Canadian hypocrisy regarding chrysotile

Our plain-English summary of Canadian hypocrisy regarding chrysotile, by J. Bridle, J. Hoskins (Lancet, 2011).

The study

• Authors: J. Bridle, J. Hoskins
• Journal: Lancet
• Published: 2011;377(9767):720
• Type of article: Letter, Comment
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This item is a letter to the editor, not a research study, and it reported no data. Writing on behalf of the Asbestos Watchdog, the authors objected to a Lancet World Report on asbestos by Tony Kirby, titled 'Canada accused of hypocrisy over asbestos exports'. They wrote that it seemed inappropriate for The Lancet to make what appeared to be a policy statement on chrysotile asbestos based on one writer's opinion. The authors said the letter was not the place to discuss the science. They stated, without giving evidence in the letter, that the findings of many occupational physicians and others over decades differed from those in the report. They asserted that position statements from WHO, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Cancer Society and the UK Government were mostly personal opinions without supporting science. They also said these organisations had refused repeated requests for evidence or public debate. The authors offered to write a scientifically balanced Comment. They disclosed that one author had accepted meeting expenses from the Canadian Chrysotile Institute and that the other had accepted paid work from it.

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 (correspondence) responding to a Lancet World Report; not a research study
• Exposure: Chrysotile asbestos (discussed in general terms; no exposure data given)
• Main results:
  • The authors objected that The Lancet made what appeared to be a policy statement on chrysotile asbestos based on one writer's opinion
  • The authors asserted, without presenting evidence in the letter, that the findings of occupational physicians and others over decades differ from those stated in the World Report
  • The authors asserted that statements by WHO, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Cancer Society and the UK Government are mostly personal opinions with no supporting science
  • The authors said these organisations had refused repeated requests to provide evidence or engage in public debate
  • Disclosure: JB had accepted expenses for attending meetings sponsored by the Canadian Chrysotile Institute, and JH had accepted paid work from the same institute
• The authors' conclusion: The authors offered to provide a scientifically balanced Comment if The Lancet wished to print one

Topics

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

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

Related studies

• Canada accused of hypocrisy over asbestos exports — T. Kirby (2010)
• Exposing the "myth" of ABC, "anything but chrysotile": a critique of the Canadian asbestos mining industry and McGill University chrysotile studies — D. Egilman, C. Fehnel, et al. (2003)
• Canadian chrysotile report released--at last — T.L. Ogden (2009)
• 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)
• Hazards of white asbestos — A.J. Dalton (1998)
• The biopersistence of Canadian chrysotile asbestos following inhalation: final results through 1 year after cessation of exposure — D. Bernstein, R. Rogers, et al. (2005)

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