WTO upholds French ban on chrysotile

Our plain-English summary of WTO upholds French ban on chrysotile, by L.K. Allen (International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2001).

The study

• Author: L.K. Allen
• Journal: International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health
• Published: 2001;7(3):246-53
• Type of article: Editorial
• Cited by: 1 article, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This is an editorial, not a research study, by the coordinator of the International Ban Asbestos Secretariat. It described a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute in which Canada challenged France's 1997 ban on the import and use of chrysotile (white asbestos) and chrysotile-containing products. The editorial reported that a WTO panel's September 2000 report upheld the ban. The same report found that France had violated trade agreements by treating chrysotile products less favorably than domestic alternatives. It reported that four scientists who answered the panel's questions agreed that chrysotile is a carcinogen, that "controlled use" is unrealistic, and that safer alternatives exist. According to the editorial, the WTO Appellate Body ruled on March 12, 2001. It confirmed that chrysotile is an established carcinogen with no safe threshold. It also reversed the panel's view that health risks did not matter in deciding whether products were "like" each other. The author described Canadian government lobbying and criticized WTO secrecy, noting that all 17 applications to file outside briefs on appeal were rejected. The author concluded that hopes the ruling would bring an asbestos-free future looked naive.

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: Editorial (commentary on a WTO trade dispute); not a research study
• Who was studied: No study population. The editorial covered the WTO dispute brought by Canada against the European Communities over France's asbestos ban, from 1996 to the Appellate Body ruling of March 12, 2001.
• Exposure: Chrysotile (white asbestos) and chrysotile-containing products. French Decree 96-1133 banned their import and use from January 1, 1997.
• Main results:
  • According to the editorial, the WTO panel's report of September 18, 2000 upheld the 1997 French ban on chrysotile.
  • According to the editorial, the same panel report found that France had violated multilateral trade agreements by treating chrysotile products less favorably than domestically made alternatives.
  • The editorial reported that the panel found chrysotile use to be a health risk, in particular for lung cancer and mesothelioma in occupational sectors downstream of production and processing, and for the public in relation to chrysotile-cement products.
  • The editorial described the replies of the panel's four scientific experts (Dr. Infante, Dr. de Klerk, Dr. Henderson and Dr. Musk) as unanimous on three points: chrysotile is a carcinogen, "controlled use" is unrealistic, and safer alternatives exist.
  • According to the editorial, the Appellate Body judges confirmed three points: chrysotile is an established carcinogen, there is no safe threshold, and "controlled use" is not an effective alternative to a national ban.
  • The Appellate Body reversed the panel's finding that health risks were not relevant in judging the "likeness" of cement-based products.
  • The editorial reported that 17 applications to submit outside (amicus) briefs to the Appellate Body were made and that all were rejected.
  • The editorial described lobbying by high-ranking Canadian officials in many countries in support of chrysotile between July 1996 and May 1998.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that producers would defend markets in developing countries even more fiercely, and that hopes the WTO ruling might create acceptance of an asbestos-free future looked naive.

Topics

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

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

Related studies

• WTO confidential: the case of asbestos. World Trade Organization — B. Castleman (2002)
• Asbestos poisons World Trade Organization atmosphere — L. Kazan-Allen (2001)
• Global corporate policies and international "double standards" in occupational and environmental health — B. Castleman (1999)
• Ban all production and export of chrysotile asbestos — G. Paradis (2010)
• International jurisprudence on trade and environmental health: one step forward, two steps back? — K. Timmermans (2008)
• Controversies at international organizations over asbestos industry influence — B.I. Castleman (2001)

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