Re: Paradis G. Ban all production and export of chrysotile asbestos \[Editor's Page\]. Can J Public Health 2010;101(5):352

Our plain-English summary of Re: Paradis G. Ban all production and export of chrysotile asbestos [Editor's Page]. Can J Public Health 2010;101(5):352, by M. Greenberg (Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique, 2011).

The study

• Author: M. Greenberg
• Journal: Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique
• Published: 2011;102(1):76
• Type of article: Letter, Comment
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

In plain English

This item is a letter to the editor, not a research study. It reports no new data, measurements or study results. The author, writing from London, England, responded to a Canadian Journal of Public Health editorial that called for a ban on all production and export of chrysotile asbestos. The author commended the Canadian Public Health Association, the Canadian Cancer Society and the Canadian Medical Association for aligning with United Nations agencies and the European Union in calling for the elimination of asbestos use and export. The author argued that denial had been Canada's stance as early as 1912, citing the Labour Gazette. In the author's view, the 1976 Quebec and 1984 Ontario Royal Commission inquiries into chrysotile did not provoke an outcry or impair exports. The author also noted that the CMA's journal had debated a worldwide ban as late as 2001. The author proposed that Canada establish a Truth Commission to review why asbestos production continued for over one hundred years. These are the author's opinions, not study findings.

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 piece); not a research study
• Exposure: Canada's production, use and export of chrysotile asbestos (subject of the letter, not a measured exposure)
• Main results:
  • No research findings. The author commended Canadian health organizations for aligning with United Nations agencies and the European Union in calling for the elimination of asbestos use and export.
  • The author asserted that denial had been Canada's stance since 1912, citing a 1912 Labour Gazette, and that it continues among public relations lobbyists.
  • The author's view was that the Quebec (1976) and Ontario Royal Commission (1984) inquiries into chrysotile did not provoke an outcry or impair exports.
  • The author noted that the CMA's journal debated a worldwide asbestos ban as late as 2001.
• The authors' conclusion: The author suggested Canada could make amends by setting up a Truth Commission with a panel of experts to review why asbestos production continued for over one hundred years and what lessons can be learned.

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.

Related studies

• Ban all production and export of chrysotile asbestos — G. Paradis (2010)
• South African asbestos: production, exports, and destinations, 1959-1993 — J.S. Harington, N.D. McGlashan (1998)
• The art of perpetuating a public health hazard — M. Greenberg (2005)
• South Africa's export trade in asbestos: demise of an industry — J.S. Harington, N.D. McGlashan, et al. (2010)
• Quebec stands firm on asbestos exports despite growing controversy — L. Eggertson (2010)
• Canada accused of hypocrisy over asbestos exports — T. Kirby (2010)

Browse more research in Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique, or return to medical research.