Controversies at international organizations over asbestos industry influence

Our plain-English summary of Controversies at international organizations over asbestos industry influence, by B.I. Castleman (International Journal of Health Services, 2001).

The study

• Author: B.I. Castleman
• Journal: International Journal of Health Services
• Published: 2001;31(1):193-202
• Cited by: 14 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

International scientific organizations have been subject to repeated efforts by Canadian government officials and representatives of the asbestos industry to issue reports that would be favorable to the industry on questions of asbestos use and public health implications. In recent years these efforts have been met with international opposition from scientists, governments, unions, and environmental groups, and a pattern of improprieties, often involving the same individuals and tactics, has emerged. This has been a serious threat to scientific objectivity at the most respected international scientific bodies in the world. The manipulation of these international organizations takes on unprecedented significance in this age of the World Trade Organization.

In plain English

This article is a commentary, not a research study. The author gave a narrative account, drawn from letters and documents, of efforts by Canadian government officials and asbestos industry representatives to influence asbestos reports at the International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labor Organization (ILO). The account described the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health withdrawing from IPCS activities in 1993, and a 1996 protest letter from 81 scientists. It described a 1998 IPCS task group report concluding that no exposure threshold had been identified for chrysotile's cancer risk. It also described a 1999 WHO-Europe report whose distribution was halted in June 1999, and an ILO draft monograph with an asbestos chapter written by an Asbestos Institute official, which the ILO withdrew. The author was among those acknowledged as having commented on the WHO-Europe report. The author concluded that asbestos interests had repeatedly tried to get industry-favorable reports published as official reports. The author noted that missing WHO records may prevent examining industry influence on a 1989 meeting.

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 or narrative historical account based on correspondence, meeting reports and official documents. It is not an epidemiological or laboratory study, and it is adapted from an earlier Italian-language article.
• Who was studied: International scientific organizations (IPCS, WHO including its regional offices and IARC, and the ILO) and their asbestos reports and meetings, from the 1970s through 2000
• Exposure: Not a health exposure study. The subject was influence by Canadian government officials and asbestos industry representatives on reports about asbestos, including chrysotile, asbestos-cement construction materials and automotive friction products
• Main results:
  • In 1993 the Acting Director of NIOSH wrote that NIOSH would stop participating in IPCS activities. The letter cited concern about scientific objectivity, including a chrysotile criteria document written by people with industry ties.
  • In April 1996, a protest letter about improper business influence on IPCS reports was signed by 81 scientists in occupational and environmental health
  • At the July 1996 IPCS chrysotile task group, the Canadian government official chairing it tried to veto a warning against asbestos in construction materials. The official stepped down as chair when the group held firm.
  • The IPCS chrysotile report published in 1998 concluded that no exposure threshold had been identified for the cancer risk of chrysotile. It recommended safer substitutes, particularly in construction materials.
  • The 1989 WHO Oxford meeting recommended chrysotile occupational exposure limits of 2 fibres/ml, then 1 fibre/ml or below (8-hour time weighted average). According to the author, the report did not acknowledge stricter limits already adopted in the United States (0.2 fiber/milliliter) and Norway (0.1 fiber/milliliter).
  • The WHO-Europe Asbestos and Health report was published in April 1999. WHO headquarters moved to halt its distribution in June 1999, and a revised second edition was issued in late 2000.
  • The author was among those acknowledged in the 1999 WHO-Europe report as having submitted comments
  • A 1997 ILO draft monograph on fibers had an asbestos chapter written by an Asbestos Institute official. After protests, the ILO withdrew it from consideration as an ILO publication.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that asbestos interests, led by the government of Canada, had made serious efforts to get industry-favorable reports published as official reports by the IPCS, WHO and ILO. In the author's account, it took strenuous efforts by independent scientists, unions, environmental groups and U.S. agencies to prompt reappraisals.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The WHO no longer keeps a file on the 1989 Oxford meeting, so the industry's role in selecting its participants may never be examinable

Related studies

• WTO confidential: the case of asbestos. World Trade Organization — B. Castleman (2002)
• The International Commission on Occupational Health (ICOH) and its influence on international organizations — N.A. Ashford, B. Castleman, et al. (2002)
• IARC in the dock over ties with asbestos industry — D. Holmes (2013)
• Asbestos poisons World Trade Organization atmosphere — L. Kazan-Allen (2001)
• Corporate corruption of medical literature: asbestos studies concealed by W.R. Grace & Co — D. Egilman, W. Wallace, et al. (1998)
• 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)

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