The case for a global ban on asbestos

Our plain-English summary of The case for a global ban on asbestos, by J. LaDou, B. Castleman, A. Frank, et al (Environmental Health Perspectives, 2010).

The study

• Authors: J. LaDou, B. Castleman, A. Frank, M. Gochfeld, M. Greenberg, J. Huff, T.K. Joshi, P.J. Landrigan, R. Lemen, J. Myers, M. Soffritti, C.L. Soskolne, K. Takahashi, D. Teitelbaum, B. Terracini, A. Watterson
• Journal: Environmental Health Perspectives
• Published: 2010;118(7):897-901
• Cited by: 93 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

Abstract

Background: All forms of asbestos are now banned in 52 countries. Safer products have replaced many materials that once were made with it. Nonetheless, many countries still use, import, and export asbestos and asbestos-containing products, and in those that have banned other forms of asbestos, the so-called "controlled use" of chrysotile asbestos is often exempted from the ban. In fact, chrysotile has accounted for > 95% of all the asbestos used globally.

Objective: We examined and evaluated the literature used to support the exemption of chrysotile asbestos from the ban and how its exemption reflects the political and economic influence of the asbestos mining and manufacturing industry.

Discussion: All forms of asbestos, including chrysotile, are proven human carcinogens. All forms cause malignant mesothelioma and lung and laryngeal cancers, and may cause ovarian, gastrointestinal, and other cancers. No exposure to asbestos is without risk. Illnesses and deaths from asbestos exposure are entirely preventable.

Conclusions: All countries of the world have an obligation to their citizens to join in the international endeavor to ban the mining, manufacture, and use of all forms of asbestos. An international ban is urgently needed. There is no medical or scientific basis to exempt chrysotile from the worldwide ban of asbestos.

In plain English

This article is a commentary by members of the Collegium Ramazzini, an international academic society. It is not an original study. The authors stated that they examined the literature used to support exempting chrysotile (white) asbestos from bans under so-called "controlled use". Drawing on other sources, they noted three figures: all forms of asbestos were banned in 52 countries, chrysotile accounted for more than 95% of all asbestos used globally, and annual world production remained above 2 million tons. Citing other studies, they wrote that workers exposed to chrysotile fiber alone have excessive risks of lung cancer and mesothelioma. They described industry-sponsored "product defense" science. They cited a court document stating that General Motors, Ford and Chrysler paid almost $37 million between 2001 and 2008 to scientist-consultants. They reported that efforts to list chrysotile under the Rotterdam Convention had failed, with Zimbabwe among the countries opposing it in 2008. The authors concluded there is no medical or scientific basis to exempt chrysotile. They called on all countries to ban the mining, manufacture and use of all forms of asbestos.

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 (position paper) by the Collegium Ramazzini, an international academic society, discussing published literature and other sources; no original data
• Who was studied: No study population; the commentary discusses asbestos use and asbestos-related disease worldwide, drawing on published studies and agency reports
• Exposure: All forms of asbestos, with a focus on chrysotile and its exemption from bans under so-called "controlled use"
• Main results:
  • Citing other sources, the authors stated that chrysotile has accounted for more than 95% of all asbestos used globally
  • Citing the U.S. Geological Survey, the authors stated that annual world production of asbestos remained above 2 million tons
  • Citing other studies, the authors wrote that workers exposed to chrysotile fiber alone have excessive risks of lung cancer and mesothelioma
  • Citing a court document, the authors stated that General Motors, Ford and Chrysler paid almost $37 million between 2001 and 2008 to scientist-consultants for presenting sponsored review papers and for expert testimony
  • The authors reported that efforts to list chrysotile under the Rotterdam Convention had failed. At the 2008 conference of parties, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Vietnam, Russia and Zimbabwe opposed the listing
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that there is no medical or scientific basis to exempt chrysotile from a worldwide ban. They called on all countries to ban the mining, manufacture and use of all forms of asbestos

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Chrysotile.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Controlled Use, Chrysotile, Malignant Mesothelioma, Laryngeal Cancer, Asbestos Exposure.

Related studies

• A worn-out welcome: renewed call for a global ban on asbestos — R.C. Haynes (2010)
• The global spread of asbestos — A.L. Frank, T.K. Joshi (2014)
• International jurisprudence on trade and environmental health: one step forward, two steps back? — K. Timmermans (2008)
• Statement in response to asbestos industry efforts to prevent a ban on asbestos in Pakistan: chrysotile asbestos use is not safe and must be banned — G. Aguilar Madrid, M. Beaudry, et al. (2013)
• Should Canadian health care professionals support the call for a worldwide ban on asbestos? — J. Siemiatycki (2001)
• A repeat call for the banning of asbestos — L.S. Birnbaum, J.C. Schroeder, et al. (2010)

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