whether there are other factors, aside from hazardous environmental exposures, which explain why some villagers contract mesothelioma and others do not, research
was undertaken by Dr. Salih Emri of Hacettepe
University, Ankara. Over 30 months, data wascollected about the diets, occupations, lifestyles,
medical and smoking histories of families in thetowns of Karain, Tuzkoy and Karlik by a team of
Turkish and U.S. scientists. The application of thetechnique of genetic mapping suggested a genetic
susceptibility:

portugal
By the 1980s, asbestos factories in Portugal employed 800 people and asbestos-cement was
big business. To protect their interests, asbestos stakeholders formed a trade association, theAssociation of Chrysotile Product Producers, which
lobbied the government to forestall the introduction of asbestos restrictions, with producers claiming that chrysotile asbestos could be used safely
under “controlled conditions.” Since the implementation of the EU asbestos directives, industry
has been replacing asbestos with safer alternatives
such as PVA and cellulose.
Data on the incidence of occupational asbestosrelated disease in Portugal is only available for theperiod 1985-1993; during this time, 71 cases of asbestos-related diseases were recorded. In 1992, six
deaths from asbestos-related disease were registered. In 2003, the Social Affairs Ministry said there
were 161 cases of asbestos-related disease as wellas many more cases of pulmonary complications
due to the inhalation of asbestos dust. The systemfor collecting and collating data on the incidenceof asbestos disease is inadequate and it is unlikelythat official figures are accurate.

brazil• analysis of a six-generation extended pedigreeof 526 individuals showed that Malignant Pleural
Mesothelioma was genetically transmitted;• it was suggested that vertical transmission of
Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma occurs probably in an autosomal dominant way.

The chlorine industry has a powerful lobby inBrazil. In 2004, eight Brazilian companies produced 1.2 million tons of chlorine and 1.3 million tons of caustic soda. Seventy-two percent ofBrazilian chlorine production is achieved by threecompanies which use asbestos diaphragm technology; in 2003, these factories consumed 128 tonsof asbestos in their asbestos diaphragms.

Further research is being carried out. Claims madeabout the link between the SV40 virus and mesotheliomas have not been upheld by research inTurkey which found that SV40 was not a cofactor
in the development of Turkish mesothelioma.

Brazilian factory inspector Fernanda Giannasi
started an investigation of hazardous exposures in
the industry but was ordered, by officials at the
Ministry of Labour, to cease her research. Before
she did so, she concluded that the risks of occupa-

18 asbestos the human cost of corporate greed

tional asbestos exposure in the chlor-alkali sector
are just as serious as in other sectors where the useof asbestos has been banned in Europe.
More than 11% of the world’s asbestos comesfrom Brazil; Brazil has now replaced Canada as
the world’s 4th biggest producer of chrysotile.
Brazil exports 65% of its annual production of
252,000 tons to Thailand, India, Indonesia, Iranand other countries in Latin America. The Brazilian
Government is modelling its hypocritical stance on
asbestos on the Canadian model: while Canada
claims asbestos can be used safely under “controlled conditions,” it exports more than 95% of
the asbestos it produces. Although the Brazilian

Government announced plans to ban asbestos
in 2004, nothing has been done. It is difficult fordeveloping countries like Brazil to take action on
an industry which has such powerful stakeholders. The European Union’s Scientific Committee on
Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (SCTEE)
will shortly be reviewing the asbestos derogation
for chlorine production as mandated by the 1999
EU directive which said that the exemption must
be reconsidered by January 1, 2008. The SCTEE
must end this derogation; by doing so, it will sendout a powerful signal that will spur national governments and international agencies to ban asbestos globally.

Exporting the evil

Chlorine — a special caseIn 1999, when EU Directive 99/77/EC banned the use of chrysotile as of January 1, 2005,
there was one exemption: the use of asbestos diaphragms for the production of chloralkali in currently existing factories. The European chlorine lobby, led by the trade group
Euro Chlor, argued that the chlorine industry should be a “special case” because:• the risk of asbestos exposure within the industry would be very low;
• asbestos diaphragms would be produced in a closed process on-site and would not bemarketed;• more time was needed to develop satisfactory substitutes; failure to do so could lead to
explosions.
In fact, industry’s motivation was purely economic; although suitable alternatives werealready available, avoiding the costs associated with making the transition to asbestosfree technology was industry’s prime goal. In Europe, 85 companies produce 20 million
tons of chlor-alkali (chlorine + caustic soda) a year; Germany is the biggest producer,
accounting for 48.9% of total European production. Since 1997, the pace of phasing-out
asbestos use in European chlorine production has been slow: in 1996, 24% of total production used asbestos diaphragms, by 2005; this had been reduced to 17.4%. Nine of theEuropean companies producing chlor-alkali use asbestos diaphragm technology: three
in France, two in Germany, one in Poland, one in the Netherlands and one in Norway. At
the current rate of substitution it will take a further 24 years to end asbestos use in thisprocess.
Asbestos art

gue/ngl 19

occupational
asbestos exposure

Workers’ health and safety often takes second place to company
profits. Decades of corporate greed have had a catastrophic
effect on the lives of millions of workers around the world. Thissection looks at levels of workplace exposure to asbestos in the
Netherlands, Spain, Bulgaria and Italy.

20 asbestos the human cost of corporate greed

Shirking responsibility
Pleural plaque claims account for 70% of all UK asbestos lawsuits. In the past, pleuralplaque victims were awarded £6,000-£7,500 by the courts on a provisional basis; in 2005,
a court ruling reduced these payouts by about 50%. This decision has been appealed to
the Court of Appeal. Other developments which have adversely affected victims’ rights
include corporate restructuring such as the purchase by the U.S. company Federal Mogul(FM) of the UK’s “asbestos giant”: T&N PLC. Within three years of the acquisition, FM,
under a deluge of U.S. asbestos claims, went into Chapter 11 and T&N into administration.
In the four years since then, thousands have died from asbestos-related injuries and not
one victim has been compensated as all legal actions remain frozen by court order. Cape
PLC, formerly the UK’s 2nd biggest asbestos group, is also trying to contain its asbestos liabilities by corporate restructuring. In 2005, plans announced by the company to establisha £40 million compensation fund were greeted with scepticism by UK asbestos victims’groups. Resistance by these groups and their legal advisers succeeded in delaying Cape’s
attempts to railroad its proposals through the courts; independent legal and financial advice is now being sought by claimants’ groups to assess the worth and viability of Cape’s
proposals.

Asbestos waste“As if all of this wasn’t enough, those who have suffered asbestos-related diseases at
the hands of negligent employers, are also faced with the insecurity that the employer’s
insurer will not pay out on their indemnities.”
Sally Moore, lawyer

Socialist MP Remi Poppe from the Netherlands has
been investigating hazardous asbestos exposuresfor over forty years. According to Poppe “before
asbestos was banned in Holland, there were strict
environmental restrictions on working with chrysotile asbestos; these were routinely neglected”.
At the end of the 1980s, Poppe got in touch withpeople from Goor, the location of an Eternit asbestos-cement factory; they enabled him to gain
entrance, through the back door, to the factory.
Here he observed people working in horrendous
conditions:• the factory floor was covered with asbestos
debris;• asbestos was falling off the conveyor belt;• people were dry sweeping asbestos debris off
the floor;• the finished product was supposed to be vacuum-packed in plastic bags but was just dropped
into the plastic packing and afterwards manually compressed and tied;• the heat inside the factory (it was August) ensured that none of the workers wore protective
clothing.

Broken and exposed asbestos piping

When Poppe published a report detailing thesefindings, the company threatened to sue. The
scandal generated by this incident led to the asbestos ban in the Netherlands. “If this type of corporate malfeasance is possible in a country withstrict health and safety regulations, what is goingon elsewhere?” Poppe asks. “It is time that asbestos was banned worldwide. The United Nations
should adopt a resolution calling for the global
shut-down of the asbestos industry.”spain
In the decades preceding the asbestos ban in
Spain, 140,000 workers were exposed to a mixture of crocidolite, amosite and chrysotile (2001), 9
during this time, more than two million tons 10of chrysotile were imported. According to thegue/ngl 21

[ It is time that asbestos wasbanned worldwide. The
United Nations should adopt
a resolution calling for the
global shut-down of theasbestos industry. ]Remi Poppe
Former MP, Socialist Party,
the Netherlands(Spanish) National Centre of Epidemiology, theasbestos mortality rate has risen by 90% from 419
victims in 1992 to 795 in 2002. 11

tionally exposed to asbestos and that awarenessof asbestos hazards was low amongst employers
and employees.

The Spanish asbestos experience replicates thatin other countries with much of the progress on
the issue flowing from the coordination of activities mounted by victims and trade unions.
The Confederación Sindical de Comisiones Obreras(CCOO), one of Spain’s largest trade unions, isworking with other stakeholders, including theEU’s Senior Labour Inspectors’ Group (SLIC), tobring to fruition the following projects in Spain:

According to Svetla Karova, from the Confederationof Independent Trade Unions (Bulgaria), 12 between
the 1970s and 1990s, 40,000 tons of chrysotile
and anthophyllite were produced or processedin Bulgaria. In addition, thousands of tons of asbestos-containing products were imported for use
in construction, energy production, transport andother industries. The incidence of asbestos-relateddisease, which has been reported for the period
1980-2000, totals 887 cases including 45 of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Although the numberof mesotheliomas nearly trebled from six in 1991 to
16 in 1997, many cases remain uncounted due toineffective data collection procedures.

• the setting up of a health surveillance programme for at-risk workers;• the establishment of a national mesothelioma
register and a programme for the psychologicaland social support of asbestos victims;• epidemiological research in asbestos hot-spots;• legislation to allow the early retirement of asbestos-exposed workers;• the creation of a national compensation fundand procedures which recognise asbestos injuries as occupational;• the adoption of a national protocol to protect
the public from hidden asbestos in the Spanish
infrastructure; mandatory asbestos audits ofbuildings and structures.

bulgaria
There is no systematic monitoring of asbestos-exposed workers in Bulgaria. Despite steps taken by
the Government to reduce hazardous asbestos exposures, a survey conducted five years ago established that 4,400 workers were still being occupa-

italy
Official figures show that as of March 2005, theItalian State had recognised 128,000 claims foroccupational asbestos-related diseases amongst
claimants whose exposures dated back morethan a decade. According to Italian trade unionist Riccardo Ferretti, the management of asbestos products, which are present in many publicbuildings including schools and hospitals, is inadequate and asbestos removal procedures anddecontamination prior to demolition are notconducted to acceptable standards. Even after the
Italian asbestos ban in 1992, asbestos continues tocause problems in Italy; asbestos regulations are
only partially enforced and worker protection remains inadequate.

Footing industry’s bills
An estimate for the total money spent in the UK for the treatment of mesothelioma overthe period 1990-1999 of £471,019,000. These costs have been borne by taxpayers and not
the asbestos corporations which profited from the sale of asbestos-containing goods.
Global asbestos producers have only been able to profit from their deadly trade by externalizing the costs of health care and treatment for their victims. When these costs arefactored into the budget, the production and use of asbestos becomes unviable.

22 asbestos the human cost of corporate greed

environmental
asbestos exposure
Asbestos doesn’t only affect the health and safety of those
exposed to it directly in the workplace, it also causes widespread
air and environmental pollution affecting large sections of the
population. This section looks at research carried out in Poland,
Cyprus, Italy and Ukraine.

polandThe paper Environmental Asbestos Exposure in
Poland by Dr. Neonila Szeszenia-Dabrowska,
an asbestos expert from the Nofer Institute ofOccupational Health in Poland, outlines the specific characteristics of environmental asbestos
pollution:• unlimited life — asbestos fibres are practicallyindestructible;• on-going risk — lethal fibres are continuallyliberated during the degradation of asbestoscontaining materials such as asbestos-cement
and insulation products;• the multitude of sources of asbestos and thevariable concentration of asbestos fibres in theambient air.
Environmental exposure to asbestos dust increases
the risk of lung cancer and may also cause mesothelioma and non-malignant lesions in thepleura. To quantify the health hazard to the population it is essential to consider the:• accumulation in the lungs of respirable asbestos
fibres from the ambient air over an individual’s
lifetime;• long latency periods of asbestos-related diseases (20-40 years) and the fact that disease
may develop long after hazardous exposure
had ceased;• fact that short-term environmental exposures
to high concentrations of asbestos or prolonged
contact with low concentrations of asbestos cancause mesothelioma.

In the absence of a detailed record of ambient asbestos concentrations, essential information for an
accurate risk assessment includes the:• quantity of asbestos and materials containing
asbestos imported into a country;• amount of raw asbestos used in asbestosprocessing plants;• annual consumption of raw asbestos per
inhabitant;• quantity and condition of asbestos-containing
products in the country and the quantity of asbestos and asbestos-contaminated wastes.
Poland imported two million tonnes of asbestos ofwhich 90% was chrysotile from the former Soviet
Union and 10% was crocidolite from the Republicof South Africa. It is estimated that there are 15.5
million tonnes of asbestos-containing materials in
Polish buildings. The production of asbestos-cement products in Polish factories from 1946-1993
consumed 1.4 million tonnes of asbestos, including 86,000 tonnes of crocidolite. There are pronounced differences in the regional incidences ofasbestos-related disease in Poland which correlate with the location of former asbestos processing sites:“Plants manufacturing asbestos-cement products
were sources of considerable atmospheric pollution; air in the vicinity of those plants contained
considerable concentrations of asbestos fibres. The
storage of asbestos waste and reckless attempts by
the local populations to re-use asbestos-contaminated items ‘for the sake of economy’ constitutes
a serious health problem,” according to Neonila
Szeszenia-Dabrowska.

gue/ngl 23

Asbestos fallout in a small Polish town

Asbestos waste in Ukraine

There is a preponderance of asbestos-cement manufacture in Poland in eastern provinces
including: Podlaskie, Lubelskie, Mazowieckie and Swietokrzyskie. Szczucin, a small town
in southeast Poland, is an asbestos hot-spot. Formerly home to a large asbestos-cement
plant that consumed massive quantities of crocidolite, the townsfolk and environment
have both been contaminated. The analysis of the measurements shows that over half(55%) of the district’s inhabitants are environmentally exposed to high asbestos fibre
concentrations, that is above 10f/l. Over the period 1987-2003, 55 cases of pleural mesothelioma were recorded, including 28 among Szczucin plant workers (occupational andenvironmental exposure) and 27 among Szczucin inhabitants (environmental exposure.
The incidence of pleural mesothelioma among the townsfolk in 2000-2003 was 125 times
as high as that of the general Polish population.

cyprusIn 1980, the health of 8% of the population living in close proximity to chrysotile asbestos mines
in Cyprus was affected by asbestos disease. In
the period 1990-95, 30% of deaths in this area
were due to asbestos-related diseases such as
mesothelioma, asbestosis and lung cancer. The
biggest problem now is the area near the mines
where the spoil has accumulated. A debate ensued over whether asbestos should be removed
from homes but there was no alternative accommodation available to rehouse residents. In 2002,
a survey identified 110 government buildings in
Cyprus which contained asbestos materials. An action plan was drawn up by the Government whichcalled for:• the gradual removal of asbestos roof tiles fromschools and government buildings;• redundant asbestos mines to be used for thesafe disposal of asbestos waste;• the removal of asbestos water pipes from thewater system.
Three years later, little had been done. Furthermore,a shortage of asbestos disposal sites in Cyprus has
led to uncontrolled dumping of asbestos waste.
The anti-asbestos campaign is demanding:• the creation and safe management of regulatedsites for the disposal of asbestos waste;• the immediate introduction of mandatory asbestos audits for public and private buildings;• the implementation of a public awarenesscampaign;• stricter legislation to minimize hazardous exposures to asbestos.

italy
The Italian Association of the Asbestos-Exposed
maintains that environmental exposure to asbestos is a growing problem in Italy. Considering
the fact that asbestos has been banned in Italy
since 1992, this may seem surprising; however, thepresence of 34 million tons of asbestos in Italy remains a clear and present danger for members of
the public and workers.
There is no compensation available to victims ofenvironmental asbestos exposure in Italy; theAssociation is lobbying politicians to set up a fundwhich would compensate these victims. Data fromthe national mesothelioma register shows that in2001 4% (88 out of 3,446) of mesotheliomas were
due to environmental exposure; the vast majorityof asbestos cancers are contracted through occupational exposures.

• the immediate safe removal and disposal of asbestos material from public buildings and thewater supply system;

24 asbestos the human cost of corporate greed

Asbestos and EU chemicals legislation - REACH
Asbestos is currently restricted in the EU through specific legislation and the new chemicals policy for the European Union, known as REACH, (Registration, Evaluation, andAuthorisation of Chemicals), will only partially cover asbestos. No new significant demands
will be made. REACH is designed to rein in the chemical industry since nearly all of themost commonly used chemicals have little or no publicly available safety and environmental information, and there are growing concerns that this is linked to increased incidences of cancer, allergies, birth defects, and reduced fertility in recent decades.
The most innovative feature of REACH is the registration procedure which requires
manufacturers to register their most commonly produced chemicals. For each substancethe industry will have to gather an information dossier containing data on the physicochemical and the toxicological and eco-toxicological information on substances, as wellas information on its uses; this dossier is sent to the European Chemicals Agency, while its
content has to be used by industry to implement risk management measures throughout
the supply chain. However, with the amendments introduced to the Commission Proposalby the European Parliament and the Council, asbestos is outside the scope of the legislation, under the amended REACH, minerals that are dangerous will not have to be registered. Only the authorisation and restriction provisions of REACH are applicable.

[ In Ukraine, there isno government policy
on asbestos and nocoordination between
different Ministries andinstitutions. ]After the amendments to the proposal, REACH will not serve as an early warning systemfor ‘future asbestos’ cases. By exempting dangerous minerals from Registration, the risks
derived from asbestos would have not been identified at an earlier stage or in a different
way than in the past. The REACH proposal will be finalised by the European Parliament andthe Council before spring 2007.
Carolina FalkukraineDmytro Skrylnikov from the Association ofEnvironmental Law of CEE/NIS 13 in Lviv, Ukraine,confirms that the use of asbestos in Ukraine continues today. Currently, 4,000 workers at 10 factories
process 110,000 tonnes of Russian and Kazak chrysotile to produce asbestos-containing materials
which generate an annual turnover of €828,000.
One of Ukraine’s main asbestos products is roofing slate which is widely used, especially in rural
areas. As the import of asbestos products is now
banned in the EU, some producers are switching
to non-asbestos technology; over recent years,
production of asbestos roofing material has been
decreasing by 6-7% a year. However, in Ukraine,
there is no government policy on asbestos andno coordination between different Ministries

and institutions. As a result, some politicians arepushing for national legislation to be harmonizedwith that in the EU, which would include directives on asbestos, while others are advancing thepolicy advocated by the asbestos industry and theRussian government, which is based on the “controlled use” argument.

Bags of asbestos dumped in Ukraine

In 2004, the delegate from Ukraine was one of 11
national representatives who opposed the inclusion of chrysotile on the PIC list of the Rotterdam
Convention. After the meeting, the Ukraine delegate, who was Head of the Institute of Occupational
Health, told journalists:• Ukraine defended its right to use asbestos!
• Ukraine proved to the EU that chrysotile asbestos is safe and can be used safely.

gue/ngl 25

In May 2005 the World Bank agreed to make a€71.9 million loan for a programme to provide
Equal Access to Quality Education in Ukraine. The
terms of this loan highlight the problems posed by
the presence of asbestos materials within Ukraine
schools and could, according to Skrylnikov, constitute the first steps towards a national asbestosban:“Since many school buildings in Ukraine werebuilt during the Soviet regime and are roofedwith asbestos materials, their rehabilitation under the project will require the safe removal anddisposal of such asbestos materials. The Ministryof Education will prepare an Environmental
Management Plan (EMP) in consultation with key
stakeholders which will provide for measures that
include the following:(i)no asbestos materials will be used in school
rehabilitation;(ii) asbestos will be disposed of properly according to law and consistent with generally accepted disposal practices;(iii) no lead-based paint will be used; and(iv) construction-related noises will be set at aminimum acceptable to the surrounding
community.
Building contractors will be asked to abide by the
EMP which will be part of the standard bidding
document.”

Exposed asbestos in Spodden Valley

Asbestos fibres

26 asbestos the human cost of corporate greed

Spodden Valley
The citizen’s campaign group “Save Spodden Valley” was set up to highlight the problems
caused by the environmental contamination of a 72-acre site formerly owned by Turner
Brothers Asbestos (TBA) in Rochdale, UK. In the 1870s this site was the birthplace of themodern asbestos textile industry; it was the global headquarters of the UK’s biggest
asbestos group, Turner & Newall (T&N), for nearly 30 years as well as the location of theAsbestosis Research Council. TBA’s processing of hundreds of thousands of tonnes of asbestos fibre subjected workers as well as the local population to high levels of hazardous
exposures. A 1957 corporate document confirmed that:“At present 2,200 people are employed in the Rochdale factory of whom 1,390 work in‘scheduled areas’, i.e. areas to which the Regulations apply. The total weight of (asbestos)
dust recovered in the filter rooms is about 15,000 lbs., all of which is dumped to waste.”
The pollution of the site was widely known. The former owners of the site regarded it as:“an asset of dubious value, possibly even a liability.” Local people who had worked at
the factory confirmed the existence of asbestos dumps that potentially contain tens of
thousands of tonnes of asbestos waste. In April 2004, property developers purchased thesite and began felling trees surrounding the remaining factory buildings. The apparent
disregard of the site’s contaminated status and the potential health repercussions of thedevelopers’ actions galvanized the local community: the Save Spodden Valley campaign
was begun.
Jason Addy, a founding member sums up the campaigners’ principal concerns as follows:
1. the presence of asbestos in dumps on the property and in remaining factory structures;
2. the potential for contamination of local water sources – asbestos-contaminated tips
on the banks of the River Spodden, asbestos waste thrown down redundant coal mines
which flood;
3. the disturbance of contaminated soil and buildings could generate significant levels ofairborne asbestos pollution.
“Unless these sites are properly assessed and decontaminated, future generations will
receive the hazardous exposures which have already blighted the health and lives of somany. The landowners’ plans to construct 600+ houses plus a children’s nursery on asite which has not been properly assessed is, to say the least, unwise. One further cancer
death caused by asbestos from the site is one too many. The Valley must be treated withutmost respect. Until a comprehensive public investigation is carried out, all development
work should be forbidden.” Jason Addy

Children’s march in Rochdale

What happens in Rochdale has a wider relevance. There is enormous pressure in the UK
and elsewhere for the development of former industrial sites for residential use.

gue/ngl 27

the human dimensionof asbestos disease

The reality of the asbestos epidemic is to be found in thehundreds of thousands of bereaved relatives and grieving
communities throughout the EU. Each individual who diesfrom asbestos-related disease is yet another avoidable
death. This chapter looks at the story of some of theinnocent victims of asbestos.

28 asbestos the human cost of corporate greed

Blame-dodging and company defence tactics
The fight to gain compensation for asbestos victims and their families is a constant struggle; recent developments show the growing intransigence of defendants who, in the faceof an escalation in UK asbestos-related deaths, are mounting coordinated resistance inthe courts and media to undercut the rights of asbestos victims. Insurers and defendants
worked together on the strategy for the Fairchild case, alleging that where it could not bescientifically proven which asbestos fibre caused a claimant’s mesothelioma, a defendant
could not be held liable. Fortunately, the UK House of Lords ruled in 2002 that plaintiffs
who had experienced asbestos exposure which materially increased their risk of mesothelioma were entitled to recover all their damages from whichever negligent defendantremained. Post-Fairchild an actuarial report (2004) estimated that there could be up to200,000 UK asbestos claims costing £8-£20 billion in the next three decades; these predictions gave added impetus to the search for new defence tactics. In the Barker case, which
will be heard by the House of Lords in 2006, defendants will argue that where compensation is apportioned amongst different employers, each should only pay his share of thedamages. A victory for the defendant would “have a profound effect on mesothelioma
victims’ damages awards.”

franceorganisers expected an audience of 20 people but
100 turned up. Sixty volunteers voted to form a
A sister’s fight for justice
new organisation, The Collective of Residents andVictims of CMMP, 15 to campaign for the remediation
Nicole Voide’s family lived within 100 metres of the of the derelict site. In April 2005, the 200-strong
CMMP asbestos factory in Aulnay-Sous-Bois; 14 the Collective, along with four other organisations,
local school, which she and her brother attended, staged a demonstration in front of the redundant
was 50 metres from the factory. In 1995, Voide’s factory to demand that the company decontamibrother was diagnosed with mesothelioma. When nate the site. 16 Speaking at the GUE/NGL asbestos
he was diagnosed, attempts were made to track conference, Voide listed the four asbestos scandals
down the source of his exposure; nobody con- of Aulnay-Sous-Bois:
nected his illness with the factory which had
closed some years earlier.
1. the construction of the CMMP asbestos factory
50 metres from a nursery and primary school in
After a thorough investigation of his work history,
the town centre when public authorities knew
documents were discovered which established,that asbestos was a dangerous substance;
without doubt, that asbestos had been processed 2. the company’s violation of French hygieneat the CMMP site. Motivated by a promise she hadlaws;
made to him that justice would be done, Voide 3. the historical failure of the local authority to procontinued her research and found that 50 othertect residents, students and the environment;
deaths had occurred amongst townsfolk who 4. the present failure of local government to delived or studied within a 500 metre radius of thecontaminate the site.
plant. In 2000, a public meeting was held; thePierre Voide as a school boy

gue/ngl 29

Xavier Jonckheere

belgium

uk

Living under a sword of Damocles

Improving victims’ lives

The family of Xavier Jonckheere has been deci- In July 2005, nine asbestos victims’ groups frommated by asbestos. Mr. Jonckheere’s father, who the North of England and Wales formed a camworked with asbestos, died in 1987 from mes- paigning body called The Asbestos Victims Support
othelioma; his mother died of the same disease Groups Forum (the Forum). While the impetus forin 2000. The family home was 200 metres from the formation of this body was a proposal by Capethe local Eternit factory in Kappelle-op-den-Bos, PLC (formerly Cape Asbestos), of which the groups
Belgium. As a consequence of asbestos exposure, were justifiably sceptical, the aims of the Forumone of Mr. Jonckheere’s 4 brothers also died from transcended this one issue. Forum members
mesothelioma; he was 43 years old with three wished to improve the range of services and adchildren.
vice available to victims and create the opportunity for victims to share their experiences and offer
The sense of injustice felt by the family is over- mutual support. The Forum works alongside thewhelming and the surviving brothers live under Parliamentary Asbestos Sub-Committee to raisea “Sword of Damocles,” never knowing when/if the profile of issues which affect the daily lives of
it will be their turn. For the family, the Belgian asbestos victims and their families.
government permitted these exposures to takeplace and has an obligation to assist the injured “One major concern of both the Forum and theand the bereaved.
Parliamentary Asbestos Sub-Committee is theinequity experienced by asbestos claimants intheir dealings with our social security system. Thissystem blocks asbestos-related lung cancer victims from claiming benefit because of draconian
criteria resulting in most victims being unable toclaim. New criteria rules seem to, at best retain
the status quo and at worst, reduce the numberof claimants.” John Flanagan, of the Merseysideand District Asbestos Victims’ Support Group.
Harmignies
In Michel Verniers’ (asbestosis sufferer andfounding member of the Belgian asbestos
victims’ group) home town of Harmignies,
Belgium, the asbestos fall-out from theFabrecim Coverit factory, an Eternit subsidiary, has led to more than 100 deaths,
with many others suffering from ill-healthdue to their exposures; former workers andlocal residents have been affected by the
town’s industrial past and there is no end
in sight. The public health crisis in Harmignies is just one example of the serious
problems which remain even after the 2005
EU asbestos ban.

Although the dramatic increase in the incidence of
mesothelioma deaths in the UK should have mademedical research a government priority – there are
now nearly 2,000 UK mesothelioma deaths a year
– there was no Government or EU funding allocated for UK mesothelioma research for the period
2000-2004. The little which has been awarded tomesothelioma researchers during this period camefrom charitable organizations and totalled only 1.2
million euros. Estimating the basic costs of laboratory research at 160,000 euros per year per staff
member, it is clear that the research funds allocated are woefully inadequate. A National Cancer
Research Institute graph showed that, although
the incidence of lung cancer (which includes mesothelioma) was 14% of all cancers in 2000, thetotal allocated for lung cancer research was a mere
4% of the cancer research budget.

30 asbestos the human cost of corporate greed

Another funding issue affecting UK mesothelioma
patients is the reluctance of the National Health
System to approve the use of the drug ALIMTA.
Although ALIMTA is the only licensed drug forthe treatment of mesothelioma in the UK, andis widely available in the U.S. and throughout
Europe, it remains unavailable to most centres
in England. It is, Klabasta said, unspeakable thatthe only licensed drug for mesothelioma provento benefit up to 30% of patients is not routinely
prescribed. The drug is going through the bureaucratic process dictated by the National Institute ofClinical Excellence; no decision is expected before
autumn 2006.

survival period of a person diagnosed with mesothelioma is one year. As scientists we cannot accept that and we are trying to do as much as possible but we need more funding for up-to-date
research, and more colleagues dedicated to thedisease. And we need the EU and national governments to seriously think of speeding up things
like the approval of drugs so that we are testing
the drugs and experimental therapies on patients
without long delays.” Astero Klabatsa, from Bart’s
Mesothelioma Research Unit at the Bart’s andLondon Hospital.

Mesothelioma“Mesothelioma is a serious disease and we are
running out of time. People are dying and weneed to achieve a better survival for them. It is
unspeakable and it is ridiculous to say that the

The UK Experience“The UK experience demonstrates that when asbestos victims and the people who represent them pool their resources and mobilise political pressure they represent a formidable
opposition to foil attempts of corporate robbery. Awareness of the plight of asbestos
victims is growing; asbestos support groups are springing up around the world in places
such as Japan, Argentina and the Philippines… The need remains for all of us: victims, victims’ representatives, trade unionists, academics and lawyers to work together. And theneed remains for the European Union to put its house in order. The relocation of James
Hardie from Australia to the Netherlands to evade its asbestos liabilities is as transparent
as it is despicable. The EU should not be a home for this dirty money. Furthermore, the EU
must ensure that EU-companies should not engage in asbestos operations outside Europe.
Sanctions should be available to punish those who do.”
Sally Moore, lawyer
John Flanagan, Nicole Voide,
Roberto Musacchio, Eric Jonckheere

gue/ngl 31

country profiles
current developments & specific problems

Bairbre de Brún and Tinka de Bruin[ A sbestos is a problem for thepresent and future, not justthe past. ]Bairbre de Brún
Sinn Féin, Ireland[ A sbestos has been used in
my country since the 1920s
in the manufacture of arange of products including
textiles, brakes, shoes andfriction materials — this has
resulted in untold humansuffering and negative social
consequences. ]Jiří Maštálka
KSčM, Czech Republic

During a three-hour roundtable at the European Asbestos
Conference (co-organised by GUE/NGL) on 23 September 2005,
doctors, political activists, trade unionists, victim support
campaigners and NGO representatives from new and old EU
Member States reported on current developments and specificproblems. A series of country updates were presented followed
by a wide-ranging discussion, which included contributions frommany conference delegates.
lithuania
Complimenting her earlier presentation (see page17), Dr. Ruta Everatt explained that the first national regulations on the production and useof asbestos were adopted in 1998; in 1999, themeasuring of asbestos air contamination began.
Since 2000, steps have been taken to phase out
the use of asbestos, prohibiting specific products
as follows:• from January 1, 2001, the import, production and use of corrugated and plain asbestos-cement slates for new houses and publicbuildings;• from January 1, 2002, the use of corrugated andplain asbestos-cement slates for all other newbuildings and the import and production ofprocessed asbestos fibres and materials, except
when used for civil aviation;• from January 1, 2003, the use of processed asbestos fibres and materials, except when used
for civil aviation;• from January 1, 2004, the import of asbestos
and production of asbestos-cement pipes.
In accordance with the Lithuanian hygiene standard HN 36:2002: Banned and Restricted Substances
and the government decree The Restriction ofImport, Production and Usage of Asbestos andAsbestos-Containing Products, a comprehensive
national asbestos ban was implemented in 2004.

Recent efforts to minimise asbestos exposures in
Lithuania stem from the transposition of EU asbestos legislation. The Regulation for Work withAsbestos, which came into force on July 1, 2005,
was prepared in accordance with directives of
the European Council 80/1107/EEC, 83/477/EEC and91/382/EEC. According to Dr. Ruta Everatt:“This regulation sets forth the requirements for all
fields of activity associated with asbestos: transportation, storage, demolition and repair work,
the removal of waste, protection, healthcare andspecial training for workers, labelling, etc. Before
the start of any activity associated with asbestos,
as well as demolition or asbestos removal work,
the exposure has to be assessed to determine thedegree and the nature of the worker’s exposure.
The employer is required to notify the labour inspectorate about these activities. The Regulation
lowered the limit values of asbestos to 0.1f/cm3
and concentrations in workplace atmospheres
have to be measured regularly. Each worker’s
state of health has to be assessed prior to exposureand regularly for the duration of the exposure andbased on an annual chest X-ray and respiratory
function assessment. No medical survey is conducted after exposure cessation.”
Difficulties with applying these regulations arebeing reported with the result that hazardous asbestos exposures at work and in the environmentare “still quite common.”32 asbestos the human cost of corporate greed

bulgaria

cyprusthe netherlands

Trade unionist Svetla Karova described efforts toaddress Bulgaria’s asbestos legacy. A campaign,
begun in 2000 by the General Labour Inspectorate,
aimed to achieve a consensus for the phasing out
of asbestos and asbestos products. The programme
was discussed at a National Tripartite Seminarin 2001 and was taken forward as part of the
National Action Plan for Environment and Healthby the Ministry of Health. The requisite legislation
which was passed included:

In the aftermath of the 2002 campaign to spreadawareness of the asbestos issue in Cyprus, several
new problems have emerged, said Efi Xanthou.
Government plans to use redundant asbestos
mines as depositories for asbestos waste are notfeasible. The agreement with local authorities toaccommodate 30 freight containers of asbestos
waste on the mine sites proved to woefully underestimate the scale of the waste which would
be generated by decontamination of buildings
in Cyprus. Nowadays, when asbestos is removed,
there is no officially sanctioned place for it to be
dumped. Consequently, there has been an increase in the uncontrolled dumping of asbestoscontaminated materials. Government estimatescontinue to play down the scale of the problem;
a 2005 survey of asbestos-contaminated homes inrefugee settlements failed to include some camps.

Tinka de Bruin, Chair of the (Netherlands) Asbestos
Victims’ Committee, said that conference delegatesfrom new EU Member States seem surprised thatan old EU Member State like the Netherlands still
has problems with asbestos. Unfortunately, this is
the case. In a population of 16 million, 400 casesof mesothelioma and 600 cases of asbestos-related lung diseases are diagnosed every year. In
1995, with the help of the Socialist Party, asbestos
victims began to organise; since 1999, the Asbestos
Victims’ Committee has been an autonomous organisation. Intensive lobbying by members of theCommittee has improved the plight of Dutch mesothelioma victims. In 2000, the (Dutch) Institutefor Asbestos Victims (IAV) was set up with the cooperation of the Government, the Committee, tradeunions, employers and insurers to streamline thecompensation process. If a mesothelioma victim
was occupationally exposed to asbestos, compensation can be obtained through the IAV in a
relatively short time. If the negligent employer hasgone out of business, compensation will be paidby the State. Furthermore, a government-funded
scheme, introduced in 2003, will pay a lump sumof 16,000 euros to patients diagnosed with mesothelioma who worked in high-risk trades.

• Ordinance No. 1 of February 27, 2003 on theProtection of Workers from Risks Related to
Exposure to Asbestos at Work; 17• Ordinance No. 5 of April 15, 2003 on thePrevention and Decrease of Asbestos Pollutionof the Environment; 18• Ordinance on Dangerous Chemical Substances,
Preparation and Products, in force from January
1, 2003;• Ordinance on the Import and Export ofDangerous Chemical Substances, in force since
2004.
Although the import, production and use of allasbestos fibres and types of asbestos-containing
products have been banned since January 1, 2005,“the dangerous influence of asbestos will remain
for the coming years because of the many workers engaged in at-risk employment activities.”
Techniques which have been proposed for containing the ongoing asbestos hazard include:• undertaking audits to compile asbestos building registers;• monitoring the health of asbestos workers;• registering those who have been occupationally
exposed to asbestos;• controlling the disposal of asbestos waste andmanaging hazardous waste sites.

czech republic
In her second contribution, Dr. Daniela Pelclova
focused on the development of Czech legislation
on asbestos. She quoted recent data from the
National Institute of Public Health (Prague) which
reveals that 373 employees are still exposed to asbestos at work: 276 to chrysotile and 97 to amphiboles. 19 Most of these hazardous exposures occur
during the removal of asbestos from buildings
or during remediation work. 20 According to official estimates, up to 55,000 people in the Czech
Republic have been exposed to asbestos. Amongst
the country’s aging population of 10 million there
is an increase in all types of cancer. However,the proportion of cancers caused by occupational exposures to hazardous substances remains
unknown.

In May, 2004 the Dutch Victims’ Committee held
the first international asbestos conference in the
Netherlands. Copies of the English language version of the annals of the congress The Polluter
Pays were distributed at the Brussels conference.
Decisions taken in Brussels affect the lives of millions of Europeans. It is not enough to ban asbestos; it must be made clear that victims are notbeing abandoned:“The European Parliament should do all it canto provide legislation which stipulates that those
who worked with asbestos and had their healthwrecked as a result should be compensated. One
needs a European one-stop shop where information can be pooled.”

gue/ngl 33

The “polluter pays” principle should be the rule;
employers should foot the bill for the damage they
have done. To protect future generations, asbestos
audits of all buildings should be mandatory andall possible efforts should be made to remove theasbestos scourge from our societies.

polandDuring the roundtable discussion, Dr. Neonila
Szeszenia-Dabrowska concentrated on occupational asbestos exposure and its consequences,asbestos regulations and the Amiantus Project.
The earliest attempt to minimise occupational asbestos exposure in Poland was in 1949 when the
maximum admissible number of asbestos particles
was set at 180 million per 1 m3 of air; measurements taken in an asbestos yarn and fabric factoryat this time revealed levels up to 24 times the permitted standard. In 1954 the maximum admissible
concentration (MAC) of asbestos in the workplace
was lowered to 2 mg/m3, but hazardous exposurespersisted. Despite the fact that measures to lower
industrial asbestos dust concentrations were introduced, occupational asbestos exposures, up to
four times the MAC, were not unusual with asbestos fibre concentrations ranging from 1 to 25 mg/m3
in the 1970s. These exposures have had predictable consequences: in the period 1976-2004, thegovernment recognised 2,691 cases of occupationally contracted asbestos-related diseases: 2,197
asbestosis, 143 pleural mesothelioma and 351 lungcancer. 21
To deal with the asbestos contamination of
Poland’s infrastructure, 22 in May 2002 the Councilof Ministers adopted a national programme toeliminate asbestos and asbestos containing products from the Polish Republic within 30 years. A
raft of regulations was passed to minimise theadverse effects of asbestos exposure on the population, the built environment and the countryside. Implementation of the programme requires
the coordination of initiatives being undertaken
by several ministries and government agencies

including local authorities, regional administrators and central government. Another major
programme: the Amiantus Project is designed toprovide free medical care for former workers from28 asbestos-processing plants throughout Poland.
In 2000-2004, 8,776 medical examinations were
performed on 5,466 workers. Asbestosis was diagnosed in 14% of those examined; 19 cases of lungcancer and 12 cases of pleural mesothelioma werediagnosed.

portugal
Armanda Farias spoke about the continuing
propaganda campaign by Portuguese asbestos
stakeholders. They talk, he said, about the low
bio-persistence of chrysotile, alleging that there
is no medical proof concerning the risks of chrysotile. And yet, scientists confirm the existence ofa European asbestos epidemic which will claim
400,000-500,000 lives in Western Europe by 2030.
In post-ban Europe, our duty to assist the injured
should not be forgotten, he said. The lack of enforcement of EU asbestos legislation continues to
put lives at risk. In Portugal, asbestos-containing
products can be found in buildings, schools, sports
stadiums, farmyards and water systems; 30% of
the asbestos used in Portugal in 2000 went into
asbestos-cement water pipes. The lack of provisions for the controlled disposal of asbestos waste
has led to contaminated debris being dumped
throughout the countryside. Recently, Farias andhis union colleagues informed the Environment
Ministry of their concerns over asbestos removal
work being carried out at a large military air baseby a civil construction company using untrained
workers with no specialist equipment or protective
clothing; no action has been taken.
The success of the global campaign to ban asbestos is reliant on trade unions, victims’ groups
and NGOs in the developed and developing world
working together to advance the campaign for a
global ban and expose the transfer of hazardous
risks. In the last 30 years, progress has been madein raising awareness of asbestos issues in many
countries; the development of safer alternatives
has exposed the myth that civilization cannot exist without asbestos. Human life must take precedence over corporate balance sheets; the struggle
to eradicate the asbestos scourge must continue.

ukraineDmytro Skrylnikov assessed the status of asbestos
legislation and research in Ukraine. According tothis speaker, there are no special programmes orlegislation on asbestos in Ukraine; however, someenvironmental and health issues are covered bymore general legislation. Under the National
Environmental Health Action Plan of Ukraine for2000-2005, approved by the Government in 2000,
an assessment of the risks to asbestos production
workers and end-users should have been completed by 2003 and protective measures introduced. Budget constraints have meant that thishas not happened. Shortage of resources has also
prevented the implementation of the Cabinet of
Ministers’ programme (2002) which would haveidentified the industrial processes and humanactivities that allow carcinogens to pollute theenvironment.
No epidemiological research has been undertaken
on asbestos-related diseases. Disturbing trends
can be gleaned from government statistics:• lung diseases are responsible for nearly half ofall occupationally-induced deaths;• 100,000 cancer deaths occur every year and thisfigure is increasing;• as of January 2004, there were 818,000 cancer
patients in Ukraine; few occupational cancers
are registered;• exposures to carcinogenic substances such asdioxin, biphenyls and asbestos are neither
monitored nor controlled in Ukraine.

34 asbestos the human cost of corporate greed

avoiding moreneedless deaths[ Of course the reason AC products are cheaper is because asbestos
companies don’t spend what they should on prevention andcompensation. Off-loading the social costs of asbestos illhealth onto workers, consumers and civil society, gives asbestos
producers a cost advantage against safer substitute products. ]Dr. Barry Castleman, environmental consultant

The majority of asbestos fibre is used in asbestoscement (AC) building materials. Substitutes for asbestos in AC sheets include polymeric fibres suchas polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and polypropylene,
usually mixed with cellulose, to make flat sheet
products; there has also been some success withthe use of bamboo fibre-cement. Other alternative fibres being used include: eucalyptus, bagasse
and sisal. Microconcrete tiles, 23 which have beenused in rural areas in Mali, are another substitute for AC building materials; these tiles can be
manufactured with primitive equipment in rural
areas. Clay roofing tiles, galvanized iron roofingand “onduline” vegetable fibres and asphalt,
which are being developed in Brazil, are also being used. The non-asbestos alternatives generally
cost 12-30% more, but as manufacturing processes
improve, the price differential will decrease.
Alternatives for AC pipe include: cast iron andductile iron pipes, high density polyethylene
pipes, metal reinforced concrete pipes, clay pipes
and cellulose fibre-cement pipes such as those
produced by the Australian manufacturer James
Hardie. Safer alternatives used for producing
non-asbestos vehicle brakes include: semi-metallic brakes made of steel wool sponge iron andgraphite in a plastic phenolic resin, wollastonite
fibres, p-aramid fibres, fibreglass, and resins
such as phenolic resin and cashew nut oil resin.

For water storage tanks, fibreglass, polyethylene,
PVA, cellulose, concrete and steel are some of thealternatives; the plastic tanks have the advantage
of being lighter.

Blueprint for a global strategy
At the European Asbestos Conference Italian
Senator Antonio Pizzinato, said that a discussionof the Italian experience in achieving a national
asbestos ban (1992) and implementing measures
addressing the needs of the asbestos-exposed
highlighted strategies which could be used on asupranational level. The Italian campaign could
be divided into 3 phases:• Phase 1. The organisation and mobilisation ofworkers which led to demonstrations outside
the national parliament and strikes at regionaland national levels calling for the ban, a programme of medical check-ups for the asbestosexposed, early retirement for at-risk workers,
the recognition of occupational asbestos-related illnesses and the decontamination of public and private buildings. This phase lasted 20
years and culminated with the passing of the
Italian law banning asbestos and official government recognition of the problems of theasbestos-exposed.

Asbestosis and pleural changes

gue/ngl 35

• Phase 2. Over the period 1994-2004, laws were
implemented to end the use and processing ofasbestos, asbestos mines were closed, a healthcare programme for the injured was set up anda government insurance scheme for compensating victims of occupational as well as environmental asbestos exposures was put inplace.

[ The asbestos problem is
global in nature and needs
to be tackled at UN level. ]Roberto Musacchio
PRC, Italy• Phase 3. Initiatives are being pursued to contain, within ten years, the harmful fall-out
from Italy’s asbestos legacy by the removal andreplacement of asbestos-containing productsin factories and buildings, guaranteeing freehealth care through the national health service to all people with asbestos-related illnesses
and the creation of an Asbestos Victims’ Fundwhich, in addition to other government compensation, can be claimed by occupational
asbestos victims, family members 24 or people
environmentally exposed.

The Italian experience has shown that the passing of legislation means little if regulations are
not enforced. Monitoring of the implementationof EU asbestos directives in all 25 Member States isneeded so that existing loopholes can be identified and dealt with. The Italian ban asbestos campaign also highlighted the need for collaborationof diverse groups including trade unions, victims’groups, NGOs, politicians, scientists and others.
On a global level, agencies such as the World
Health Organization, the International Labour
Organization, the United Nations and European
Trade Union Confederation need to be part of thecampaign.

“Despite the knowledge that exposure to asbestos can cause debilitating and fatal
diseases, asbestos producers continue to advance the case for the safe use of asbestos,and deny the existence of safer alternatives. It is despicable to expose the populationsof developing countries to the risk of diseases which have already caused so much human misery. National governments must rigorously investigate cases of environmental
asbestos pollution to establish who the polluter was and how they can be forced to
remedy the wrong they have done. Legal actions against Eternit executives should continue. Research into the influence and actions of these major multinationals is neededto; once and for all, document their part in the global asbestos scandal.”
Bob Ruers, Former Senator, founding member of the Dutch Asbestos Victims’ Committee
and plaintiff’s lawyer.

Report by Bob Ruers

36 asbestos the human cost of corporate greed

author’s conclusions
coordinated global action is crucial
A number of conference speakers pointed out the serious
consequences of low levels of public and professional awarenessof asbestos-related issues. Combating the information vacuum
was regarded as a high priority by delegates who agreed thatcoordinated global action was crucial.

Laurie Kazan-Allen

The effectiveness of such action is clearly demonstrated by developments whichhave occurred since the conference regarding the Clemenceau, formerly one of
the French Navy’s most prestigious ships. The French Government, which hadplanned to export the asbestos-contaminated ship to India for decommissioning,
was subjected to a sustained campaign by NGOs in France, Egypt and India which
maintained that the export of this toxic waste infringed international protocols,
global agreements and French law. On December 31, 2005, a ruling by a French
Administrative Court cleared the final judicial obstacle and the ship left Toulon
bound for India. Twelve days later, Greenpeace activists boarded the Clemenceau
50 nautical miles off the coast of Egypt. Once on-board they scaled the mast andunfurled a banner which said: “Asbestos Carrier: Stay out of India.” Other activists
buzzed the deck with a motorised paraglider and a banner saying: “Not Here. Not
Anywhere.” As part of an international day of action, protests were also held in
Bangladesh, Switzerland and France.
Throughout the winter, NGOs with a variety of diverse interests cooperated in
the attempt to force a U-turn by the French Government. In France, Ban Asbestos
France, ANDEVA 25 and the Anti-Asbestos Committee at Juisseau University, thegroups which had lost the judicial battle, kept up the pressure in the media. Efforts by international bodies including Greenpeace, the Basel Action
Network, the Corporate Accountability Desk (India), the European Federation forTransport and Environment, the North Sea Foundation, Bellona, the International
Ban Asbestos Network, the International Ban Asbestos Secretariat and theInternational Federation of Human Rights brought news of the Clemenceau
debacle to a wider audience. On January 17, 2006, representatives of the NGO
Platform on Shipbreaking met with D. Giotakos and other cabinet members of
the EU Environment Commission. Two weeks later, EU Environment Commissioner
Stavros Dimas told journalists that the export of the Clemenceau violated EU
legislation and could have both legal and financial consequences for the offending government. Commissioner Dimas also said: “A thorough decontaminationof hazardous waste should take place in the EU before sending the vessels to
shipbreaking yards in developing countries.” On February 15, the highest court inFrance (Le Conseil d’Etat) ordered the government to suspend the transfer of the
Clemenceau; the same day President Chirac announced that the 27,000 tonne ship,then in the Arabian Sea, would be brought back to France. He pledged that France

gue/ngl 37

IBAS
The International Ban Asbestos
Secretariat (IBAS) was establishedin 1999; it is an independent nongovernmental organisation which has
two objectives: a worldwide ban on
asbestos and justice for all asbestos
victims. IBAS monitors, analyses anddisseminates news received from theever-expanding network of individuals
and groups involved in the international
movement against asbestos, as well as
information from legal, medical andindustry sources. IBAS produces writtenmaterial and organises conferences toraise the profile of asbestos issues.

would work with its European partners to develop a programme for decontaminating end-of-life vessels in Europe before eventually scrapping them in Asia.
Four days later, the Bangladesh Occupational Safety, Health and Environment
Foundation (OHSE) announced that the SS Norway, built in 1961 and containing an estimated 1,250 tonnes of asbestos products, would not be scrapped in
Bangladesh. The OSHE campaign to prevent the purchase of the SS Norway by a
Bangladeshi ship-breaking company included a petition to the Government, apublic demonstration in Dhaka (February 12) and press statements to raise awareness of the toxic nature of the ship. Protests by other NGOs, which received media
coverage, added to the pressure on shipyard owners and the government. On
February 17, 2006, the Bangladesh Ship Breakers Association unanimously decided
that no member organisation would purchase the contaminated ship; simultaneously the Minister of Environment announced that the Bangladesh Government
would not permit entry to the SS Norway until it had been fully decontaminated.
The action of NGOs and concerned citizens in Europe and Asia were pivotal in deciding the fate of the Clemenceau and the SS Norway. These campaigns, examplesof 21st century direct action, illustrate what can be achieved by the mobilisationof civil society.

Although IBAS works closely with theInternational Ban Asbestos Network, Ban
Asbestos and national asbestos victims’
associations, there are no organisationalor financial links to these groups. The
work of IBAS is coordinated by Laurie
Kazan-Allen; more information isavailable on the website:
http://www.ibas.btinternet.co.uk

In the declaration adopted by conference delegates, it was recommended thatnational asbestos actions be coordinated to maximise global impact. During
the conference, Fiona Murie, from the IFBWW, announced that asbestos had
been designated a priority issue for this year’s International Workers’ Memorial
Day (April 28). Responding to this news, Alain Destexhe, a Belgian Senator andChairman of Parliamentarians for Global Action, issued a document entitled Callfor a Global Asbestos Ban; this is being circulated amongst Parliamentarians
world-wide prior to publication on April 28. Reinforcing the efforts of international labour and global politicians is a petition, also to be published on April
28, which expresses the views of asbestos victims, public health campaigners,
healthcare professionals, concerned citizens and NGOs; it states:“In the spirit of humanity and equality, we declare that each human being has
the right to live and work in a healthy environment. It is not acceptable thata 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 industrialised country
to dump asbestos-contaminated ships in a developing country. A global asbestos ban is the first step in the campaign to rid humanity of the threat it faces
from asbestos. To end the asbestos scourge, we pledge our commitment to work
together to achieve our goal.”
Many of the events which have happened following the conference were stimulated by discussions that took place during the two day meeting; other initiatives will come to fruition in the months and years ahead. The presence of somany younger delegates at the conference has reinvigorated the campaign to
end one hundred years of human and environmental contamination by this killer
substance.

38 asbestos the human cost of corporate greed

appendix a
Declaration from the conference

European Asbestos Conference:
Policy, Health and Human Rights
Brussels Declaration — 23 Sept. 2005
Preamble
Asbestos remains the principal cause of occupational cancer in Europe. Asbestos productsin European homes, commercial buildings and infrastructures and asbestos waste in ourenvironment continue to cause unprecedented levels of diseases and mortality.
Year of Action
European labour groups, medical associations and international agencies have issued calls
to make 2005-2006 the Year of Action on Asbestos. To this end, the participants to the European Asbestos Conference held in Brussels on September 22/23 2005 call on all European
Institutions mainly the European Parliament and the European Commission as well as The
Council of Europe, to devise and implement a European Asbestos Action Plan which would
take:
Action on Prevention
To prevent future hazardous exposures, the following steps are recommended:• rigorous enforcement of EU and national health and safety asbestos legislation;• as with other carcinogens, all asbestos products should be labelled with a skull and crossbones; the use of the current “a” letter logo is unacceptable;• introduction of mandatory asbestos audits of public buildings by 2007 and domestic
residences by 2008; as well as all means of transport (i.e. ships, trains, planes) by 2008;
introduction of EU legislation, including a certification scheme, for the regulation of theasbestos removal industry;• introduction of guidelines for measuring asbestos soil contamination;• research on safe methods for treating asbestos waste;• the derogation which allows the use of asbestos in chlorine production should cease;• the 2003 Directive should be strengthened by eliminating the concept of “sporadic and of
low intensity exposure”. No exposure to asbestos is safe!
Action on Human Rights
Human rights and the abolition of the death penalty are core values of the EU. Yet, hundreds of thousands of Europeans are being deprived of their right to good health throughhazardous asbestos exposures; in many cases, these exposures are tantamount to a death
sentence. Action is needed to secure the basic right to work and live in a safe environment. The following steps are recommended:[ European labour groups,
medical associations andinternational agencies haveissued calls to make 20052006 the Year of Action on
Asbestos. ]• the reclassification of pleural plaques and some other asbestos conditions as “non-malignant disease” is required; the current categorization of these symptoms as benign is not
an accurate reflection of their impact on patients’ health and employment options;• the establishment of national registers of workers exposed to asbestos and of workers
with an asbestos-related disease;• the recognition of all work related asbestos diseases as occupational diseases in theframework of an harmonization of occupational disease compensation schemes in theEuropean Union;

gue/ngl 39

Vittorio Agnoletto and Fulvio Aurora[ The EU should assist new
Member States to deal with
their asbestos legacies by
providing money needed
to quantify the problem
with initiatives such as
epidemiological research. ]Vittorio Agnoletto
PRC, Italy[ We need to ensure proper
implementation of
relevant EU directives inthe decontamination ofbuildings. ]Adamos Adamou
AKEL, Cyprus• the development of medical guidelines for the “best treatment” of asbestos-related diseases; the development and funding of a research programme for the treatment and careof people with these diseases;• the setting up of specific European or national funds or schemes financed by companies
involved in asbestos production through compulsory contributions and public authorities to grant assistance to all victims of occupational, environmental or domestic asbestos
exposures; the support of asbestos victims’ groups to mobilise and assist the injured;• the relocation of non-EU companies to the EU to escape asbestos liabilities in their homecountries should no longer be permitted;• the setting up of a European research centre for the investigation and implementation ofsafe technology for the removal/cleaning of asbestos-contaminated areas which are highrisk activities.
Action on Double Standards• The EU should support an international ban of asbestos by an ILO Convention or otherglobal instrument and a just transition in developing countries;• EU legislation should ban the use of asbestos by EU-based companies anywhere in theworld; lack of compliance with this legislation should be punished by fines which could
be distributed amongst foreign asbestos victims;• Strategies for minimising asbestos liabilities of global defendants are well-developed;
the EU should work with other partners to establish an international fund to compensate
asbestos victims of EU companies;• The transfer of risk from Europe to developing countries is unacceptable. In particular, theship-breaking of asbestos-contaminated vessels such as Le Clemenceau in India violates
both the Basel Convention and EU waste regulations: those rules should be rigorously applied and enforced;• Good practice regarding the successful introduction of non-asbestos safe technology inEurope should be disseminated to countries which are still using asbestos;• Finances from the European Social Fund should be made available to support the cleanup of asbestos-contaminated areas• EAC participants call for national actions on specific days like the 28th of April 2006,
International Workers Memorial Day and the 14th of May, Memorial Day for asbestos
victims in Belgium. In particular they recommend demonstrations in front of Canadianembassies;• The European Union should promote an inquiry on the present and past activities of asbestos multinationals and their corporate links;• The European organisations involved in the campaign for a world asbestos ban should
support the struggle of NGOs, trade unions and other organisations in developing countries against asbestos by providing them with information on best practice, effective legislation, medical and technical issues; European bodies have an important contribution to
make towards the development of international networks of cooperation and solidarity.
Furthermore
Asbestos affects a wide range of issues from occupational and public health to the environment to consumer affairs to medical research. It is therefore recommended that aperson be designated to coordinate the EU Asbestos Action Plan.

40 asbestos the human cost of corporate greed

appendix b
Conference programmethursday 22 september 2005
9:30 Welcome: MEP Francis Wurtz,
President of the GUE/NGL Group
9:45 Opening Comments: Session Chairs:
MEP Kartika Liotard GUE/NGL and Xavier
Jonckheere, President ABEVA
10:00 EU Asbestos Policy: Working Conditions

17:00 Global Campaign to Ban Asbestos:		Belgian Senator Alain Destexhe		Italian Senator Antonio Pizzinato

17:30 Plenary Debate: Chair
18:20 Conclusion: Chair
18:30 Session Ends

friday 23 september 2005

and Benefits
10:20 Panel Discussion — Occupational

9:30 Opening Comments: Chairs: MEP Roberto

Asbestos Exposure:European Asbestos Conference:
Policy, Health & Human Rights
European Parliament
Brussels, ASP 1 G3		

Malta: Saviour Sammut

		Bulgaria: Svetla Karova

		Portugal: Armando Farias

		

Spain: Angel Carcoba

10:50 EU Asbestos Policy: The Environment

Musacchio and MEP Adamos Adamou
		Asbestos Problem
9:45 Medical Aspects of Asbestos: Examinations,
Incidence and Recognition: Dr. Olaf Hagemeyer
10:00 Asbestos Cancer: the Financial Cost to the

11:10 Panel Discussion — Environmental

Participants:

Asbestos Exposure

Defining the Scope of Europe’s

National Health System: Dr. Andrew Watterson
10:15 Under-Reporting of Asbestos Cancer inDenmark: Lars Vedsmand		

Cyprus: MP George Perdikes

ABEVA-Belgium, ANDEVA and BAN		

UK: Jason Addy

Asbestos France-France CAOVA		Poland: Dr. Neonila Szeszenia-Dabrowska

and Society for Asbestos Victims,

		

Ukraine: Dmytro Skrylnikov

10:45 Medical Panel:

Switzerland, Greenpeace-Cyprus,		

Italy: Fulvio Aurora

		Slovenia: Dr. Metoda Dodic-Fikfak

Professor P. Behrakis, Greece, Casale		

Turkey: Dr. Salih Emri		

Lithuania: Dr. Ruta P. Everatt

Monferrato Asbestos Victims’ Group and11:40 Political Panel — MEPs Debate:		Czech Republic: Dr. Daniela Pelclova

National Association of Italian Victims-

		

Italy: Vittorio Agnoletto		

India: Dr. Tushar Kant Joshi

Italy, CCOO-Spain, Dutch Asbestos		

Cyprus: Adamos Adamou

11:20 Human Rights for Asbestos Disease Sufferers:

Victims’ Committee-Holland SABS-		Greece: Dimitris Papadimoulis

Slovenia, Clydebank Asbestos, Clydeside		Czech Republic: Jiri Mastalka

Action on Asbestos-Scotland, Merseyside		Ireland: Bairbre de Brún

and District Asbestos Victim Support

12:15 Plenary Debate: Chair

11:50 Plenary Debate: ChairGroup, Justice for Asbestos Victims of

12:45 Conclusion: Chair

12:20 Conference Resolution: Laurent Vogel

Dr. Panagiotis Behrakis

Sally Moore
11:35 Corporate Accountability and Compensation:
Eternit: A Case Study Bob Ruers

12:50 Conclusion: MEP Kartika Liotard

Northern Ireland, Asbestos Awareness
Wales plus others.

10:30 Asbestos Disease in Greece:

15:00 Opening Comments: Chair
15:10 The Human Dimension of Asbestos Disease:

15:00 Roundtable: Chairs: Fiona Murie

		

France: Nicole Voide		Belgium: Xavier Jonckheere

15:15 Country Reports		Victims’ Initiatives: UK: John Flanagan

		Bulgaria: Svetla Karova

		Mesothelioma Research: UK: Astero Klabatsa		Cyprus: MP George Perdikes

		

Avoiding More Needless Deaths		

Czech Republic: Dr. Daniela Pelclova

15:40 Case Study: EU Asbestos Derogation for		Lithuania: Ruta P. Everatt

Chlorine Production: Ms. Fernanda Giannasi,

		Malta: Saviour Sammut

Factory Inspector, Brazil		Netherlands: Tinka de Bruin

		

Poland: Dr. Neonila Szeszenia-Dabrowska

Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation		Portugal: Armando Fariasof Chemicals (REACH): MEP Guido Sacconi

		Ukraine: Dmytro Skrylnikov

16:00 Regulatory Framework for Chemicals:and Angel Carcoba

16:20 Asbestos Alternatives: Construction Materials

16:45 Discussion: Chairs

and Friction Products: Dr. Barry Castleman

17:45 Conclusion: Chairs

16:40 The Transfer of Hazardous Technology to the

18:00 Session Ends

Developing World: Dr. Annie Thebaud-Monygue/ngl 41

appendix cEndnotes
Behaviour during a “funa” consists of loud banging of pots and pansby demonstrators to create a highly visible and public event.
2 http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.
do?uri=CELEX:31983L0477:EN:HTML
3 An article in Libération on 15 March 2005 estimated that the work in
Toulon had removed 65-80 tons of asbestos from the Clemenceau
and that 22 tons of asbestos remained for the unskilled andunprotected workers in the Indian ship-breaking yards to remove.
4 See: End of Life Ships – The Human Cost of Breaking Ships at website:
http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/shipbreaking2005a.pdf
5 See: articles in the national paper The Hindu (issues December 31,
2005 & January 1, 2005).
6 See: Under-registration of Occupational Diseases: the Greek
Case. Alexopoulos CG, Rachiotis G, Valasi M, Drivas S, Behrakis P.
Occupational Medicine 2005;55 (1):64-65.
7 The population of the Czech Republic is 10 million; half are ofworking age and about 8% experience hazardous occupational
exposures. Currently, 276 workers are exposed to chrysotile and 97 toamphiboles.
8 In the Czech Republic, the amount of compensation for occupational
diseases is dependent on the severity and length of duration of thedisease; payments for pain and suffering, restricted life capacity, lost
wages and treatment costs are made. Someone with mesothelioma
would expect to receive about 4,000 euros.
9 The use and marketing of crocidolite had been banned in 1984.
10 Throughout this report the word “ton” can usually be taken to referto a metric ton (in older data possibly to an imperial ton which
is about 2% heavier). Where a speaker has specified metric tons
explicitly the word “tonnes” is used.
11 The breakdown of the 795 asbestos deaths is: 259 from cancer of theperitoneum, 210 from cancer of the pleura, 196 from lung cancer and
130 from other causes.
12 This is the biggest trade union in Bulgaria.
13 CEE/NIS: Central and Eastern Europe and New Independent States.
14 CMMP: Comptoir des Minéraux et Matières Premières.
15 The French name of the group is: Le Collectif des Riverains et Victimes
du CMMP.
16 Other groups present at the protest represented the parents of thechildren at the local school, Ban Asbestos France, a local asbestos
victims’ group and an ecological association.
17 This act transposed the EU Directive 83/477/EEC amendment to
Directive 91/382/EEC and Directive 98/24 EEC on the prevention ofhealth risk during work with asbestos and asbestos-containing
materials.
18 This act transposes EU Directive 87/217/EEC.
19 Of the 276 exposed to chrysotile, only one was female; of the 97
exposed to amphiboles, only eight were female.
20 The majority of chrysotile exposure occurs amongst people engaged
in the removal of insulation and waste, roofers, carpenters andmaintenance workers. Exposure to amphiboles is highest amongst
railway workers, roofers and carpenters.
21 In the decade from 1994-2004, the incidence of asbestos-relateddisease rose from 79 to 210, an increase of more than 250%.
22 Government sources estimate that there are approximately 15.5
million tonnes of asbestos products in Poland; the vast majority, 14.9
million tonnes, are asbestos-cement boards. Approximately 85% of
the asbestos remaining in Poland is contained in building materials
and products; asbestos contamination in rural areas is nearly threetimes as high as in the cities.
23 For information on microconcrete tiles and vegetable fibres andasphalt see respectively the websites: www.perryassociates.com andwww.onduline.com.br
24 Twenty percent of the people who have died from asbestos-relateddisease in Casale Monferrato received para-occupational exposures;that is, they were exposed to asbestos fibres brought home on thework clothes of a relative.
25 ANDEVA: the French association representing asbestos victims.-

Useful internet links

1

International Ban Asbestos Secretariat
www.ibas.btinternet.co.uk
Merseyside Asbestos Victims Support Group — UK
http://www.asbestosdiseases.org.uk
ANDEVA (Association Nationale de Défense des Victimes de l’Amiante) — France
http://andeva.free.fr
Instituto Sindical de Trabajo, Abiente y Saluo (ISTAS)(Spanish Trade Unions)
http://www.ccoo.es/istas
The International Federation of Building and Wood Workers (IFBWW)
http://www.ifbww.org/
Confederation of Independent Trade Unions, Bulgaria
http://www.knsb-bg.org/
Institute of Occupational Medicine, Poland
http://www.imp.lodz.pl/
Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, France
http://www.inserm.fr/fr/
Save Spodden Valley, UK
http://www.spodden-valley.co.uk/
ABEVA, Belgium
http://www.abeva.be/Dutch Asbestos Victims Committee
http://www.comiteasbestslachtoffers.nl
Hazards
http://www.hazards.org
Mesothelioma UK
http://www.mesithelioma.uk.com
European Trade Union Confederationwww.etuc.org
Socialist Party, Netherlands
www.sp.nl
GUE/NGL Groupwww.guengl.eu

42 asbestos the human cost of corporate greed

Hein du Plessis is a South Africa-based photographer specialising in social documentary. He has worked as a press
photographer, and currently lectures in the School of Design Technology and Visual Art in the Central University ofTechnology, South Africa. His previous exhibitions include “Images of Elderly Abuse”, “Facing AIDS”, “Into Full View (India’s
Workers)”, “Face to Face (Cancer and You)” and his work has toured internationally. The images displayed in this publicationon the cover, on pages 4, 12, 16, 20, 28, 35 and on this page come from the 1999 “The Legacy of Asbestos” exhibition. Hein
du Plessis’ work has received and been nominated for numerous prizes such as the Fuji Press Awards (1993, 2002, 2003), theSouth Africa Pro Photo Awards (1999), the Commonwealth Photo Award (2001), the South Africa Picture Essay Award (2001)
and the New York Institute of Photography award (2002). He can be contacted at: hduples@cut.ac.za

gue/ngl 43

about gue /ngl
The GUE/NGL (European United
Left/Nordic Green Left) Group is thefifth largest group in the European
Parliament and is, at present, madeup of forty-one MEPs from sixteen
political parties in thirteen European
countries. As the name indicates, it
is a confederal group of 16 parties
working in pursuit of common
political objectives. The Group has
members from the following parties:
AKEL (Cyprus), Bloco de Esquerda(Portugal), Die Linke.PDS (Germany),
Folkebevaægelsen mod EU (Denmark),
Izquierda Unida (Spain), KKE (Greece),
KSCM (Czech Republic), PCF (France),
PCP (Portugal), PdCI (Italy), PRC (Italy),Sinn Féin (Ireland), SP (Netherlands),
Synaspismos (Greece), Vansterparteit(Sweden), Vasemmistoliitto (Finland).

www.guengl.eu