Search

Asbestos is a primary cause of cancer worldwide. Global estimates indicate workplace exposure of 125 million people and about 255,000 deaths each year. Of the approximately 300 million metric tonnes of asbestos ever produced worldwide, most will become waste and disposed of in landfills. The recycling and transforming asbestos fibre into a non-harmful product offer a sustainable solution, but a global commitment remains elusive. Urgent action is needed. Sixty-seven countries have banned the use of asbestos-containing material, however, repeated calls to stop the use of asbestos globally have gone unheeded. We call for more stringent uniform global legislation and policies, backed up by funds to induce action along with research and education required to eliminate use of asbestos. Only by doing this, will we prevent deaths due to asbestos and help protect the environment.

Although some countries have reduced asbestos consumption and instituted bans, other countries continue to produce and consume asbestos even as asbestos-related deaths mount and the associated societal costs are high. Asbestos production and consumption has declined globally; the number of bans has increased; and the speed at which countries have tapered off consumption has increased. Using country-level data, we study the economic impact of historical changes in the production and use of asbestos. We compare changes in gross domestic product (GDP) following the enactment of asbestos bans. We do not find any significant effect on GDP following an asbestos ban. In a regional case study, we compare changes in GDP and employment with changes in asbestos production. Regional-level data revealed a temporary employment decline at the local level that was then reversed., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Background: Asbestos continues to be used in large quantities around the world and to be an important commodity in global trade., Objective: To assess and quantify current global patterns of asbestos production, export and use; to examine global patterns of asbestos-related disease; and to examine barriers to an asbestos ban., Method: Review of the biomedical literature describing patterns of asbestos exposure and disease; review of documents from national governments, UN agencies, and NGOs on asbestos production and use., Findings: Despite widespread knowledge of the hazards of asbestos and bans on any use of asbestos in more than 50 countries, an estimated 2 million tons of asbestos continue to be used around the world each year. Although this amount is significantly less than peak annual consumption of nearly 5 million tons two decades ago, significant amounts of asbestos are still used in India, China, Russia, and some developing countries. This use of asbestos is responsible for disease today and will cause still more asbestos-related disease in the years ahead. Real and artificially manufactured controversies regarding asbestos such as arguments about the relative hazards of different asbestos fiber types and fiber sizes have impeded bans on asbestos., Conclusions: All forms of asbestos pose grave dangers to human health. All are proven human carcinogens. There is no continued justification for the use of asbestos. Its production and use should be banned worldwide., (Copyright © 2014 Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The intent of this essay is to highlight the global reorganization of the asbestos industry over the period 1970-2007. Descriptive analysis illustrates that asbestos consumption in the industrialized countries declined precipitously over this period, in juxtaposition to a notable increase in consumption in the developing countries. In 2007, asbestos consumption in the developing countries was more than two million metric tons but negligible elsewhere in the world economy. The author argues that as asbestos increasingly became the focus of government oversight in the industrialized countries, continued capital accumulation efforts necessitated displacement of risk to the developing countries. The global revitalization of asbestos production and consumption over the period 1970-2007 presents numerous challenges in terms of occupational and environmental health hazards in the developing countries. It has the potential, moreover, to prefigure a significant expansion of asbestos-related disease into the 21st century, absent a global ban on asbestos use.

Background: National disparities in asbestos use will likely lead to an unequal burden of asbestos diseases., Objectives: As economic status may be linked to asbestos use, we assessed, globally, the relationship between indicators of national economic development and asbestos use., Methods: For the 135 countries that have ever used asbestos, per capita asbestos use (kilograms per capita per year) was compared with per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in 1990 Geary-Khamis dollars (GKD) for the period 1920-2003. Countries were grouped into three income levels (high, middle, and low) that were adapted from the 2003 World Bank categories., Results: The historical pattern of asbestos use followed the environmental Kuznets curve in which use by high-income countries peaked when incomes attained 10,000-15,000 GKD and essentially ceased at income levels over 20,000 GKD. Currently, middle- and low-income countries are increasing their use of asbestos, closely following the paths once traced by higher income countries., Conclusions: Developing countries have the opportunity to eliminate asbestos use sooner than high-income countries and thus reduce the future burden of asbestos diseases.

Despite international efforts to block Canada's export of asbestos, the Canadian federal government continues to defend the economic interests of the asbestos industry. Ironically, Canadian asbestos miners, mill workers, and those engaged in a wide range of other occupations continue to suffer asbestos-related disease and premature death. Although there is an employer-funded compensation system in each province, many workers with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases remain uncompensated. The export of Canadian asbestos to developing countries sets the stage for another preventable occupational disease epidemic that will manifest over the coming decades. There is growing support from the Canadian labor movement for an end to asbestos exportation and for a just transition strategy for the asbestos workers and their communities.

Although asbestos mining and manufacture has occurred in Korea since the 1920s, it was not until the 1980s that the broader social democratic movement heightened public awareness of the health problems associated with exposure to asbestos. The first systematic national survey of asbestos-related diseases was conducted in 1993. In that year, the first case of asbestos-related disease was compensated by the government. This long-delayed recognition of asbestos-related disease took place in a country that already had more than 100 asbestos factories. About 40 to 50 mesothelioma cases are reported annually through the Korean Cancer Registry. Nonetheless, only six mesothelioma cases have ever been referred to the government for workers' compensation. Lung cancer is the fastest growing cancer in Korea. Over the last 15 years, mortality from lung cancer has more than tripled. Among all these lung cancer cases, only 12 have been recognized as occupational in origin and compensated accordingly.

This study quantified asbestos use in Mexico in the past decade and evaluated available data on mortality due to malignant mesothelioma in Mexico between 1979 and 2000. Mortality data were analyzed from secondary databases of the Mexican Social Security System and the Ministry of Health. Data on the import and export of asbestos in Mexico were obtained from the Ministry of Trade and Industrial Development of Mexico. Deaths due to pleural mesothelioma significantly increased in this period. Although the import of asbestos declined, the number of Mexican products that contain asbestos tripled. Export of Mexican asbestos-containing products to Central America grew rapidly in the last ten years of the study. Mexico continues the appreciable use of asbestos and has experienced a significant increase in the occurrence of the sentinel asbestos-related disease, malignant mesothelioma. Given the many limitations to the control of hazardous work exposures in Mexico, a ban on asbestos is advocated as the most feasible means of limiting an epidemic of asbestos-related disease.

This paper presents the history of asbestos mining and manufacture in France, the strategies of the multinational asbestos firms to become major international participants, the failures of occupational health and safety that allowed an epidemic of asbestos-related diseases to occur, and the important social movement of the victims of asbestos exposure. The asbestos industry thrived in France until the health effects of asbestos exposure were made public. At that time, the industry had already moved its mining and manufacture to developing countries, where they were able to take advantage of limited regulation and enforcement of occupational and environmental laws. The author analyzes the compensation systems that were approached with varying degrees of success by the victims of asbestos exposure. France banned all manufacture and use of asbestos in 1997, and in the years that have followed, it has enjoyed many successes in achieving compensation for asbestos victims.

It took 50 years for Belgium to recognize asbestosis; mesothelioma and lung cancer were recognized as occupational diseases caused by asbestos in 1982 and 1999, much later than in neighboring countries. Only salaried workers can claim compensation from the Occupational Diseases Fund. The right to reparation is thus denied to most victims because many have been self-employed: mechanics, electricians, painters, roofers, carpenters, plumbers, etc. Compensation was also denied to people who became ill through exposures to the workclothes of family members or pollution from asbestos factories near their homes. The main obstacles facing asbestos victims are legal and judicial. For instance, an employer is not liable, even for gross negligence. Victims are not allowed to claim if 20 years have passed since their exposures to asbestos. Changes in Belgian legislation are sorely needed.

Aims: To examine the incidence and mortality patterns for malignant mesothelioma and pleural cancer in New Zealand between 1962-1996, and relate these to past use of asbestos., Methods: Data concerning cases of mesothelioma 1962-1996, deaths from pleural and lung cancers 1974-1996, and data on imports of raw asbestos and asbestos products were obtained from government registers and publications. Time trends were analysed using different models., Results: Mesothelioma incidence rates have increased progressively in New Zealand since the 1960s, and reached 25 per million for men in 1995. The increase follows an exponential model departing from a crude 'background rate' of 1-2 per million in 1984, and is particularly steep in males 50 to 60 years of age. The incidence is expected to double by 2010., Conclusion: New Zealand has entered an unrivalled period of occupational cancer deaths resulting from past workplace exposure to airborne asbestos fibres. The steep rise in mesothelioma incidence is likely to be accompanied by increases in other asbestos related diseases such as lung cancer. The unique causal association between mesothelioma and asbestos may be used to monitor changes in the public health impact of these exposures. The notification by medical practitioners of all potential asbestos related conditions/exposures to the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) service is of great importance.

In 1931 the British government introduced pioneering legislation to combat occupational disease in the asbestos industry. A key feature was an Asbestosis Scheme for compensating workers for industrial injury and death. This article examines the implementation of the Scheme at Turner & Newall, the leading UK asbestos producer. The evidence reveals an inequitable system of compensation, especially when compared to the company's generosity to its shareholders. Deficiencies in British compensation law, the weaknesses of regulatory forces, and the company's policy of minimising the extent of asbestos disease are held responsible.