WTO confidential: the case of asbestos. World Trade Organization

Our plain-English summary of WTO confidential: the case of asbestos. World Trade Organization, by B. Castleman (International Journal of Health Services, 2002).

The study

• Author: B. Castleman
• Journal: International Journal of Health Services
• Published: 2002;32(3):489-501
• Cited by: 23 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

The World Trade Organization (WTO), created in 1995, adjudicates "trade disputes" between member nations in cases with great human rights, cultural, environmental, and public health significance. Throughout the process of dispute resolution and even after a case is concluded, very 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 of the parties in a WTO case, analyzing what happened from a public health point of view. This analysis concludes that the public health justification of banning asbestos was accepted in the end by the economists at the WTO, despite the WTO's bias in favoring the party (Canada) making the free trade challenge (to public health legislation, in this case) in numerous stages of the process, despite the WTO's utter lack of expertise in science, medicine, engineering, and public health, and despite important erroneous statements made to the WTO under the cover of confidentiality. Despite its result, this case illustrates that the WTO's threat to national sovereignty could never withstand the light of day, that the people of the world would reject this dangerous free trade fundamentalism if the limitations and dangers of the process were open for all to see.

In plain English

This article was not a research study. It was a first-person commentary by a scientific adviser to one of the parties in a 1999 World Trade Organization (WTO) trade dispute. The author is listed among the advisers to the European Commission, which represented France. Canada had challenged France's ban on chrysotile asbestos, arguing that "controlled use" was enough. The author reported that the four scientific experts chosen by the WTO agreed there is no safe level of exposure to any kind of asbestos, that Canada's "controlled use" was unrealistic, and that safer substitutes were available. One expert testified that the U.S. agency OSHA issued over 4,000 citations for violating its asbestos standard from 1996 to 1998. The WTO rejected Canada's claim, and its Appellate Body upheld the ban. The author criticized the panel for looking only at asbestos-cement construction materials and for the secrecy of the process. The author concluded that the decision favored public health but that the process was fundamentally flawed.

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: First-person commentary and analysis of a WTO trade dispute by a scientific adviser to one of the parties. It is not a research study and collected no health data.
• Who was studied: The 1999–2001 WTO dispute between Canada and France (represented by the European Commission) over France's asbestos ban, including the scientific hearing of January 17, 2000, in Geneva
• Exposure: France's ban on chrysotile asbestos, and Canada's proposed "controlled use" of chrysotile, especially in asbestos-cement products
• Main results:
  • The four WTO-appointed experts agreed that there is no safe level of exposure to any kind of asbestos, that Canada's "controlled use" was unrealistic and not known to occur anywhere, and that safer substitutes for chrysotile asbestos products are available.
  • Expert Peter Infante testified that OSHA issued over 4,000 citations for violating the OSHA asbestos standard from 1996 to 1998.
  • According to the author, the WTO panel considered the justification for banning only asbestos-cement construction materials, not other products.
  • Relying on the experts' unanimous view that controlled use in the construction trades was unrealistic, the WTO rejected Canada's claim.
  • The WTO rejected Canada's recommendation to follow the ISO standard. That standard allowed up to 0.2 fibers per cubic centimeter (f/cc), while the French occupational exposure limit at the time of the ban was 0.1 f/cc.
  • The WTO Appellate Body upheld France's right to ban asbestos to protect human health.
  • The Appellate Body also declared that toxicity is a valid criterion when deciding whether products are "like" asbestos.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that the decision was favorable to public health, but that the WTO process bears little resemblance to judicial processes in developed countries and is fundamentally flawed.

Related studies

• Asbestos poisons World Trade Organization atmosphere — L. Kazan-Allen (2001)
• Controversies at international organizations over asbestos industry influence — B.I. Castleman (2001)
• The International Commission on Occupational Health (ICOH) and its influence on international organizations — N.A. Ashford, B. Castleman, et al. (2002)
• 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)
• IARC in the dock over ties with asbestos industry — D. Holmes (2013)
• The asbestos case: a comment on the appointment and use of nonpartisan experts in world trade organization dispute resolution involving health risk — R.S. Carruth, B.D. Goldstein (2004)

Browse more research in International Journal of Health Services, or return to medical research.