A ban on asbestos: is now the time?

Our plain-English summary of A ban on asbestos: is now the time? (CMAJ, 2001).

The study

• Journal: CMAJ
• Published: 2001;164(4):453, 455
• Type of article: Comment, Editorial
• Language: French
• Cited by: 2 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Free full text

In plain English

This unsigned CMAJ editorial is not a research study. It introduced three articles in the same issue: the Collegium Ramazzini's call for a worldwide ban on asbestos mining and use, a response by Michel Camus, and a review by Jack Siemiatycki of the health risks of asbestos and the substitute products. It stated that an area south of Quebec City produced about one third of the world's supply. It said Canada was the only Western country still producing asbestos in large quantities, so the ban call was directed primarily at Canada. It described almost opposite conclusions from 1970s occupational studies. Corbett Macdonald argued that mesothelioma, lung cancer and asbestosis could be attributed mainly to amphibole asbestos and that chrysotile was much less harmful. Irving J. Selikoff and the Collegium Ramazzini disagreed. The editors agreed with Siemiatycki's proposal that a panel of experts without significant experience or interest in asbestos research review the public health implications of asbestos and the efficacy and hazards of alternative materials. They said Canada should lead this effort and abide by the panel's recommendations.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Editorial (opinion piece, unsigned, credited to CMAJ); not a research study
• Who was studied: No study population. The editorial discusses Canada as an asbestos-producing country.
• Exposure: Asbestos in general, including the debate over amphibole versus chrysotile asbestos
• Main results:
  • The editorial introduced a response by Michel Camus and a review by Jack Siemiatycki of asbestos health risks and substitute products, published in the same issue
  • The editorial stated that the area of the town of Asbestos, Quebec, produced about one third of the world's supply
  • The editorial stated that Canada was the only Western country still producing asbestos in large quantities
  • The editorial stated that 1970s occupational studies by the Macdonald and Selikoff groups led to almost opposite conclusions
  • The editorial described Corbett Macdonald's argument that mesothelioma, lung cancer and asbestosis could be attributed mainly to amphibole asbestos
  • The editorial stated that Irving J. Selikoff and the Collegium Ramazzini disagreed with Macdonald's position
  • The editors agreed with Siemiatycki's proposal that an expert panel without significant experience or interest in asbestos research review the public health implications of asbestos and the efficacy and hazards of alternative materials
• The authors' conclusion: The editors concluded that Canada, as the only Western country still producing large quantities of asbestos, has a responsibility to lead the expert review and to abide by the panel's recommendations

Related studies

• Should Canadian health care professionals support the call for a worldwide ban on asbestos? — J. Siemiatycki (2001)
• A ban on asbestos must be based on a comparative risk assessment — M. Camus (2001)
• Asbestos is still with us: Repeat call for a universal ban — C. Ramazzini (2011)
• Asbestos in Canada: time to change our legacy — T. Dummer, C. Gotay (2015)
• Rural public health policy models to address an evolving environmental asbestos disaster — S.W. Kuntz, C.A. Winters, et al. (2009)
• Banning Asbestos in New Zealand, 1936-2016, an 80-Year Long Saga — W.I. Glass, R. Armstrong, et al. (2017)

Browse more research in CMAJ, or return to medical research.