WTO confidential: the case of asbestos

Our plain-English summary of WTO confidential: the case of asbestos, by B. Castleman (New Solutions, 2003).

The study

• Author: B. Castleman
• Journal: New Solutions
• Published: 2003;13(1):73-85
• Cited by: 2 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

The World Trade Organization (WTO), established in 1995, adjudicates "trade disputes" between member nations in cases with human rights, cultural, environmental, and public health significance. Throughout the resolution process and even after a case's conclusion, little of what happens is made accessible to the public. However, it is one thing to criticize the WTO for its lack of transparency from outside the process and another to critically examine what was withheld from disclosure and what dangers that presents. This is the inside story from a scientific adviser to one party in a WTO case, who analyzes what happened from a public health point of view. The analysis concludes that the public health justification for banning asbestos was accepted in the end by WTO economists, despite the WTO's bias in favor of the party (Canada) making the free trade challenge (to public health legislation), despite the WTO's lack of expertise in science, medicine, engineering, and public health, and despite important erroneous statements made to the WTO under the cover of confidentiality. The case nevertheless illustrates that the WTO's threat to national sovereignty could never withstand the light of day if the limitations and dangers of the process were open for all to see.

In plain English

This article is not a medical study. It is a first-hand critique of a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute by an author who consulted for the European Commission, which represented France. In 1999 Canada challenged France's ban on chrysotile asbestos, arguing that "controlled use" was less trade-restrictive. The author described how the experts' selection and disclosure forms were kept confidential and outsiders were barred from the hearings, whose transcript was released with the September 2000 decision. According to the author, the four WTO-chosen experts agreed there is no safe level of exposure to any kind of asbestos and that Canada's "controlled use" was unrealistic and not known to occur anywhere. One expert testified that OSHA issued more than 4,000 citations for asbestos-standard violations from 1996 to 1998. The WTO rejected Canada's claim, and its Appellate Body upheld France's right to ban asbestos to protect human health. The author criticized the WTO for considering only asbestos-cement construction materials. The author concluded that the outcome favored public health but that the process bore little resemblance to judicial processes in developed 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: Policy case study and commentary: a first-hand account by a consultant to the European Commission (which represented France) in the WTO proceedings. It is not a medical or epidemiological study.
• Who was studied: The WTO trade dispute between Canada and France over France's asbestos ban, 1999 to 2000, including the scientific hearing of January 17, 2000 at WTO headquarters.
• Exposure: France's ban on chrysotile asbestos, which Canada argued was unnecessary because of "controlled use".
• Main results:
  • The author reported that the names of nominated experts were kept confidential, and that the experts' conflict-of-interest disclosure forms remained confidential throughout the proceedings.
  • The media, third-party governments, international organizations and nongovernmental organizations were not permitted to witness the January 2000 scientific hearing.
  • The hearing transcript was released for the first time when it was appended to the WTO's written decision, announced in September 2000.
  • According to the author, the four WTO-appointed experts agreed that there is no safe level of exposure to any kind of asbestos, and that "controlled use" as defined by Canada is unrealistic and not known to occur anywhere in the world.
  • Expert Dr. Peter Infante testified that the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued more than 4,000 citations for violating its asbestos standard from 1996 to 1998.
  • The WTO rejected Canada's claim, which the author attributed to the experts' unanimous testimony that controlled use of asbestos products in the construction trades was unrealistic.
  • The author reported that the WTO considered the justification for banning only asbestos-cement construction materials, not other products.
  • The WTO Appellate Body upheld France's right to ban asbestos to protect human health. It also found that toxicity is a valid criterion when evaluating "like products".
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that the decision was favorable to public health, but that the WTO process bore little resemblance to judicial processes in any developed country.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The author qualified their own interpretation of the Panel chairman's handling of the discussion of substitutes, noting it is sometimes difficult to distinguish incompetence from mendacity.

Related studies

• WTO confidential: the case of asbestos. World Trade Organization — B. Castleman (2002)
• The case for a global ban on asbestos — J. LaDou, B. Castleman, et al. (2010)
• "Controlled use" of asbestos — B. Castleman (2003)
• The International Commission on Occupational Health (ICOH) and its influence on international organizations — N.A. Ashford, B. Castleman, et al. (2002)
• The hazards of asbestos for brake mechanics — B. Castleman, L.A. Camarota, et al. (1975)
• Global corporate policies and international "double standards" in occupational and environmental health — B. Castleman (1999)

Browse more research in New Solutions, or return to medical research.