Policy: chrysotile on ice

Our plain-English summary of Policy: chrysotile on ice, by R. Renner (Environmental Health Perspectives, 2007).

The study

• Author: R. Renner
• Journal: Environmental Health Perspectives
• Published: 2007;115(3):A130
• Type of article: News
• Cited by: 7 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

Summary of the article

This news report described the October 2006 decision by parties to the Rotterdam Convention, a group of more than 100 countries that share information about hazardous chemicals, not to add chrysotile asbestos to the convention's list of chemicals that require prior informed consent (PIC) before export. The 1998 convention required PIC for more than 30 chemicals. This was the second time the convention had declined to list chrysotile. Carl Smith of the Foundation for Advancements in Science and Education said that listing is not a ban, only an agreement to share information. He said chrysotile met all requirements for listing but remained economically important. The article reported that chrysotile products such as pipes and roof shingles were still widely used in the developing world, and that a Wall Street Journal estimate valued the trade at $600 million a year. A panel of 31 experts on the Chemical Review Committee had found that chrysotile met the listing criteria, and most meeting participants supported listing. Canada, Ukraine, Russia, Kyrgyzstan, India, Iran and Peru objected and blocked action. The Canadian government-funded Chrysotile Institute maintained that chrysotile is less toxic than amphibole asbestos. Other groups called controlled use a fallacy and noted that the WHO and other bodies classify chrysotile as a human carcinogen. Further consideration was deferred to 2008.

PubMed has no abstract for this study, and the article doesn't print one. We wrote this summary from the full article with the help of AI. It is not the authors' wording.

In plain English

This was a short news item in the Environews Forum section, not a research study. It reported no new data on health effects. The author reported that in October 2006 the parties to the Rotterdam Convention, a group of more than 100 countries that share information about hazardous chemicals, chose not to add chrysotile asbestos to the list of chemicals that need prior informed consent before export. It was the second time the Convention had declined to list chrysotile. A panel of 31 experts on the convention's Chemical Review Committee had found beforehand that chrysotile met the listing criteria. Canada, Ukraine, Russia, Kyrgyzstan, India, Iran and Peru objected and blocked the listing. The article gave the views of a nonprofit foundation official who backed listing and of the Canadian-funded Chrysotile Institute, which says chrysotile is less toxic than amphibole asbestos. It stated that the WHO and other groups classify chrysotile as a human carcinogen. Further discussion was put off until 2008.

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 item (policy report in the Environews Forum section of a journal); not a research study
• Who was studied: No study population. The item reports on the parties to the Rotterdam Convention, more than 100 countries, and their October 2006 decision
• Exposure: Chrysotile asbestos, discussed as a traded material. The article names chrysotile-based products such as pipes and roof shingles, and chrysotile used in cement for water pipes.
• Main results:
  • In October 2006 the Convention parties decided not to add chrysotile asbestos to the list of hazardous chemicals subject to right-to-know export controls
  • This was the second time the Convention declined to list chrysotile
  • Before the meeting, a panel of 31 experts on the convention's Chemical Review Committee determined that chrysotile met the criteria for listing
  • Canada, Ukraine, Russia, Kyrgyzstan, India, Iran and Peru objected and blocked action, citing scientific uncertainty about chrysotile's health effects or its usefulness
  • The Chrysotile Institute, funded by the Canadian government, maintains that chrysotile is not as toxic as amphibole asbestos
  • The article states that chrysotile is classified as a human carcinogen by the WHO, the Collegium Ramazzini, the World Trade Organization and other groups
  • Trade in chrysotile was worth $600 million a year, according to a 7 November 2005 Wall Street Journal estimate
  • The parties deferred further consideration until their next meeting in 2008
• The authors' conclusion: The article does not state a conclusion of its own. It reports opposing views from named organizations and the deferral of the decision to 2008.

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, Informed Consent, Chrysotile Institute, Amphibole Asbestos, Controlled Use.

Related studies

• Canada accused of hypocrisy over asbestos exports — T. Kirby (2010)
• Minimising health hazards associated with derogated products and in-situ materials containing chrysotile contaminated with amphibole asbestos fibres — R.M. Howie (1999)
• Comparative hazards of chrysotile asbestos and its substitutes: A European perspective — P.T. Harrison, L.S. Levy, et al. (1999)
• Change of carcinogenic chrysotile fibers in the asbestos cement (eternit) to harmless waste by artificial carbonatization: petrological and technological results — M. Radvanec, L. Tuček, et al. (2013)
• Asbestos in New York City public school buildings--public policy: is there a scientific basis? — R. Wilson, A.M. Langer, et al. (1994)
• The role of threshold limit values in U.S. air pollution policy — J.C. Robinson, D.G. Paxman (1992)

Browse more research in Environmental Health Perspectives, or return to medical research.