Exposing the "myth" of ABC, "anything but chrysotile": a critique of the Canadian asbestos mining industry and McGill University chrysotile studies

Our plain-English summary of Exposing the "myth" of ABC, "anything but chrysotile": a critique of the Canadian asbestos mining industry and McGill University chrysotile studies, by D. Egilman, C. Fehnel, S.R. Bohme (American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 2003).

The study

• Authors: D. Egilman, C. Fehnel, S.R. Bohme
• Journal: American Journal of Industrial Medicine
• Published: 2003;44(5):540-57
• Cited by: 52 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

Background: Beginning in the 1930s, the Canadian asbestos industry created and advanced the idea that chrysotile asbestos is safer than asbestos of other fiber types.

Methods: We critically evaluate published and unpublished studies funded by the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association (QAMA) and performed by researchers at McGill University.

Results: QAMA-funded researchers put forth several myths purporting that Quebec-mined chrysotile was harmless, and contended that the contamination of chrysotile with oils, tremolite, or crocidolite was the source of occupational health risk. In addition, QAMA-funded researchers manipulated data and used unsound sampling and analysis techniques to back up their contention that chrysotile was "essentially innocuous."

Conclusions: These studies were used to promote the marketing and sales of asbestos, and have had a substantial effect on policy and occupational health litigation. Asbestos manufacturing companies and the Canadian government continue to use them to promote the use of asbestos in Europe and in developing countries. Am. J. Ind. Med. 44:540-557, 2003.

Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

In plain English

This article was a critical review, not a new study. The authors examined published and unpublished studies of Quebec chrysotile miners and millers that were funded by the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association (QAMA) and done by McGill University researchers. They also drew on industry documents, letters and court testimony. They called the industry's position 'Anything But Chrysotile' and analyzed three arguments: that oil contamination, crocidolite, or tremolite, rather than chrysotile itself, caused disease. The authors argued that geological surveys found crocidolite in the local mines. They also argued that the study the McGill researchers cited for a split between high- and low-tremolite mines did not examine mine location. They criticized the exposure estimates, which relied on dust particle counts. They reported that in an earlier McGill pilot of 87 paired samples, particle counts predicted fiber counts only 13% better than random overall, and ran in the opposite direction to fiber counts in 31 of the 87 samples. The authors concluded that the industry had a long history of manipulating scientific data to support claims that its product was 'innocuous.'

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 and commentary on published and unpublished industry-funded studies, industry documents and testimony; no new data were collected
• Who was studied: Published and unpublished studies funded by the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association and performed by McGill University researchers, mainly on chrysotile miners and millers in Asbestos and Thetford Mines, Quebec
• Exposure: Quebec-mined chrysotile asbestos, and industry arguments that organic or synthetic oils, crocidolite, or tremolite contamination, rather than chrysotile itself, caused lung cancer and mesothelioma
• Main results:
  • On the oil contamination argument, the authors stated that in the end there was no evidence that organic contaminants accounted for increased cancer rates
  • On the crocidolite argument, the authors reported that two geological surveys found crocidolite (blue fibrous riebeckite) in mines in both the Asbestos and Thetford areas
  • On the tremolite argument, the authors stated that the study cited as the source for differences between 'central' (high-tremolite) and 'peripheral' (low-tremolite) mines did not examine tremolite lung levels by mine location
  • The authors argued that the mining and milling process adds tremolite to chrysotile, rather than removing it
  • Describing an earlier McGill pilot study (Gibbs and LaChance, 1974) of 87 paired samples, the authors reported that particle counts related to fiber counts only 13% better than random overall
  • In the same pilot, for low-fiber exposures, particle counts were inversely related to fiber counts in 31 of the 87 samples
  • The authors quoted a McGill researcher (McDonald, 1998b) that the lung cancer exposure-response slope in the textile industry was about fifty times steeper than in Quebec chrysotile miners and millers (the 'textile mystery')
  • The authors stated that in a 1998 analysis the researchers removed exposure categories that showed an inverse relationship with disease
  • Citing a 1995 report by Schepers, the authors stated that by 1946 at least 17 cancer cases (lung specimens of deceased Quebec miners) had been removed and were missing from the QAMA–McGill analysis
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that the Canadian asbestos mining industry had a long history of manipulating scientific data to support claims that its product was 'innocuous'

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, Quebec Asbestos Mining Association, Tremolite, Crocidolite.

Related studies

• An examination of the fibrous mineral content of asbestos lung tissue from the Canadian chrysotile mining industry — F.D. Pooley (1976)
• Pulmonary mineral fibers after occupational and environmental exposure to asbestos in the Russian chrysotile industry — A. Tossavainen, E. Kovalevsky, et al. (2000)
• Exposure to chrysotile mining dust and digestive cancer mortality in a Chinese miner/miller cohort — S. Lin, X. Wang, et al. (2014)
• Dust exposure and mortality in chrysotile mining, 1910-75. 1980 — J.C. McDonald, F.D. Liddell, et al. (1993)
• Occupational respiratory disease in mining — M.H. Ross, J. Murray (2004)
• Respiratory effects of exposure to dust in taconite mining and processing — T.C. Clark, V.A. Harrington, et al. (1980)

Browse more research in American Journal of Industrial Medicine, or return to medical research.