Canada, chrysotile, and the search for truth

Our plain-English summary of Canada, chrysotile, and the search for truth, by T. Ogden (The Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 2008).

The study

• Author: T. Ogden
• Journal: The Annals of Occupational Hygiene
• Published: 2008;52(8):673-4
• Type of article: Editorial
• Cited by: 3 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This was an editorial by the editor-in-chief of the Annals of Occupational Hygiene, not a research study, and it reported no new health data. The author explained that a planned commentary on chrysotile asbestos health risks could not be published because it relied on reports the Canadian government had held since mid-March 2008 without releasing them. Those reports came from a November 2007 meeting in Montreal, called by Health Canada, of experts who had previously disagreed about chrysotile. The author chaired it. The author wrote that the panel reached considerable consensus, though not unanimity, and made no recommendations on use, controls or bans. The editorial noted that Canada produced 175 000 tonnes of chrysotile in 2006. It also noted that Canada and a few other countries had blocked listing chrysotile under the Rotterdam Convention trade treaty in 1998, 2003, 2004 and 2006. The author objected to disguising economic and political decisions as scientific ones, and noted the piece was written in early September 2008 and might be proved wrong.

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)
• Who was studied: No study population. The editorial discusses a panel of asbestos experts convened by Health Canada, which met in Montreal for 2 days in November 2007 and finalized its reports in March 2008.
• Exposure: Chrysotile asbestos, discussed as a subject of Canadian and international policy rather than as a measured exposure
• Main results:
  • The editorial stated that Canada produced 175 000 tonnes of chrysotile in 2006 and exported it to 70 countries (citing Natural Resources Canada, 2007).
  • The editorial stated that larger 2006 production estimates included 1 120 000 tonnes by Russia, 350 000 tonnes by China, 241 000 tonnes by Kazakhstan and 230 000 tonnes by Brazil.
  • The author, who chaired the Health Canada expert meeting and oversaw preparation of its reports, wrote that there was a considerable degree of consensus among the experts, although not unanimity.
  • According to the author, the panel's reports had not been published as of early September 2008, although the workplan said they would appear on the Health Canada website.
  • The author wrote that the panel's report did not make recommendations concerning use, controls or bans of chrysotile.
  • The editorial stated that Canada and a small number of other countries prevented the inclusion of chrysotile in the Rotterdam Convention list in 1998, 2003, 2004 and 2006. In 2006, over 100 countries were in favour and 6 were against.
• The authors' conclusion: The author stated that the editorial's main concern was the problem of disguising economic and political decisions as scientific ones by using outdated or possibly one-sided evidence. The author also called it unfortunate that Canada had chosen not to make the panel's deliberations public.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The author noted that, because of publication deadlines, the editorial was written in early September 2008 and its expectations might be proved wrong.

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.

Related studies

• Canadian chrysotile report released--at last — T.L. Ogden (2009)
• Health advocates assail Canada's asbestos stance — R. Collier (2008)
• Asbestos risks: Manville tries to pass the buck — S. Budiansky (1983)
• Statement of the Collegium Ramazzini — M. Soffritti, P.J. Landrigan (2004)
• Canada, chrysotile and cancer: Health Canada's Asbestos International Expert Panel report — L.T. Stayner (2008)
• Comments on "Comparative hazards of chrysotile asbestos and its substitutes: a European perspective" — H. Savastano (1999)

Browse more research in The Annals of Occupational Hygiene, or return to medical research.