Knowledge of the health hazard of asbestos prior to the Merewether and Price report of 1930

Our plain-English summary of Knowledge of the health hazard of asbestos prior to the Merewether and Price report of 1930, by M. Greenberg (Social History of Medicine, 1994).

The study

• Author: M. Greenberg
• Journal: Social History of Medicine
• Published: 1994;7(3):493-516
• Type of article: Historical article
• Cited by: 12 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

The first realization of the burden of ill health associated with occupational exposure to asbestos dust, and the need for environmental control, is generally dated from the publication of the results of the survey by Merewether and Price in 1930. A review of the literature and of associated archival material throws a different light on history. There was a wealth of evidence available prior to 1930 that should have led to earlier effective control. The responsibility for this delay must be shared between manufacturers, workers' representatives, the Factory Inspectorate and Scientists involved in the relevant research.

In plain English

This article was a historical review, not a medical study. The author examined pre-1930 published material and unpublished archival documents on what was known about the asbestos hazard in Britain, France, Canada and the United States before the 1930 Merewether and Price report. The author argued that this report, which traced its inquiry to a 1928 case, gave a selective history. The earlier evidence described included an 1898 report by Women Factory Inspector Lucy Deane. It also included a man seen by Dr Montague Murray who said he was the only survivor of ten people in his carding room; the author found no evidence this claim was checked. A 1906 French report claimed some 50 deaths at one asbestos textile factory. There were 1918 American publications, and a Rochdale doctor told a coroner he saw 10-12 cases a year among his patients working in asbestos. A 1912 Canadian inquiry gave reassurance without physical examinations. The author concluded that the pre-1930 evidence should have led to earlier effective control, and that responsibility for the delay was shared.

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: historical review of published literature and archival material
• Who was studied: Historical evidence from before 1930 on asbestos workers in Britain, France, Canada and the United States, drawn from published reports and archival documents
• Exposure: Occupational exposure to asbestos dust, mainly in asbestos factory and textile work (sifting, carding, spinning, weaving), plus Canadian asbestos mines and mills; fiber types are not specified for the historical evidence
• Main results:
  • The author argued that the Merewether and Price 1930 report presented a selective history of awareness of the asbestos hazard
  • The author identified Women Factory Inspector Lucy Deane's 1898 report as the earliest account of the serious hazard
  • Murray's patient said he was the only survivor of the ten people working in his carding room; the author found no evidence that this claim was checked
  • The 1906 French report by Auribault described one asbestos textile factory in which 16 of 17 workers recruited from the founder's cotton mill died between 1890 and 1895. Auribault noted that these data could not be verified in the local registers.
  • The 1912 Canadian inquiry into the Quebec mines gave reassurance without physical examinations or death statistics
  • A 1918 US official publication reported that American and Canadian insurance companies were declining to insure asbestos workers
  • At the inquest in the Cooke case, Rochdale family doctor Dr Joss told the coroner that he saw 10-12 cases a year among his patients working in asbestos
  • A search of the records of one union (Amalgamated Society of Indiarubber, Cable and Asbestos Workers) from 1921 to 1944 found no mention of ill health as a problem for members
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that a wealth of evidence available before 1930 should have led to earlier effective control. The author held that responsibility for the delay must be shared between manufacturers, workers' representatives, the Factory Inspectorate and scientists.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • Supporting archival papers were missing, so the author could not account for disparities between historical accounts
  • The clinical notes and autopsy report for Murray's patient have not been found
  • Lucy Deane's diaries do not show where her information on asbestos workers came from

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Occupational Exposure.

Related studies

• The art of perpetuating a public health hazard — M. Greenberg (2005)
• Minimising health hazards associated with derogated products and in-situ materials containing chrysotile contaminated with amphibole asbestos fibres — R.M. Howie (1999)
• Sources in the history of occupational health: the Turner & Newall archive — G. Tweedale (2000)
• Government and Navy knowledge regarding health hazards of asbestos: a state of the science evaluation (1900 to 1970) — K. Franke, D. Paustenbach (2011)
• The Public Health Value of Opioid Litigation — R.L. Haffajee (2020)
• With the best intentions: lead research and the challenge to public health — D. Rosner, G. Markowitz (2012)

Browse return to medical research.