The International Commission on Occupational Health (ICOH) and its influence on international organizations

Our plain-English summary of The International Commission on Occupational Health (ICOH) and its influence on international organizations, by N.A. Ashford, B. Castleman, A.L. Frank, et al (International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2002).

The study

• Authors: N.A. Ashford, B. Castleman, A.L. Frank, F. Giannasi, L.R. Goldman, M. Greenberg, J. Huff, K.T. Joshi, J. LaDou, R.A. Lemen, C. Maltoni, R. O'Neil, E. Richter, E.K. Silbergeld, D.T. Teitelbaum, A. Thebaud-Mony, L. Tomatis, A. Watterson
• Journal: International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health
• Published: 2002;8(2):156-62
• Cited by: 17 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

The ICOH has played a key role in the development of some scientific documents and policy recommendations, but it has not always been scientifically objective, particularly in regard to asbestos and other fibers and some chemicals and pesticides. Many ICOH members are employees of corporations or consultants to industry, serving multinational corporate interests to influence public health policy in the guise of a professional scientific organization. ICOH members' conflicts of interest with the public health dominate the organization and damage the standing of the ICOH. Official recognition of the ICOH compromises the credibility of the WHO and the ILO. It is inappropriate for the ICOH to continue to receive WHO and ILO recognition unless the ICOH is recognized as an industry organization.

In plain English

This article is a commentary, written by its authors as a letter. It is not a research study and reports no new data. The authors argued that the International Commission on Occupational Health (ICOH), a private nonprofit organization of occupational health and safety specialists, had not been scientifically objective on asbestos and other fibers and on some chemicals and pesticides, and that many of its members worked for or consulted for industry. Drawing on earlier publications and correspondence, they described several episodes. Representatives of asbestos companies were involved in planning and covering expenses for a 1994 meeting on chrysotile asbestos, which the meeting invitation described as jointly sponsored by the ICOH and the International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS). An ICOH committee prepared a draft fibers monograph for the International Labor Office (ILO) whose asbestos chapter was written by an Asbestos Institute official; the ILO withdrew it from consideration as an ILO publication. A 1986 ICOH pesticide workshop included no participants from the ILO, NGOs or trade unions. The authors concluded that it was inappropriate for the ICOH to keep receiving recognition from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the ILO.

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 (letter) presenting the authors' views and accounts of past events; no original data
• Who was studied: No study population; the article concerns the ICOH, a private nonprofit organization of occupational health and safety specialists, and its relationship with the WHO and the ILO
• Exposure: Not an exposure study; the article discusses alleged industry influence on ICOH work on asbestos (including chrysotile) and other fibers, and on some chemicals and pesticides
• Main results:
  • According to the authors, representatives of asbestos companies were involved in planning and covered expenses for a 1994 meeting on chrysotile asbestos. The meeting invitation described the meeting as jointly sponsored by the ICOH and the IPCS
  • According to the authors, the asbestos chapter of a draft fibers monograph prepared for the ILO by the ICOH Scientific Committee on Fibers was written by Jacques Dunnigan, a longtime official of the Asbestos Institute
  • After protests, the ILO withdrew that draft report from consideration as an ILO publication
  • According to the authors, an ILO medical expert at a 1994 conference in Brazil was also an ICOH board member and an asbestos industry spokesman
  • According to the authors, many participants at a 1986 ICOH pesticide workshop came from agrochemical companies, and none came from the ILO, NGOs or trade unions
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that it was inappropriate for the ICOH to continue receiving recognition from the WHO and the ILO

Topics

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

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Standing.

Related studies

• Controversies at international organizations over asbestos industry influence — B.I. Castleman (2001)
• WTO confidential: the case of asbestos. World Trade Organization — B. Castleman (2002)
• FIOH-sponsored newsletter misrepresents asbestos hazards in Zimbabwe — J.C. Bailar, S.G. Ballal, et al. (2006)
• Promoting international collaboration through the International Commission on Occupational Health — K. Kogi (2015)
• How conflicted authors undermine the World Health Organization (WHO) campaign to stop all use of asbestos: spotlight on studies showing that chrysotile is carcinogenic and facilitates other non-cancer asbestos-related diseases — X. Baur, C.L. Soskolne, et al. (2015)
• IAOH denies industry influence — S.M. Shanbhag (2008)

Browse more research in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, or return to medical research.