Click for related information

Case background as I understand is :

[A]

France had disallowed the use and import of Asbestos. Canada opined that this is unscientific and unfair. Thereafter it involved the WTO  to settle the dispute. (EC & EPA of USA backed France). 

Brazil & Zimbabwe joined as 3^rd Party with Canada.

(As per our information, the confidential preliminary judgement was due on 13^th June and counters are to be given till 27th June 2000)

The (case or) final decision now hinges on the answer of :

Which fibre is more biopersistent (dissolving time in the lungs) , Asbestos or Non Asbestos (PVA etc.).

We feel that this is too minute a parameter to be taken as the deciding factor and is incomplete and incorrect

Asbestos being a natural inert fibre will apparently (& unfairly ) lose on this ground inspite of its very low comparative toxicity.

A more complete analysis / evaluation table is enclosed.

It is also interesting to know that :

The US Courts (Fifth Circuit), in 1991 vacated & reversed the EPA's asbestos ban because:

EPA’s analysis was found “unscientific” & “Incomplete” !

[B]

Some other important points that need to be considered are as follows :

1. The alternatives of these products are mainly Plastics, Fibre reinforced plastics, metals and to a very minor extent non asbestos fibre cement.  All these have far greater hazards (both occupational and  environmental / ecological *) associated with them if the complete picture is taken into perspective including raw material mining, production, usage and disposal etc.

*  primarily because asbestos industry consumes much less energy and has no effluents whatsoever. !!

2. The scientific facts based on documentary evidences from the most reliable bodies of the world* imply that Asbestos is much safer than virtually all its alternatives.

 *  eg.  WHO, ISO, US Courts, US Gov. (ATSDR), IARC, American Medical Assn., etc.

WHO (World Health Organisation)

As late as 1999 - 2000 - have not disputed that Asbestos Cement Industry & Products are both Highly Eco-friendly and have further confirmed that :

It is considered unnecessary to recommend a health-based guideline value for asbestos in drinking water.

Health Risk ratios in alternatives (plastics / metals) are much higher than in AC.

ISO (International Standards Orgn.)

As recent as 1998-2000 - have awarded ISO 14001 for safe Environmental Standards to an Asbestos Cement Industry and even Asbestos fibre mining & processing Industry

IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1995 )

Plastics, metals, metallurgy are listed as Main carcinogenic  industries but not Asbestos Cement nor asbestos mining.

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry, US Govt. 1999-2000)

Plastics, metals use several substances from the list of 20 most hazardous substances

Asbestos is not amongst these !

USA Today (Feb 1999)

Published  Incontrovertible scientific evidence that  the health risk created by asbestos in buildings is so low that it can barely be measured. Safe use of asbestos is relatively simple & inexpensive. But Cold facts of science have not been able to dispel the passion of public fear

 American Medical Association 

Expressed frustration that science was being ignored while being so scared about asbestos.

3. Apparently, the narrow issue being concentrated on at the WTO is incomplete and is thus an unscientific and unfair comparison.

 eg. 1. the mining of petroleum and production of PVA / non asbestos fibres needs to be compared with mining and processing of asbestos. ( asbestos may be much safer !)

eg. 2. the other chemical / allergic effects of the PVA / non asbestos fibres and their products after bio-dissolution should also be considered. 

These would relate not only to the lungs, but to the digestive system and other human systems also.

 eg. 3.  the risk ratio to Plastic workers is 200 (lungs) + 4 (brain) !!
Asbestos workers is below 1.58 !! 
Metal workers is upto 782 !!

( Ref. 1. Docs from : University of Massachusetts, USA & WHO Geneva)

 These issues need to be highlighted and considered immediately.

 Please refer to the next table.

Scientific docs to support this are available with us . Some are already on a new website under construction. ecoasbestos.org and some others can be seen on the Internet sites of the organisations mentioned.