Saving the asbestos industry, 1960 to 2006

Our plain-English summary of Saving the asbestos industry, 1960 to 2006, by J. McCulloch (Public Health Reports, 2006).

The study

• Author: J. McCulloch
• Journal: Public Health Reports
• Published: 2006;121(5):609-14
• Type of article: Historical article
• Cited by: 15 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

Summary of the article

This historical article examined how the asbestos industry kept its markets from 1960 to 2006 despite mounting evidence of the hazards of asbestos. Drawing on litigation documents, depositions, an affidavit, industry records, published research and an interview with J.C. Wagner, the author traced industry responses to Wagner's 1960 South African paper. That paper was based on 33 cases of pleural mesothelioma and linked the disease to blue asbestos, mostly in people exposed outside the workplace. The author described Wagner's departure from South Africa in 1962 under industry pressure, industry influence over research at the Pneumoconiosis Research Unit, and Canadian chrysotile producers' strategy of arguing that only amphiboles caused mesothelioma. He also described industry-funded bodies, including the Asbestos Information Association/North America and the Asbestos Institute, which had received more than $40 million in sponsorship by 1999. Citing documents from a Texas court case, the article reported that Owens-Illinois made regular payments to Wagner from 1986, probably exceeding $300,000 in total. During this period Wagner's views shifted toward the industry position on chrysotile and amosite, and the association was not acknowledged. The author concluded that by keeping doubt alive about chrysotile, the industry gained a 25-year reprieve in industrial states. He added that industry-sponsored research is used to justify continued asbestos mining and manufacture in countries such as India, Kazakhstan and Thailand.

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 article was a historical essay, not a medical study. It was written by an historian at an Australian university. An editor's note said the author had worked five times as a consultant for lawyers representing asbestos plaintiffs. Drawing on court records, company documents and interviews, the author described how the asbestos industry survived growing evidence of disease after 1960. The author recounted that J.C. Wagner's 1960 paper on 33 cases of pleural mesothelioma linked the disease to Cape blue asbestos, and that industry pressure led Wagner to leave South Africa in 1962. According to the author, Canadian chrysotile producers argued that only South African amphibole asbestos caused mesothelioma, although fiber types were often mixed in mines and products. The author reported that Wagner was the only member of a 1991 review panel to dissent from its finding that all asbestos types cause mesothelioma. Documents from a Texas case showed Owens-Illinois paying Wagner from 1986, probably more than $300,000 in total. The author wrote that Wagner's role with Owens-Illinois appeared to be to keep alive doubt about chrysotile, and that the industry gained a 25-year reprieve in industrial countries.

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 essay (Public Health Chronicles section) by an historian. It is based on litigation documents, company and archival records, published sources and interviews. It is not an epidemiological study or a systematic review.
• Who was studied: No study population. The subjects were the asbestos industry from about 1960 to 2006 (South African, Canadian, U.S. and UK companies and industry associations) and the career of the scientist J.C. Wagner.
• Exposure: Asbestos fiber types discussed: chrysotile (white), and amosite (brown) and crocidolite (blue), described as amphiboles. The industry argument that chrysotile could be used safely was the central issue.
• Main results:
  • The author described Wagner's 1960 paper as based on 33 cases of pleural mesothelioma. All but one patient had proven exposure to Cape blue asbestos. Only 8 of the 33 had occupational exposure, and 20 of the remaining 25 had lived near the mines as infants.
  • According to the author, the South African Asbestos Producers Advisory Committee got representatives onto committees at the Pneumoconiosis Research Unit in Johannesburg. It eventually established a right of veto over the unit's publications.
  • The author reported that the main strategy of Canadian chrysotile producers was to distinguish their fiber from the amphiboles. They argued that only South African amphibole asbestos caused mesothelioma, while chrysotile could be used safely.
  • The author wrote that the fiber-type distinction was blurred in practice. A late-1950s geological survey documented crocidolite in Quebec's chrysotile mines, amosite seams at Penge were often mixed with crocidolite, and white and blue asbestos were mixed in asbestos cement manufacture.
  • According to the author, the Asbestos Institute formed in Quebec in 1984 was dedicated to the 'safe use of chrysotile asbestos'. By 1999 it had received more than $40 million in sponsorship.
  • The author reported that in 1979 Wagner endorsed the IARC finding that chrysotile causes mesothelioma. Testifying in a 1990 court case, Wagner endorsed the industry position that even heavy chrysotile exposure does not cause mesothelioma.
  • The author reported that Wagner was the only one of 18 members of the 1991 Health Effects Institute asbestos literature review panel to dissent from its finding that all asbestos types, including chrysotile, cause mesothelioma.
  • According to documents from the Owens-Illinois vs. T&N case in Texas, as reported by the author, Owens-Illinois made regular payments to Wagner through its law firm from 1986. The arrangement lasted more than 15 years, and Wagner probably received more than $300,000 in total. An attorney's affidavit stated Owens-Illinois had been paying Wagner $6,000 per month for a period.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that it appears Wagner's role with Owens-Illinois was to keep alive doubt about the causal link between chrysotile and mesothelioma. The author also concluded that industry spending on research and publicity gave the industry a 25-year reprieve in the industrial states, while industry-sponsored research is used to justify continued asbestos mining and manufacturing in countries such as India, Kazakhstan and Thailand.

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Asbestosis, Lung cancer, Mesothelioma.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Deposition, Pleural Mesothelioma, Crocidolite, Pneumoconiosis, Chrysotile, Amphibole Group, Mesothelioma, Owens-Illinois.

Related studies

• Double standards: the multinational asbestos industry and asbestos-related disease in South Africa — J. McCulloch, G. Tweedale (2004)
• Epidemiology of malignant mesothelioma--an outline — J.C. McDonald (2010)
• Exposing the "myth" of ABC, "anything but chrysotile": a critique of the Canadian asbestos mining industry and McGill University chrysotile studies — D. Egilman, C. Fehnel, et al. (2003)
• Asbestos mining in Southern Africa, 1893-2002 — J. McCulloch (2003)
• The defence of chrysotile, 1912-2007 — M. Greenberg (2008)
• Protecting the workers: the medical board and the asbestos industry, 1930s-1960s — G. Tweedale, P. Hansen (1998)

Browse more research in Public Health Reports, or return to medical research.