Asbestos: promotion or prohibition?

Our plain-English summary of Asbestos: promotion or prohibition?, by D.V. Bates (CMAJ, 1988).

The study

• Author: D.V. Bates
• Journal: CMAJ
• Published: 1988;138(5):400-1
• Type of article: Letter
• Read it: PubMed · Free full text
• In J-M's library: Johns-Manville's company medical library held a copy (J-M no. 004753).

In plain English

This item is a letter to the editor that presents no original research, though it relays second-hand exposure reports. The author was responding to points raised by Claude E. Forget, president of the Asbestos Institute, about the author's 1987 editorial. That editorial argued that the medical profession has some responsibility to ensure the safe use of asbestos exported from Canada to the Third World. The author stated that asbestos imports into Sweden had dropped dramatically because of legislation. The author wrote that the Ontario Royal Commission recommended tighter regulation, and thought it concluded that removing all asbestos from schools and other buildings would probably cause more exposure than leaving it there. The author passed on information from Dr. Barry Castleman that Indian officials had measured asbestos levels of 200 to 450 fibres per cubic centimetre in an asbestos-cement plant in India in the 1980s. The author asked the Canadian Medical Association to act to ensure that an independent commission oversees Canadian asbestos exports. In reply, Forget called such a commission impractical and argued for providing information and practical assistance instead.

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: Letter to the editor responding to comments on the author's 1987 editorial, followed by a reply from Claude E. Forget of the Asbestos Institute. It presents no original research but relays second-hand reports, including exposure measurements made by others.
• Who was studied: No study population; the letter concerns asbestos exported from Canada to Third World countries
• Exposure: Asbestos in general (no fiber type named), including work in asbestos-cement plants in developing countries
• Main results:
  • The author stated that asbestos imports into Sweden had dropped dramatically as a result of legislation and were almost confined to asbestos in prefabricated brake linings. No figures were given.
  • The author wrote that the Ontario Royal Commission recommended considerable tightening of asbestos regulations. The author also thought the commission concluded that removing all asbestos from all schools or other buildings would probably lead to more exposure than leaving it there.
  • The author's view was that the risk from asbestos in drinking water, if it exists at all, is far lower than the risk from inhaled asbestos
  • Second-hand information that Dr. Barry Castleman reported to the author: Indian officials had measured asbestos levels of 200 to 450 fibres per cubic centimetre in an asbestos-cement plant in India in the 1980s
  • In reply, Claude E. Forget opposed an independent commission to oversee and control asbestos exports, arguing instead for information and practical assistance
• The authors' conclusion: The author asked whether the Canadian Medical Association would take some action to ensure that an independent commission to oversee the export of Canadian asbestos is adopted

Related studies

• Asbestos: promotion or prohibition? — D.V. Bates (1987)
• Asbestos: promotion or prohibition? — C.E. Forget (1987)
• Asbestos: promotion or prohibition? — W.K. Morgan (1987)
• WTO confidential: the case of asbestos. World Trade Organization — B. Castleman (2002)
• Canada accused of hypocrisy over asbestos exports — T. Kirby (2010)
• Asbestos poisons World Trade Organization atmosphere — L. Kazan-Allen (2001)

Browse more research in CMAJ, or return to medical research.