Asbestos ban in India: challenges ahead

Our plain-English summary of Asbestos ban in India: challenges ahead, by T.K. Joshi, U.B. Bhuva, P. Katoch (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2006).

The study

• Authors: T.K. Joshi, U.B. Bhuva, P. Katoch
• Journal: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
• Published: 2006;1076:292-308
• Cited by: 13 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

Rapidly industrializing India is described by the International Monetary Fund as a young, disciplined, and vibrant economy with a projected growth of 6.7% for 2005. The total workforce of 397 million has only 7% of workers employed in the organized sector with construction, where asbestos exposure is prevalent, employing 4.4%. The domestic production of asbestos declined from 20,111 tons in 1998-1999 to 14,340 tons in 2002-2003. The imports from Russia and Canada increased from 61,474 tons in 1997-1998 to 97,884 tons in 2001-2002. The production of asbestos cement products went up from 0.68 million tons in 1993-1994 to 1.38 million tons in 2002-2003. The asbestos industry has been delicensed since March 2003. The number of asbestos-based units stood at 32, with the western state of Maharashtra having the largest number. According to official figures, the industry employs 8000 workers. The occupational exposure standard is still 2 fibers/mL, worse still, mesothelioma is not recognized as an occupational disease. The latest cancer registry data have no information on mesothelioma. The health and safety legislation does not cover 93% of workers in the unorganized sector where asbestos exposures are extremely high. Workers remain uninformed and untrained in dealing with asbestos exposure. Enforcement agencies are not fully conscious of the risks of asbestos exposure. Industrial hygiene assessment is seldom carried out and pathologists do not receive training in identifying mesothelioma histopathologically. The lack of political will and powerful influence of the asbestos industry are pushing India toward a disaster of unimaginable proportion.

In plain English

This article was a review and commentary, not an original study. The authors used Indian parliamentary and government figures, laws and published reports to describe asbestos use and its regulation in India. Parliamentary figures showed domestic asbestos production falling from 20,111 metric tons in 1998–1999 to 14,340 in 2002–2003. Imports rose from 76,094 metric tons in 1998–1999 to 97,884 in 2001–2002, largely from Russia and Canada. Thirty-two asbestos cement plants were listed, nine of them in Maharashtra. The authors reported that the construction workers' law set an exposure limit of 2 fibers/mL and listed only asbestosis as a notifiable disease. Only the Mines Act recognized mesothelioma. The national cancer registry gave no estimates for pleural mesothelioma, and only three states reported any occupational diseases. Citing other sources, the authors described very high exposures in asbestos milling and bare-handed asbestos removal at the Alang shipbreaking yard. The authors concluded that the challenges to an asbestos ban in India were profound, and that past exposure would still produce a future epidemic.

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: Review and commentary based on Indian government and parliamentary data, legislation, and previously published studies and reports. No new data were collected by the authors.
• Who was studied: India's workforce and asbestos industries. Total employment was 397 million in 1999–2000: about 28 million in the organized sector and 369 million in the unorganized sector.
• Exposure: Asbestos, mainly chrysotile, in mining, milling, asbestos cement products, construction and shipbreaking. Mines produced mainly chrysotile and tremolite.
• Main results:
  • Domestic asbestos production, from parliamentary figures, was 20,111 metric tons in 1998–1999 and 14,340 metric tons in 2002–2003.
  • Asbestos imports were 76,094 metric tons in 1998–1999 and 97,884 metric tons in 2001–2002.
  • Of the 97,884 tons imported in 2001–2002, 36,994 tons came from Russia and 32,180 tons from Canada.
  • The authors noted that asbestos product exports were a fraction of imports, suggesting most imports were used within India.
  • The article's table of asbestos cement product production, labelled in metric tons, rose from 681 in 1993–1994 to 1,387 in 2002–2003.
  • A government table listed 32 chrysotile (asbestos cement) plants, with the largest number, 9, in Maharashtra.
  • Under the construction workers' law, the exposure limit was 2 fibers/mL and only asbestosis was a notifiable occupational disease.
  • Factories Act exposure limits were 0.5 fibers/mL for amosite, 1.0 fibers/mL for chrysotile and 0.2 fibers/mL for crocidolite. Its notifiable disease list included asbestosis but not mesothelioma.
  • Only the Mines Act recognized lung, stomach, pleural and peritoneal cancer (mesothelioma) as notifiable occupational diseases.
  • The Labour Bureau, as reported by a minister in Parliament, counted about 8321 workers in the manufacture of asbestos cement and other cement products.
  • A cited National Institute of Occupational Health source found exposures below 2 fibers/mL in asbestos cement factories and mines, but very high exposures of 20–222 fibers/mL in asbestos milling. This was another source's finding, not this article's.
  • A cited national programme reported asbestosis prevalence ranging from 3% in asbestos miners to 21% in mill workers. This was another source's finding.
  • The Indian cancer registry gave no estimates for pleural mesothelioma.
  • Reported notifiable occupational diseases totalled 1,963, and only three states reported any.
  • Citing a Greenpeace investigation in 1998 at Alang, India, the authors reported that shipbreaking workers routinely removed asbestos with their bare hands.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that the challenges to banning asbestos in India were profound. They cited a well-entrenched asbestos lobby, weak enforcement, and a shortage of hygienists and occupational health physicians. They stated that even a ban in the coming years would not prevent a future epidemic from past exposure.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The authors stated that without a surveillance system for asbestos-related cancers, the cancer burden from asbestos exposure in India could not be constructed.

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Asbestos Exposure, Asbestos-Cement, Occupational Exposure, Mesothelioma, Occupational Disease, Cancer Registry, Industrial Hygiene.

Related studies

• Biomonitoring of genotoxic effects for human exposure to nanomaterials: The challenge ahead — L. Gonzalez, M. Kirsch-Volders (2016)
• Reprint of "Biomonitoring of genotoxic effects for human exposure to nanomaterials: The challenge ahead" — L. Gonzalez, M. Kirsch-Volders (2016)
• Asbestos-related morbidity in India — T.K. Joshi, R.K. Gupta (2003)
• Health experts concerned over India's asbestos industry — T. Burki (2010)
• Occupational health research in India — H.N. Saiyed, R.R. Tiwari (2004)
• Mesothelioma in an agricultural community of India: a clinicopathological study — P.B. Das, A.G. Fletcher, et al. (1976)

Browse more research in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, or return to medical research.