Canada challenges the decree on the basis that the ban is a "technical regulation" i.e.: an unacceptably restrictive decree, unnecessary to achieve France's objective Canada must demonstrate that France:

• cannot prove that banning will further reduce the risk to health than what was already achieved by its present regulation (0,6 f/ml);
  
  
• failed to scientifically support its health risk assessment;
  
  
• using chrysotile-only at low exposure levels, in high-density modern applications, represents a feasible and acceptably safe alternative to a complete ban.

France claims that there is no alternative but to completely ban in order to protect the health of its population.

Brazil and Zimbabwe position is based on "The Marrakech Declaration" (April 15, 1994), adopted at the time of the signature of the Uruguay Round Final Act, with special regard to developing countries. They argue that in imposing the ban, France did not take into account the special development, financial and trade needs of Brazil and Zimbabwe, and did not ensure that the ban did not create unnecessary obstacles to exports. The ban is inconsistent with France's obligations under the TBT (Technical Barrier to Trade) Agreement, art. 12.2 and 12.3.

The U.S. EPA (Environment Protection Agency) supports the French ban. Claims that it is the individual country's right to decide and judge what measures are necessary to protect the health of their population.

Comment:
This position is inconsistent with the regulatory situation in the U.S. Appears To be a much delayed, frustrated response to having lost its battle to ban asbestos in the U.S. (Final Rule, October 18, 1991, reversing the ban).

The French Decree

Based mainly on an INSERM (French National Institute on Health and Medical Research) report:

• there is really no difference in pathogenecity between asbestos fibre types;
  
  
• there is no threshold of exposure to chrysotile below which there is no risk: there is still a residual risk, even at exposures as low as 0,1 f/ml;
  
  
• the concept of "controlled use" is not applicable;
  
  
• resorting to substitutes is safer.

Based also on recently published predicted high incidence of mesothelioma in the near future, most of it due to chrysotile exposure.

Canada's Response

a) On Fibre Types

The scientific records are numerous and almost totally unanimous in recognizing the difference in pathogenicity between asbestos fiber types (see Annex 1). Predictions of residual risk, even at very low exposure to chrysotile, are "calculated" from extrapolations from very high levels of exposure to mixtures of fibre types, using a "straight-line" dose response relationship.

Comment by Sir Richard Doll:
We have no real grounds for postulating that a linear relationship for lung cancer can be extrapolated back to the levels with which we are concerned in non occupational settings.
(World Health Organization Scientific Publication No. 90, pp. 511-518, 1989)

b) On the Existence of a Threshold

The Scientific Committee on Toxicity.Ecotoxicity and the Environment (CSTEE) of the DG XXIV of the European Union (February 1998)-reports "a threshold implies the demonstration that an effect does not occur at or under a given dose level. The unequivocal demonstration of a negative effect is tantamount to impossible". The CSTEE adds that, given this inherent impossibility to prove a negative, "there may well be a 'practical threshold', such as would be suggested when a huge bulk of good scientific information consistently provides convincing suggestion of a lack of effect."

c) On substitutes

CSTEE Report (February 1998) :

"Conclusion that specific substitute materials pose a substantially lower risk to human health, particularly public health, than the current use of chrysotile is not founded".

"...acute and subacute toxicity data on the three substitute fibres are very meager and do not allow for a proper comparison with chrysotile".

"...there is a lack of epidemiological studies' due to the relatively short time elapsed since onset of industrial uses of the substitute materials".

d) On the Feasibility of Controlled Use

• Controlled use is a reality when :
  
  
• only chrysotile is used (threshold limit value of 1 f/ml time-weighed average);
  
  
• engineering controls and safe work practices are followed;
  
  
• dust monitoring is scrupulously conducted;
  
  
• medical surveillance programs are applied;
  
  
• workers awareness, information and training programs are conducted.

This results in adequate worker protection, because there is no measurable increased risk to health at this limit value (see Annex 2).

The Asbestos Institute January 2000.