Asbestos poisons World Trade Organization atmosphere

Our plain-English summary of Asbestos poisons World Trade Organization atmosphere, by L. Kazan-Allen (International Journal of Health Services, 2001).

The study

• Author: L. Kazan-Allen
• Journal: International Journal of Health Services
• Published: 2001;31(3):481-93
• Cited by: 4 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

In September 2000, a World Trade Organization (WTO) panel published its findings in the dispute between Canada and the European Union/France over France's ban on the import and use of chrysotile (white asbestos). The panel upheld the French ban, established that the use of chrysotile is a health risk and the idea of "controlled use" a fallacy, and used (for the first time) an exception clause in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that permits trade-restrictive measures to protect human life or health. At the same time, the panel concluded that the French ban violated international trade laws by treating chrysotile products less favorably than domestically produced alternatives. Some WTO watchers believe that with asbestos as the precedent for bans on toxic substances, the regulation of other, much less well-established, toxic exposures could prove much more difficult. Now the French ban has been upheld, chrysotile producers will increasingly target developing countries. Canada is appealing the WTO decision.

In plain English

This article was a commentary, not a research study, and reported no new medical data. The author described the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute in which Canada challenged France's ban, in force from January 1, 1997, on the import and use of chrysotile (white asbestos) and chrysotile-containing products. According to the author, the WTO panel report published on September 18, 2000 upheld the French ban. The panel found that chrysotile use was a health risk, particularly for lung cancer and mesothelioma, and that "controlled use" was not a reasonable alternative to a ban. It was the first time a panel used the trade-agreement exception that permits trade restrictions to protect human life or health. The panel also found that France had denied equal treatment to foreign asbestos-containing products. The four scientists advising the panel agreed that chrysotile is a carcinogen. Canada appealed. In an update, the author reported that the March 12, 2001 appeal ruling confirmed chrysotile as an established carcinogen with no safe threshold. The author concluded that producers were increasingly targeting developing countries.

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 and policy analysis of an international trade dispute; no original research data
• Who was studied: No study population. The subject was the WTO dispute between Canada and the European Union/France over France's chrysotile ban, from 1996 to the Appellate Body ruling of March 12, 2001.
• Exposure: Chrysotile (white asbestos) and chrysotile-containing products, including chrysotile-cement products, covered by French Decree 96-1133
• Main results:
  • The WTO panel upheld the 1997 French ban on chrysotile.
  • The panel found that chrysotile use is a health risk, particularly for lung cancer and mesothelioma, for downstream occupational sectors and for the public in relation to chrysotile-cement products.
  • The panel found that controlled use was not a reasonable alternative to banning chrysotile.
  • For the first time, a dispute panel used Article XX(b) of GATT, the exception that allows trade-restrictive measures to protect human life or health.
  • The panel also found that the French decree violated international trade law by denying equal treatment to foreign asbestos-containing products.
  • The four scientific experts advising the panel (one American, three Australian) were described as unanimous that chrysotile is a carcinogen, that controlled use is unrealistic, and that safer alternatives exist.
  • During Canada's appeal, 17 applications to submit outside (amicus) briefs were made, and all were rejected.
  • In an update, the author reported that the Appellate Body's ruling of March 12, 2001 confirmed chrysotile as an established carcinogen, found no safe threshold, and found controlled use not an effective alternative to a national ban.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that, as Western markets shrink, chrysotile producers are increasingly targeting customers in developing countries.

Topics

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

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Chrysotile, Controlled Use.

Related studies

• WTO confidential: the case of asbestos. World Trade Organization — B. Castleman (2002)
• The precautionary principle and/or risk assessment in World Trade Organization decisions: a possible role for risk perception — B. Goldstein, R.S. Carruth (2004)
• WTO upholds French ban on chrysotile — L.K. Allen (2001)
• International jurisprudence on trade and environmental health: one step forward, two steps back? — K. Timmermans (2008)
• Health advocates assail Canada's asbestos stance — R. Collier (2008)
• Controversies at international organizations over asbestos industry influence — B.I. Castleman (2001)

Browse more research in International Journal of Health Services, or return to medical research.