Health advocates assail Canada's asbestos stance

Our plain-English summary of Health advocates assail Canada's asbestos stance, by R. Collier (CMAJ, 2008).

The study

• Author: R. Collier
• Journal: CMAJ
• Published: 2008;179(12):1257
• Type of article: News
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

In plain English

This is a news article by Roger Collier in CMAJ, not a research study, and it reports no health data. It described a United Nations Rotterdam Convention meeting in Rome, Italy, held October 27 to 31, attended by representatives from 126 countries. At that meeting chrysotile asbestos was not added to the convention's Prior Informed Consent list of hazardous chemicals. The article explained that countries may still import listed substances but must acknowledge they know the material is harmful. Canadian representatives abstained from the discussions, but some attendees blamed Canada, and consultant Barry Castleman said Canada was active behind the scenes. The article noted that India, Pakistan and Vietnam, the main importers of Canadian chrysotile, were the most vocal opponents of listing it. Several advocates quoted said the convention had suffered a setback or was finished. John Bridle of Asbestos Watchdog disagreed, claiming that white asbestos is no more carcinogenic than contraceptive pills or alcoholic beverages. The article reported this claim without evaluating it. A Canadian Cancer Society official called the listing overdue.

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: news article (journalism, not a research study)
• Who was studied: Participants in and commentators on the United Nations Rotterdam Convention meeting in Rome, Italy, October 27 to 31, attended by representatives from 126 countries; health and environment advocates and others quoted by the journalist
• Exposure: Canada's export of chrysotile asbestos and whether chrysotile should be added to the Rotterdam Convention's list of hazardous chemicals
• Main results:
  • Chrysotile was not added to the list of hazardous chemicals at the meeting
  • Under the Prior Informed Consent list, countries are not banned from importing listed substances but must acknowledge they are receiving harmful materials
  • Canadian representatives abstained from discussions, but some attendees blamed Canada for the failure
  • Barry Castleman said Canada did not officially oppose adding chrysotile but was active behind the scenes
  • India, Pakistan and Vietnam, the main importers of Canadian chrysotile, were the most vocal opponents of declaring it dangerous at the convention
  • John Bridle of the UK-based Asbestos Watchdog claimed white asbestos is no more carcinogenic than common products such as contraceptive pills and alcoholic beverages. This is a quoted claim, not a finding of the article.
  • Paul Lapierre of the Canadian Cancer Society said adding chrysotile to the list was overdue
• The authors' conclusion: As a news report, the article draws no conclusion of its own. It presents views of advocates who said Canada's stance damaged its reputation and the convention, alongside a dissenting view.

Topics

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

Related studies

• Asbestos poisons World Trade Organization atmosphere — L. Kazan-Allen (2001)
• Canada accused of hypocrisy over asbestos exports — T. Kirby (2010)
• UN Scientific Agency collaborating with scientists involved in sabotaging UN Rotterdam Convention — K. Ruff (2013)
• International jurisprudence on trade and environmental health: one step forward, two steps back? — K. Timmermans (2008)
• Asbestos in Canada: time to change our legacy — T. Dummer, C. Gotay (2015)
• Canada, chrysotile, and the search for truth — T. Ogden (2008)

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