Barry I. Castleman

The WTO asbestos case and its health and trade implications.

What is the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) asbestos case really about? This case is a challenge by Canada to a complete ban on all uses of all types of asbestos by France. Canada argues that banning asbestos is a disproportionate and an unnecessarily extreme measure, because regulation (that is, “controlled use”) of asbestos can render the remaining hazards to workers and society “undetectable” and, hence, acceptable. The case is fundamental for the World Trade Organization (WTO). It is expected to have at least two important consequences: first, on the WTO legal system and its capacity to promote trade interests at the expense of human health; and, second, on the power of developing countries to intervene effectively to control hazardous working conditions and environmental health hazards in their territories. Significantly, the United States has sided with the European Union against Canada in asking the WTO panel to dismiss this complaint, saying that it is the right of each nation to determine the acceptable degree of risk that is tolerable in its territory and to determine the appropriate level of protection for its citizens. This position is explained by the fact that there is probably not a single large corporation left in the United States that cares what happens to the asbestos industry in the twenty-first century, because liability and regulation have all but ended the use of asbestos in the United States. We are dealing here with the leading known cause of occupational cancer in human populations all over the world, one of the most thoroughly studied toxic dusts ever breathed. If the WTO panel finds that there isn’t enough evidence to ban the use of asbestos (mainly used in building panels and pipes and vehicle brakes, hazardous uses where safer substitutes are available), what can be banned? This case is thus about much more than banning asbestos. It is about whether a country has the sovereign right to ban the use of a dangerous product, even if strictly applied “controlled use” could reduce the risk to workers and the public to a level

WTO Confidential: The Case of Asbestos

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 cases 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 WTOs bias in favor of the party (Canada) making the free trade challenge (to public health legislation), despite the WTOs 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 WTOs 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.

Criminality and Asbestos in Industry.

Criminal prosecutions of individuals in the asbestos industry are reviewed, particularly the case of asbestos owner-executive Stephan Schmidheiny. Italian courts sentenced Schmidheiny to sixteen to eighteen years in jail for creating an environmental disaster causing three thousand deaths. The convictions were overturned on a technicality, and a murder case against Schmidheiny has started. His firm, Eternit, made asbestos-cement building products in many countries. Schmidheiny directed a cover-up that the Italian Court of Appeal blamed for delaying the ban of asbestos in Italy by ten years. Today, the asbestos industry is a criminal industry, profiting only by minimizing its costs for the prevention and compensation of occupational and environmental illness. The asbestos industry should only be consulted by governments for the purpose of closing it and dealing with the legacy of in-place asbestos.

Corporate Influence on Threshold Limit Values

Investigations into the historical development of specific Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) for many substances have revealed serious shortcomings in the process followed by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Unpublished corporate communications were important in developing TLVs for 104 substances; for 15 of these, the TLV documentation was based solely on such information. Efforts to obtain written copies of this unpublished material were mostly unsuccessful. Case studies on the TLV Committee’s handling of lead and seven carcinogens illustrate various aspects of corporate influence and interaction with the committee. Corporate representatives listed officially as ‘consultants’ since 1970 were given primary responsibility for developing TLVs on proprietary chemicals of the companies that employed them (Dow, DuPont). It is concluded that an ongoing international effort is needed to develop scientifically based guidelines to replace the TLVs in a climate of openness and without manipulation by vested interests.

Terror as an Obstacle to International Cooperation

Several scientists and activists submitted letters about Barry Commoners work and the power and reach of his ideas following the Science and Social Action symposium.

Building a future without asbestos.

C OUNTRIES THAT HAVE LED IN TOXIC substances control have determined that it is better to ban asbestos than to try to control its use. The major uses of asbestos have been banned in Sweden, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)issued a rule in 1989 to phase out the main uses of asbestos; this was successfully overturned by a court challenge brought by asbestos interests. U.S. use of asbestos has dropped steadily over the last 20 years, and is now down to levels not seen since 190931)X)O metric tons (m.t.) annually, about 4 percent of the peak level of asbestos consumed in 1973. This corresponds to slightly more than 100 g/year per person. The per capita asbestos consumption of Brazil is more than 10 times as high, approximately 1,400 g/year per person. Brazil, with just over half as many people as the U.S., consumes about six times as much asbestos. And there is no major reduction expected in Brazils asbestos use. Brazil mined about 230,000 m.t, of asbestos in 1988,of which about 60,000 m.t, was exported. The major market was in asbestos-cement (A-C) construction sheets and pipe, which accounted for 85 percent of asbestos use. The next most important market was in brake linings, which the government has decided to eliminate in favor of safer substitute materials. On January 14, 1994, Brazils Ministry of Labor, unions, and industry signed a statement of intent to entirely substitute asbestos in the automotive parts industry. This follows decisions by some countries named above to stop importing cars with asbestos brakes and replacement brakes made with asbestos. It will certainly benefit automobile service workers whose exposure to dust from asbestos brake friction materials has concerned public health officials for the last 25 years. ASBESTOS-CEMENT PRODUCTS Asbestos-cement sheeting, flat and corrugated, is no longer made in the U.S. and has been outlawed in the Scandinavian countries, Germany, Italy, and Switzerland. Very high exposures can occur in the manufacturing processes of mixing the asbestos with the other ingredients and in cutting the A-C products. Very high exposures arise when these products are cut with saws on construction sites, where exposures may be as high as 250 f/cc. (1) Environmental contamination may affect many workers in addition to the relatively few who actually cut the A-C products. Asbestos fiber is also released into the ambient air from weathered and corroded A-C roofing. (2) A·C construction materials constitute a continuing hazard to people who live and work in buildings made of them. This was vividly brought home to me once as I walked down a street in a southeast Asian city, when workers came out of a building with a cart covered with pieces of asbestos-cement and dust from some kind of work they were doing inside. As they dumped the waste from the cart onto the back of a truck, the dust cloud that rose up was so thick I could not see anything through it (100percent opacity). It is hard to imagine that workers or building residents in any country can be reliably protected from the hazards of such activities, once the AC products are a major component of the living environment. Asbestos has been replaced in fiber-cement by wood pulp, sisal, other vegetable fibers, and polyolefin fibers. Wood pulp was introduced at UAC Berhad, in Ipoh, Malaysia, in the 1980s. Then, the company was partly owned by James Hardie, an Australian corporation that had replaced asbestos in many operations due to pressure from unions and government, and because of tremendous liabilities in the form of lawsuits brought by workers with asbestos diseases in Australia. Wood pulp was also used in Costa Rica and other