A repeat call for the banning of asbestos

Our plain-English summary of A repeat call for the banning of asbestos, by L.S. Birnbaum, J.C. Schroeder, H.A. Tilson (Environmental Health Perspectives, 2010).

The study

• Authors: L.S. Birnbaum, J.C. Schroeder, H.A. Tilson
• Journal: Environmental Health Perspectives
• Published: 2010;118(7):A280-1
• Type of article: Comment, Editorial
• Cited by: 2 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

In plain English

This is an editorial, an opinion piece, not a research study, and it reports no new data. The authors wrote it to accompany a commentary by LaDou et al. (2010) in the same issue of Environmental Health Perspectives, in which the Collegium Ramazzini, an academic society, repeated its call for a worldwide ban on asbestos. Drawing on other sources, the editorial noted several points. The World Health Organization (2006) had stated that asbestos exposure causes approximately half of the deaths from occupational cancer. Asbestos had been banned in more than 50 countries. Repeated efforts to ban or severely restrict chrysotile asbestos under the Rotterdam Convention, an international treaty on trade in dangerous chemicals, had failed. Citing U.S. Geological Survey figures, the editorial stated that world asbestos production was estimated at more than 2 million tons a year, and that consumption increased in China, India and Uzbekistan between 2003 and 2007. The authors concluded that it was time for an international ban on the mining and use of all forms of asbestos, including chrysotile asbestos.

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); no original research or data
• Who was studied: No study population. The editorial responds to a commentary by LaDou et al. (2010) in the same journal issue, in which the Collegium Ramazzini repeats its call for a ban on asbestos.
• Exposure: Asbestos in general, all forms, with particular attention to chrysotile asbestos
• Main results:
  • Not a finding of this article: the editorial cited the World Health Organization (2006) as noting that asbestos exposure causes approximately half of the deaths from occupational cancer.
  • Not a finding of this article: citing the International Ban Asbestos Secretariat (2010), the editorial stated that asbestos had been banned in more than 50 countries.
  • Not a finding of this article: citing Terracini (2008), the editorial stated that repeated efforts to ban or severely restrict chrysotile asbestos under the Rotterdam Convention had failed.
  • Not a finding of this article: citing the U.S. Geological Survey, the editorial stated that annual world asbestos production was estimated at more than 2 million tons.
  • Not a finding of this article: citing the U.S. Geological Survey (2009b), the editorial stated that asbestos consumption increased rather than declined in China, India and Uzbekistan between 2003 and 2007.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors agreed with the Collegium Ramazzini that it was time for an international ban on the mining and use of all forms of asbestos, including chrysotile asbestos.

Related studies

• Asbestos is still with us: repeat call — Collegium Ramazzini (2010)
• Asbestos is still with us: repeat call for a universal ban — C. Ramazzini (2010)
• A worn-out welcome: renewed call for a global ban on asbestos — R.C. Haynes (2010)
• The case for a global ban on asbestos — J. LaDou, B. Castleman, et al. (2010)
• International jurisprudence on trade and environmental health: one step forward, two steps back? — K. Timmermans (2008)
• Asbestos is still with us: repeat call for a universal ban — C. Ramazzini (2010)

Browse more research in Environmental Health Perspectives, or return to medical research.