A commentary on Roggli's "The So-Called Short-Fiber Controversy"

Our plain-English summary of A commentary on Roggli's "The So-Called Short-Fiber Controversy", by D. Egilman, T. Tran (International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2016).

The study

• Authors: D. Egilman, T. Tran
• Journal: International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health
• Published: 2016;22(3):181-186
• Cited by: 5 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

Abstract

Dr. Victor Roggli republished a "literature review and critical analysis" of the toxicity of short fiber asbestos. His paper was originally prepared and presented at a conference of asbestos defense lawyers. His review omitted published papers that indicate that short fiber asbestos is a carcinogen. We critically review his paper.

In plain English

This article was a commentary, not a new study. The authors critically reviewed a 2015 literature review by Dr. Victor Roggli, "The so-called short-fiber controversy." They stated that Roggli first prepared it for a program run by the Defense Research Institute, an organization of defense lawyers. The authors argued that the review left out published papers indicating that short fiber asbestos is a carcinogen. They disputed its account of several earlier studies. They argued that Gardner's animal findings, summarized by Vorwald, were more likely related to dose and latency than to fiber length. They said an Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) report did not contain a statement Roggli attributed to it. They also said Roggli failed to discuss a second study by Pott and colleagues. They added that he left out points about shorter or other-sized fibers from work by Davis and Jones, Boutin and colleagues, and Stanton. They argued that Suzuki had run contamination controls, contrary to Roggli's criticism. They also listed animal and human studies from a 2014 review by Boulanger and colleagues that Roggli did not include.

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: Commentary critically reviewing a single published literature review (no new data)
• Who was studied: Not a study of people or animals. The subject was Victor Roggli's literature review "The so-called short-fiber controversy" (Arch Pathol Lab Med 2015). The authors state it was first developed for a Defense Research Institute program.
• Exposure: Short asbestos fibers, including short chrysotile and amphibole fibers, as discussed in the literature Roggli reviewed
• Main results:
  • The authors argued that the review omitted published papers indicating that short fiber asbestos is a carcinogen.
  • On the Gardner experiments summarized by Vorwald, the authors noted that less than 1% of the "short fiber" test dust had fibers longer than 10 microns. They argued that the findings were more likely related to dose and latency than to fiber length.
  • The authors stated that Vorwald deleted results from Gardner's experiments that indicated asbestos was a carcinogen. They said he did so at the request of the sponsoring brake manufacturing companies and MetLife Insurance Company.
  • Roggli wrote that the 2002 ATSDR World Trade Center report found no convincing evidence that short fibers caused disease. The authors said the report did not contain that statement.
  • The authors quoted Davis and Jones's rat study of chrysotile. Those researchers wrote that shorter fibres (under 5 micrometers) could have some carcinogenic potential. The authors contrasted this with Roggli's summary that the results were due to contamination.
  • The authors said Roggli did not discuss a second study by Pott and colleagues. That study stated that milled chrysotile with 99.8% of fibers shorter than 5 micrometers was carcinogenic in their experience.
  • The authors said Roggli omitted that Boutin and colleagues reported 77.7% of the amphiboles they found were less than 5 micrometers long.
  • The authors stated that Stanton only evaluated amphibole asbestos. They said Stanton also reported relatively high correlations with fibers in other size categories, not only fibers longer than 8 micrometers.
  • Roggli suggested that Suzuki's samples were contaminated. The authors stated that Suzuki ran controls of both his environment and of paraffin.
  • The authors stated that Roggli's scanning electron microscopy method cannot see or count fibers less than 0.15 micrometers wide. They also said Roggli testified that he only began running reagent and blank controls regularly in 2010.
  • The authors listed animal and human studies that Roggli omitted, drawn from a 2014 review by Boulanger and colleagues. That review concluded that the toxicity of short asbestos fibers cannot be dismissed.
  • The authors disputed Roggli's statement that Ruhr valley coal miners were not exposed to asbestos. They cited a communication reporting 140 mesothelioma cases among a workforce of 300,000 employed between 1950 and the 1970s.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that Roggli's review was inadequate and/or biased because it omitted much of the relevant literature.

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Chrysotile, Mesothelioma.

Related studies

• The So-called Short-Fiber Controversy: Literature Review and Critical Analysis — V.L. Roggli (2015)
• Response to Roggli et al. (2020) "Talc and mesothelioma: mineral fiber analysis of 65 cases with clinicopathological correlation" — T. Tran, D. Egilman, et al. (2020)
• Short fiber tremolite free chrysotile mesothelioma cohort revealed — D. Egilman, T. Bird (2016)
• Continued controversy on chrysotile biopersistence — K. Donaldson, G. Oberdörster (2011)
• Quebec stands firm on asbestos exports despite growing controversy — L. Eggertson (2010)
• Comparison of Calidria chrysotile asbestos to pure tremolite: final results of the inhalation biopersistence and histopathology examination following short-term exposure — D.M. Bernstein, J. Chevalier, et al. (2005)

Browse more research in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, or return to medical research.