Why countries ban asbestos: some alternative thoughts

Our plain-English summary of Why countries ban asbestos: some alternative thoughts, by A.L. Frank (International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2013).

The study

• Author: A.L. Frank
• Journal: International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health
• Published: 2013;19(2):136
• Type of article: Comment
• Cited by: 1 article, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This one-page item was a commentary, not a research study. It responded to a paper by Domyung Paek and colleagues titled "Why some, but not all, countries have banned asbestos," and reported no new data. The author argued that the paper's explanations did not hold up and that the absence of bans was best explained by political will. The author made several points. Deaths from lung cancers, asbestosis and other asbestos-linked ailments far exceed mesothelioma deaths in almost all settings. Historical mesothelioma data are almost certainly underestimates and not truly usable for comparing countries. The USA, Canada, Hong Kong and New Zealand have high-quality health care but no universal asbestos bans. Some countries have partial bans; China, for example, bans asbestos from automobile parts. The author also stated that US raw asbestos use had fallen to a few thousand tons, from a peak of some 775 000 tons per year in the early 1970s. The author concluded that the reasons for bans matter less than banning asbestos worldwide.

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 (opinion piece) responding to another published paper; no original data or methods
• Who was studied: No study population; the comment discusses countries with and without asbestos bans and a paper by Paek and colleagues on that topic
• Exposure: Asbestos in general (all forms) and national bans or partial bans on its use
• Main results:
  • The author argued that the main reason for the absence of bans is political will
  • The author stated that deaths over time from lung cancers, asbestosis and other asbestos-linked ailments far exceed mesothelioma deaths in almost all settings, and that the Paek paper ignored them
  • The author argued that past mesothelioma data are generally flawed and not truly usable for comparisons between countries
  • The author named the USA, Canada, Hong Kong and New Zealand as places with high-quality health care but no universal asbestos bans, as exceptions to the health-care thesis
  • The author argued that when a group like the EU calls for members to ban asbestos, the ban comes from centralized political will, not from disease rates
  • The author described partial bans, such as China banning asbestos from automobile parts
  • The author stated that the USA is down to only a few thousand tons of raw asbestos, after a peak in the early 1970s of some 775 000 tons per year
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that the rationale for bans is not so important and that banning asbestos worldwide, for whatever reason, is what matters most

Topics

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

Related studies

• Why some, but not all, countries have banned asbestos — J. Bahk, Y. Choi, et al. (2013)
• Authors' reply. Why countries ban asbestos: the roots of political will — J. Bahk, Y. Choi, et al. (2013)
• A worldwide ban on asbestos production and use: some recent progress, but more still to be done — M.R. Sim (2013)
• Indoor air quality differences between urban and rural preschools in Korea — C. Yoon, K. Lee, et al. (2011)
• Composition of heavy metals and airborne fibers in the indoor environment of a building during renovation — M.T. Latif, N.H. Baharudin, et al. (2011)
• A pilot study of indoor air quality in screen golf courses — S.J. Goung, J. Yang, et al. (2015)

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