Asbestos: immoral fiber, licentious interests

Our plain-English summary of Asbestos: immoral fiber, licentious interests, by C. Levenstein (New Solutions, 2007).

The study

• Author: C. Levenstein
• Journal: New Solutions
• Published: 2007;17(4):275-8
• Type of article: Editorial
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This is an editorial, not a research study, and it reported no new data. It described asbestos policy events in 2007. A U.S. Senate committee had approved a ban on importing and distributing asbestos products. Earlier EPA efforts to ban asbestos had been overturned by a U.S. Court of Appeals in 1991. At the May 2007 World Health Assembly, a WHO workers' health plan referred to "a differentiated approach" to regulating the forms of asbestos. Laurie Kazan-Allen, quoted in the editorial, called this a let-out clause for chrysotile asbestos. The new wording contrasted with WHO's October 2006 statement that the most efficient way to eliminate asbestos-related diseases was to stop using all types of asbestos. The editorial quoted letters to WHO from Ian Greaves and Jim Brophy. It also gave Peter Orris's view that the change likely resulted from Canadian government lobbying, and a WHO staffer's reply that the 2006 statement was still valid. The author concluded that WHO's ambiguous stance would undermine efforts, particularly in developing countries, to stop the flow of asbestos. The author urged readers to join a global ban campaign.

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 on asbestos policy; no study or data)
• Who was studied: Not applicable; no people or data were studied. The editorial discussed 2007 asbestos policy events in the U.S. Senate, at the World Health Assembly, and in Canada.
• Exposure: Asbestos as a policy issue, particularly the treatment of chrysotile asbestos in WHO policy
• Main results:
  • The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works approved a ban on importing and distributing asbestos products (legislation introduced by Senator Patty Murray).
  • U.S. EPA efforts to ban asbestos were overturned by a U.S. Court of Appeals in 1991.
  • The May 2007 World Health Assembly document Workers' Health: Global Plan of Action referred to a differentiated approach to regulating the various forms of asbestos.
  • WHO's October 2006 policy statement, by contrast, said the most efficient way to eliminate asbestos-related diseases is to stop using all types of asbestos.
  • Ian Greaves wrote to WHO that the change sets back occupational health and safety for asbestos by about 20 years.
  • Peter Orris argued that the concession likely resulted from Canadian government lobbying.
  • According to the editorial, the coalition working on a global asbestos ban had not mobilized a campaign able to block the industry's efforts.
  • Jim Brophy was concerned that the apparent WHO change would undermine health advocates' efforts in Canada.
  • A WHO staffer, Ivan Ivanov, replied by e-mail that the 2006 WHO statement on asbestos was still valid.
  • The author stated that WHO's ambiguous international stance would undermine efforts, particularly in developing countries, to stop the flow of asbestos.
• The authors' conclusion: The author agreed that the global effort to ban asbestos should be supported and urged New Solutions readers to take part in such a campaign.

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Asbestosis.

Related studies

• Carcinogenic hazards from inhaled carbon black, titanium dioxide, and talc not containing asbestos or asbestiform fibers: recent evaluations by an IARC Monographs Working Group — R.A. Baan (2007)
• Global mesothelioma deaths reported to the World Health Organization between 1994 and 2008 — V. Delgermaa, K. Takahashi, et al. (2011)
• The asbestos cancer epidemic — J. LaDou (2004)
• How conflicted authors undermine the World Health Organization (WHO) campaign to stop all use of asbestos: spotlight on studies showing that chrysotile is carcinogenic and facilitates other non-cancer asbestos-related diseases — X. Baur, C.L. Soskolne, et al. (2015)
• The World Health Organization defines hormone replacement therapy as carcinogenic: is this plausible? — A.O. Mueck, H. Seeger (2008)
• Guidelines for Pathologic Diagnosis of Malignant Mesothelioma 2017 Update of the Consensus Statement From the International Mesothelioma Interest Group — A.N. Husain, T.V. Colby, et al. (2018)

Browse more research in New Solutions, or return to medical research.