Ongoing downplaying of the carcinogenicity of chrysotile asbestos by vested interests

Our plain-English summary of Ongoing downplaying of the carcinogenicity of chrysotile asbestos by vested interests, by X. Baur, A.L. Frank (Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, 2021).

The study

• Authors: X. Baur, A.L. Frank
• Journal: Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology
• Published: 2021;16(1):6
• Type of article: Letter
• Cited by: 11 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

Abstract

Industries that mine, manufacture and sell asbestos or asbestos-containing products have a long tradition of promoting the use of asbestos, while placing the burden of economic and health costs on workers and society. This has been successfully done in recent years and decades in spite of the overwhelming evidence that all asbestos types are carcinogenic and cause asbestosis. In doing so, the asbestos industry has undermined the WHO campaign to reach a worldwide ban of asbestos and to eliminate asbestos-related diseases. Even worse, in recent years they succeeded in continuing asbestos mining and consuming in the range of about 1.3 million tons annually. Nowadays, production takes place predominantly in Russia, Kazakhstan and China. Chrysotile is the only asbestos type still sold and represents 95% of asbestos traded over the last century.The asbestos industry, especially its PR agency, the International Chrysotile Association, ICA, financed by asbestos mining companies in Russia, Kazakhstan and Zimbabwe and asbestos industrialists in India and Mexico, continues to be extremely active by using slogans such as chrysotile can be used safely.Another approach of the asbestos industry and of some of its insurance agencies is to broadly defeat liability claims of asbestos victims.In doing so they systematically use inappropriate science produced by their own and/or by industry-affiliated researchers. Some of the latter were also engaged in producing defense material for other industries including the tobacco industry. Frequent examples of distributing such disinformation include questioning or denying established scientific knowledge about adverse health effects of asbestos. False evidence continues to be published in scientific journals and books.The persisting strong influence of vested asbestos-related interests in workers and public health issues including regulations and compensation necessitate ongoing alertness, corrections and appropriate reactions in scientific as well as public media and policy advisory bodies.

In plain English

This was a commentary, not an original study. The authors criticised recent publications, including a pathology journal article and a chapter of a WHO/IARC book, that they said questioned the cancer-causing potential of chrysotile asbestos by citing selected references. They pointed out that in one UK study only 2% of the fibers found in lungs were chrysotile, although chrysotile made up as much as 90% of the asbestos used in the UK. They stated that in Germany the number of accepted lung cancer cases had stayed at about 800 per year for nearly two decades, while physician-reported cases rose to some 5000 a year. They also criticised a German lung-fiber study that was based on only six autopsy patients. They argued that very low or absent amphibole contamination does not match the pattern of disease in chrysotile-exposed workers, that all exposures matter, and that potency estimates were too uncertain to guide policy. The authors concluded that promoting chrysotile and downplaying its harms is driven by commercial interests and is not supported by scientific evidence.

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 critiquing other published work; no original data collected
• Who was studied: Publications the authors attribute to vested interests, including a pathology journal article and a section of a WHO/IARC book, plus UK and German studies of lung fiber burden
• Exposure: Chrysotile asbestos
• Main results:
  • The authors stated that the WHO/IARC book section questioned chrysotile carcinogenicity by citing selected references (Hodgson & Darnton; Berman & Crump), which the authors said misclassified exposure
  • In the UK lung-burden study the authors criticised (Gilham and colleagues), only 2% of the fibers found in lungs were chrysotile, although chrysotile made up as much as 90% of the asbestos used in the UK
  • The authors stated that in Germany accepted lung cancer cases had plateaued at about 800 per year for nearly two decades, while physician-reported cases rose to some 5000 a year
  • The authors criticised the German study by Feder et al. for basing its fiber analysis on only six autopsy patients
  • The authors argued that amphibole contamination of chrysotile is unlikely to explain disease in exposed workers
  • The authors argued that later asbestos exposures, not only the first exposure, contribute to mesothelioma
  • The authors argued that statistical estimates of the relative potency of different fiber types are too uncertain to guide policy
  • The authors noted that lung mineral analysis varies considerably between laboratories
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that promoting chrysotile and downplaying its adverse health effects, especially its carcinogenicity, is driven by commercial interests and is not supported by scientific evidence

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Chrysotile, Carcinogenic.

Related studies

• Malignant mesothelioma: Ongoing controversies about its etiology in females — X. Baur, A.L. Frank, et al. (2021)
• The carcinogenicity of chrysotile asbestos--a review — W.J. Nicholson (2001)
• The carcinogenicity of chrysotile asbestos — J.S. Harington (1991)
• The Potential Contribution of Hexavalent Chromium to the Carcinogenicity of Chrysotile Asbestos — M. Walter, W.D.C. Schenkeveld, et al. (2022)
• Effects of phosphorylation of chrysotile on pleuropulmonary fibrogenicity and carcinogenicity — H. Daniel, A. Wastiaux, et al. (1993)
• Australia's Ongoing Legacy of Asbestos: Significant Challenges Remain Even after the Complete Banning of Asbestos Almost Fifteen Years Ago — M. Soeberg, D.A. Vallance, et al. (2018)

Browse more research in Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, or return to medical research.