Re: Call for an International Ban on Asbestos: Why not ban asbestos?

Our plain-English summary of Re: Call for an International Ban on Asbestos: Why not ban asbestos?, by B. Castleman (American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 2000).

The study

• Author: B. Castleman
• Journal: American Journal of Industrial Medicine
• Published: 2000;37(2):239-40
• Type of article: Comment, Letter
• Cited by: 1 article, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This is a letter to the editor, not a research study. The author responded to a letter by J.C. McDonald about a call for an international ban on asbestos. The author wrote that McDonald's argument was essentially the same as Canada's World Trade Organization (WTO) case against France's asbestos ban, and that Canada's underlying aim was to preserve markets for chrysotile asbestos in developing nations. The author stated that France imports asbestos substitutes, including cellulose fiber from Canada (380,000 tonnes in 1998). The author also stated that national bans were adopted for public health reasons, not trade reasons. The author argued that worker protection in manufacturing may worsen as smaller companies replace multinationals in the asbestos business. The author reported that McDonald recommended 20 f/cc as an occupational exposure limit for chrysotile at a July 1999 conference in Sao Paulo. The author described this as 200 times the United States limit. The author added that Brazil later announced it would ban asbestos by 2005. The author concluded that the regulatory record since the early 1970s offers abundant evidence that a ban is the most effective protection.

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: Letter to the editor (opinion and commentary) replying to a letter by J.C. McDonald; no original data were collected
• Who was studied: No study population. The letter discusses the WTO case brought by Canada challenging France's asbestos ban, and asbestos use in developing nations and Brazil
• Exposure: Chrysotile asbestos and its 'controlled use', including asbestos milling, manufacturing, asbestos-cement products and brake repairs
• Main results:
  • The author stated that France imports asbestos substitute materials, including cellulose fiber from Canada (380,000 tonnes in 1998), as evidence against the claim that bans are trade protectionism
  • The author stated that, with multinational corporations withdrawing from the asbestos business, worker protection in manufacturing may worsen if asbestos continues to be used
  • The author stated that in Brazil, General Motors and other companies use asbestos products in ways they have stopped in North America and leading European countries
  • The author reported that McDonald recommended 20 f/cc as an occupational exposure limit for chrysotile at a July 1999 Sao Paulo conference, which the author called 200 times the limit in the United States and other countries
  • The author reported that Brazil's Minister of the Environment announced Brazil would ban asbestos by 2005, following the European Union timetable
  • The author stated that the United States urged the WTO to dismiss Canada's asbestos case
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that the regulatory era since the early 1970s has offered abundant evidence that a ban is the most effective way to protect people from asbestos

Related studies

• Re: Call for an International Ban on Asbestos: Why not ban asbestos? — J.C. McDonald (2000)
• Re: Call for an International Ban on Asbestos — C. Maltoni (2000)
• Re: Call for an International Ban on Asbestos: Trust me, I'm a doctor — M. Greenberg (2000)
• RE: Call for an International Ban on Asbestos: Why asbestos should be banned — R.A. Lemen (2000)
• Re: Call for an International Ban on Asbestos — W.J. Nicholson (2000)
• Global corporate policies and international "double standards" in occupational and environmental health — B. Castleman (1999)

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