The debate on banning asbestos

Our plain-English summary of The debate on banning asbestos, by R. Wilson, R.P. Nolan, S.G. Domnin (CMAJ, 2001).

The study

• Authors: R. Wilson, R.P. Nolan, S.G. Domnin
• Journal: CMAJ
• Published: 2001;165(9):1190-1; author reply 1191-3
• Type of article: Comment, Letter
• Read it: PubMed · Free full text

In plain English

This item is a letter to the editor, not a research study, and it reports no new data. The authors, from Harvard University, Brooklyn College and a medical research center in Ekaterinburg, Russia, responded in CMAJ in 2001 to a Collegium Ramazzini editorial calling for an international ban on asbestos. They noted that a US court of appeals sent the EPA's 1979 proposed ban back to the agency in 1991 because it "failed to muster substantial evidence" that modern asbestos products posed an unacceptable risk. They argued that such evidence does not exist. They disputed the Collegium's statements that chrysotile exposure cannot be controlled and that all asbestos fibre types carry indistinguishable cancer risks. They pointed instead to fibre characteristics such as biopersistence and surface chemistry. They stated, without giving data in the letter, that the increased US mesothelioma rate occurs only among people old enough to have been exposed before 1970. They compared low-level asbestos hazards with arsenic contamination in Bengal and Bangladesh. The authors concluded by calling for a proper comparative risk assessment.

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 correspondence) responding to a CMAJ editorial; no original data
• Exposure: Chrysotile asbestos and low-level asbestos exposure from modern asbestos products, discussed in general terms; no exposure data given
• Main results:
  • The authors stated that a US court of appeals remanded the EPA's proposed asbestos ban in 1991 because the EPA failed to muster substantial evidence that modern asbestos products present an unacceptable risk to the public (an argument, not a study finding)
  • The authors argued that asbestos exposures in the previous 20 years seemed to have been very well controlled (no data presented in the letter)
  • The authors stated that the increased rate of mesothelioma in the United States occurs only among people old enough to have been exposed before 1970 (no data presented in the letter)
  • The authors argued that the Collegium ignores fibre characteristics, such as biopersistence and surface chemistry, that make some materials more carcinogenic than others
  • The authors offered the arsenic catastrophe in Bengal and Bangladesh as an example of a hazard next to which low-level asbestos hazards seem insignificant, in their view
• The authors' conclusion: The authors called for urgent study of the issues raised by Michel Camus and for agreement on a proper comparative risk assessment, rather than a complete ban

Related studies

• The debate on banning asbestos — D. Janigan (2001)
• The debate on banning asbestos — D. Ahmad, W.K. Morgan (2001)
• The debate on banning asbestos — T.L. Guidotti (2001)
• The debate on banning asbestos — D.C. Muir (2001)
• The debate on banning asbestos — L. Kazan-Allen (2001)
• The debate on banning asbestos — D.V. Bates (2001)

Browse more research in CMAJ, or return to medical research.