there is a new “consensus” in the literature when that consensus is an artifact of sponsor- ship (Michaels 2009). Wealthy sponsors have simply paid to have more papers published. A C o n f e r e n c e o n A s b e s t o s a n d Mesothelioma was held in May 2010 and was sponsored by both plaintiff and defense lawyers who paid scientists to come to a resort center to discuss asbestos issues (Perrin Conferences 2010). The conference discussed matters on which there is broad scientific con- sensus that are still questioned as part of the defense in litigation seeking to reject compen- sation. Such conferences can serve to perpetu- ate the illusion of uncertainty about issues for which there is ample evidence concerning the dangers of all forms of asbestos. Indeed, asbestos interests have a record of seizing opportunities to challenge the carcinogenicity of chrysotile, trying to create the impression that it is still a matter of legitimate scientific debate; this creates doubt about legitimate scientific findings and renders policy inter- ventions unlikely (McCulloch and Tweedale 2008). The complex ties of the asbestos indus- try with international groups are numer- ous and problematic (Ashford et al. 2002; Castleman 2001; LaDou 2004). Chrysotile Asbestos Chrysotile represents nearly 100% of the asbestos produced and used worldwide today (Natural Resources Canada 2006) and 95% of all the asbestos used worldwide since 1900 (Virta 2005). There is general agreement among scientists and physicians, and wide- spread support from agencies in countries around the world, that chrysotile causes various cancers, including mesothelioma and lung can- cer (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registration 2001; American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists 2001; International Labour Organization 2006; International Social Security Association 2004; National Cancer Institute 2003; NTP 2004; OSHA 1994; United Nations Environment Program 1998; WHO 2006; World Trade Organization 2001]. Early suggestions and industry reports that chrysotile might be significantly less dangerous than other forms of asbestos have not been substantiated. Although chrysotile accounts for almost all the asbestos ever used, the asbes- tos industry continues to claim that asbestos- related cancers are the result of the amphibole varieties (McCulloch 2006). Defenders of the chrysotile asbestos industry contend that “exposure to chrysotile in a pure form seems likely to present a very low if any risk of meso- thelioma” (Gibbs and Berry 2008). The Chrysotile Institute (Montreal, Quebec, Canada), a registered lobby group for the Quebec asbestos mining industry, takes the position that chrysotile can be handled safely (Chrysotile Institute 2008). Numerous epidemiologic studies, case reports, controlled animal experiments, and toxicological studies refute the assertion that chrysotile is safe (Bang et al. 2006; Landrigan et al. 1999; Lemen 2004b; Lin et al. 2007; Smith and Wright 1996; Stayner et al. 1996; Tossavainen 1997). These studies demonstrate that the so-called controlled use of asbestos is a fallacy (Lemen 2004a; Welch et al. 2009). Workers exposed to chrysotile fiber alone have excessive risks of lung cancer and mesothelioma (Frank et al. 1998; Li et al. 2004; Mirabelli et al. 2008). The Canadian Cancer Society (2010), the Canadian Medical Association (2009), and the Canadian Public Health Association (2010) oppose the export of asbestos to developing countries. The National Public Health Institute of Quebec has published 15 reports, all of them showing a failure to achieve “controlled use” of asbestos in Quebec itself (Takaro et al. 2010). Pat Martin, a member of Canada’s parliament and a former asbestos miner, asks, “If we in the developed world haven’t found a way to handle chrysotile safely, how can we expect them to do so in developing nations?” (Burki 2010). Some countries have banned forms of asbestos no longer in use anywhere, yet they exempt the use of chrysotile. This exemp- tion reflects the close relationship the asbestos industry has with many governments, the lack of public health information and regulation in these countries, and the lack of compensa- tion for asbestos victims (Castleman and Joshi 2007; Greenberg 2005; Kazan-Allen 2003). The toll in most countries still using large amounts of asbestos may never be fully ascer- tained or recorded. Current Production and Use of Asbestos Despite all that is known about the dangerous and adverse health effects of asbestos, annual world production remains at > 2 million tons [U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2009]. Russia is now the leading producer of asbestos worldwide, followed by China, Kazakhstan, Brazil, Canada, Zimbabwe, and Colombia. These six countries accounted for 96% of the world production of asbestos in 2007. Russia has mines rich enough in asbestos deposits to last for > 100 years at current levels of pro- duction (Encyclopedia of the Nations 2010). Most of the 925,000 tons of asbestos extracted annually in Russia is exported. All forms of asbestos are now banned in 52 countries (International Ban Asbestos Secretariat 2010), including all European Union member countries. Nonetheless, these 52 countries make up less than one-third of WHO member countries. A much larger number of WHO member countries still use, import, and export asbestos and asbestos- containing products (WHO 2006). These are Environmental Health Perspectives • volume 118 | number 7 | July 2010 The case for a global ban on asbestos almost all countries in Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Africa. Most of the world’s people still live in countries where asbestos use continues, usually with few safeguards. More than 85% of the world production of asbestos is used today to manufacture products in Asia and Eastern Europe (Virta 2005). In developing countries, where too often there exists little or no protection of workers and communities, the asbestos cancer pandemic may be the most devastating. China is by far the largest consumer of asbestos in the world today, followed by Russia, India, Kazakhstan, Brazil, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, and Ukraine (United Nations Statistics Division 2009; USGS 2009). Position of International Agencies on Asbestos International organizations have condemned the continuing use of chrysotile asbestos. In 2006, the WHO called for the elimination of diseases associated with asbestos. The WHO supports individual countries in developing national plans to ban asbestos and eliminate asbestos-related disease, stating that “the most efficient way to eliminate asbestos-related disease is to stop using all types of asbestos” (WHO 2007). The International Labour Organization (2006) expressed concern about an evolving epidemic of asbestos-related dis- eases and passed a resolution to promote a worldwide asbestos ban. The World Trade Organization has accepted the conclusion that the “controlled use” of asbestos is a fallacy (Castleman 2002). The Rotterdam Convention (2005) is an international agreement intended to regu- late global trade in dangerous chemicals— chemicals that have been banned or severely restricted because of their hazards to human health or the environment. It was entered into force in 2004, and 131 nations are cur- rently Parties to the Convention. The goal is to protect the world’s most vulnerable countries—developing countries and coun- tries with economies in transition—against importation of hazardous pesticides and other listed chemicals without their prior informed consent (PIC). PIC is the core principle of the Rotterdam Convention. This legally binding proce- dure requires that governments in all coun- tries be provided full information about the risks to health and the environment of each of the hazardous materials regulated by the Convention before importation. Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention lists the chemi- cals—40 in number—currently covered by the Convention’s PIC requirement: 25 pesticides, 4 severely hazardous pesticide formulations, and 11 industrial chemicals. Repeated efforts to include chrysotile asbestos under the Rotterdam Convention 899