Deconstructing a state-of-the-art review of the asbestos brake industry

Our plain-English summary of Deconstructing a state-of-the-art review of the asbestos brake industry, by D.S. Egilman, E.L. Ardolino, S. Howe, et al (New Solutions, 2011).

The study

• Authors: D.S. Egilman, E.L. Ardolino, S. Howe, T. Bird
• Journal: New Solutions
• Published: 2011;21(4):545-71
• Cited by: 13 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

State of the art is a legal concept that describes what was known as knowable by experts including manufacturer's state of knowledge about the potential hazards of their product(s) at a point in time. In 2004, Paustenbach et al. published a state-of-the-art review that describes the development of knowledge about asbestos hazards to brake mechanics performing asbestos brake installation and maintenance. Paustenbach et al.'s review, however, omits important pieces of corporate knowledge, dismisses several historical scientific conclusions and ignores the way experts have applied the results of scientific research to protect workers and consumers handling asbestos brakes. By taking their state-of-the-art review out of the legal liability context, Paustenbach et al. create a misleading version of events that fails to properly address the question of what asbestos brake manufacturers knew or should have known about the potential hazards of their brakes to mechanics over time. Without proper presentation of this information, judges and juries cannot adequately assess whether these companies had a duty to warn or take other action to prevent injury to those exposed to their asbestos brakes.

In plain English

This article was a critical review, not a study of workers. The authors examined a corporate-funded 2004 'state-of-the-art' review by Paustenbach and colleagues. That review covered what was known, from 1900 to 2002, about asbestos hazards to brake mechanics who installed and maintained asbestos brakes. The authors drew on corporate documents uncovered through lawsuits, on international literature, and on a re-analysis of articles the 2004 review cited. They argued that the 2004 review left out information held privately by companies. They also argued that it focused on proof of causation rather than 'cause for concern', which they described as the trigger for a warning. They cited a 1972 letter from the president of the Friction Materials Standards Institute saying brake lining suppliers had a responsibility to warn customers who drilled or ground linings. They also argued that the threshold limit values (exposure limits) of the time were designed only to protect against non-cancer effects. The authors concluded that the 2004 review gave a misleading account of what brake manufacturers knew or should have known.

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: Critical review (commentary) of a published 2004 medico-legal state-of-the-art review, using corporate documents from litigation, international literature, and re-analysis of articles cited in that review
• Who was studied: No human subjects. The object of study was the 2004 review by Paustenbach, Finley, Lu, Brorby, and Sheehan, which covered the published literature from 1900 to 2002 in three time periods. The authors also examined corporate documents uncovered through toxic tort litigation and international literature.
• Exposure: Asbestos in brake linings and pads; exposure of brake mechanics during brake installation and maintenance (including grinding, drilling, cutting and compressed air blowout)
• Main results:
  • The authors reported that the 2004 review was limited to published studies and left out information held privately by asbestos product manufacturers, as well as international literature
  • The authors argued that the 2004 review focused on 'causation' when 'cause for concern' is the appropriate consideration for triggering a warning
  • The authors cited a 1972 letter from Ed Drislane, president of the Friction Materials Standards Institute, to J. H. Kelly of Bendix Corporation. The letter stated that customers drilling or grinding linings without proper dust collectors would probably violate the OSHA standard, and that the supplier was responsible for warning them.
  • The authors reported that the 2004 review omitted conclusions of a 1970 brake maintenance study by Hickish and Knight (consultants for Ford Motor Company), including that the asbestos standard may be exceeded in the dust cloud during brake cleaning
  • The authors argued that threshold limit values were designed only to protect against non-cancer effects of asbestos, not lung cancer or mesothelioma. On that basis, they said exposure measurements below the TLV did not address cancer risk.
  • The authors argued that the 2004 review's criticism of older studies for lacking fiber type information was anachronistic, because questions about differences in potency between fiber types did not arise until the mid-1960s
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that, by taking their review out of the legal liability context, Paustenbach et al. created a misleading version of events. In the authors' view, it failed to address what asbestos brake manufacturers knew or should have known about hazards to mechanics.

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: State-of-the-Art Defense, Corporate Knowledge, Brake Lining, Duty to Warn.

Related studies

• The silence: the asbestos industry and early occupational cancer research--a case study — D.E. Lilienfeld (1991)
• Environmental and occupational health hazards associated with the presence of asbestos in brake linings and pads (1900 to present): A "state-of-the-art" review — S.S. Paskal (2004)
• "Ain't Necessarily So!": The Brake Industry's Impact on Asbestos Regulation in the 1970s — D. Rosner, G. Markowitz (2017)
• Risk of cancer from occupational exposure to ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study of workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS) — D.B. Richardson, E. Cardis, et al. (2015)
• Mortality of brain tumors among asbestos insulation workers in the United States and Canada — H. Seidman, I.J. Selikoff, et al. (1982)
• Job tasks, potential exposures, and health risks of laborers employed in the construction industry — G. Burkhart, P.A. Schulte, et al. (1993)

Browse more research in New Solutions, or return to medical research.