Canada must stop selling asbestos to world

HOWARD PAWLEY AND HARRY GLASBEEK
Sep. 21
Canada has a justified reputation for compassion, for its willingness to make sacrifices to help people in war-torn countries, for its commitment to health care for all. Yet, it is on the brink of staining its pride of place among nations by its stubborn support of the insupportable.

It is insisting that some of the most vulnerable people on the planet should not be treated compassionately, should not be entitled to decent health. Canada wants to expose millions of ill-informed and ill-protected people to asbestos.

Asbestos is a fibrous mineral with wondrous properties. The delicate fibres can withstand fierce heat and are so flexible that they can be spun and woven in much the same way as cotton or flax. Asbestos is deployed in construction, heating and ventilating systems, boilers, brake linings and the like. It is profitable to mine and process asbestos. And Canada has mountains of it, particularly in Quebec and Newfoundland.

The bad feature of asbestos is that it kills. In epidemic proportions. Painfully. The tiny fibres get into the lungs, leading to asbestosis, a progressive disease of the lungs. They also are scientifically linked to lung cancer and an unusual cancer known as mesothelioma.

The International Labour Organization calculates that 100,000 to 140,000 people worldwide die prematurely from asbestos-related cancers every year. Respected scientists contend that, if even if exposure to asbestos were to stop right now, between 5 million and 10 million people still would die from asbestos-related diseases. If the use of asbestos is not ended any time soon, the consequences could be horrendous .

Canada is one of the world's largest exporters of asbestos. It only can be sold and exported to countries that have not banned the material. Canada, therefore, fights strenuously to ensure that asbestos not be proscribed by other nations.

When Europe sought to ban the import of Canada's toxic export, our government complained to the World Trade Organization that this violated the principles of free trade.

Met with the argument that the safeguarding of public health allowed governments to interfere with free trade, our government, aided by the Asbestos Institute (an industry lobby group that it funds very generously), argued that there was not sufficient scientific proof of the deleterious effects of asbestos.

But so well-established is the case against asbestos, that the WTO ruled that the public health argument should prevail and Canada's exports to Europe should cease. Undaunted, Canada persists in its efforts to hustle countries into purchasing the white fibrous poison.

The international community understands that, if it is left to each country to ban asbestos importation and use, callous sellers will continue to look for new, unfettered, markets. To these vending nations, it is useful to keep people ignorant.

It is troubling, therefore, that Le Monde Diplomatique reported in July, 2000, that Canada had persuaded the South Korean government to remove labels meant to warn workers about the dangers of handling the boxes of asbestos.

To counter these problems, an international convention, the Rotterdam Convention, came into force on Feb. 24, 2004.

It requires signatories who want to sell dangerous substances, such as asbestos, to inform prospective purchasers about the dangers.

This appears to be too much for Ottawa to adhere to.

While Canada appears to acknowledge that some forms of asbestos are poisonous, it argues that it has not been fully proven that chrysotile asbestos is harmful. Canada says that it will not sign on unless sale of the chrysotile form of asbestos — of which we are the largest exporters — remains excluded from the Rotterdam Convention's list of substances requiring the issue of cautions.

Yet there is so much solid evidence of chrysotile's harmful propensities that more than 100 countries want to include chrysotile on the list of dangerous substances. As most of the richer countries have banned all forms of asbestos, including chrysotile, it is the world's poor who must bear the risk of Ottawa's stance.

This month there is a meeting in Rotterdam with regard to a United Nations treaty that will begin to regulate the trade of hazardous substances. Canada will likely try to exempt chrysotile asbestos from the list.

To continue to do what we have been doing means that we are putting local political considerations and our desire for dollars over the health of Canadian workers, and the welfare of the vulnerable people in those economically needy and unregulated nations that are most easily persuaded to buy our toxic mineral.

Canada must sign the Rotterdam Convention; then it must stop the mining, processing and selling of asbestos, after setting up a mechanism to preserve the security and dignity of its asbestos workers.

Major news for the chrysotile industry: Chrysotile fibre not included in the Rotterdam Convention

MONTREAL, Sept. 19 /CNW Telbec/ - The decision was made in Geneva yesterday. Numerous producing and consuming countries, opted against the inclusion of chrysotile fibre to the Prior Informed Consent Procedure of the Rotterdam Convention for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade.

As the President of the Chrysotile Institute based in Montreal, Mr. Clement Godbout, stated after the meetings in Geneva, this is a very important decision for the international chrysotile industry. "Finally, the world seems to differentiate the five types of asbestos: amosite, actinolite, antophyllite, tremolite, and chrysotile - the latter being the only fibre exploited and showing no unacceptable risk for human health when correctly used, contrary to the four other fibres", declared Mr Godbout who works to promote the responsible and safe use policy of this natural fibre that has unique qualities and is economical, compared to its substitutes.

"The refusal to include chrysotile to the PIC Procedure is also a great show of faith by the Canadian government towards the populations of Asbestos and Thetford Mines regions. By objecting to the inclusion of chrysotile, these numerous producing and consuming countries have indicated to the whole world that this natural fibre, can and is, being used safely and responsibly. In addition, Canada also assumes its role as an international leader by offering to emerging countries which have a great need, a product which is safe, durable and comparatively inexpensive", said Mr Godbout.

Let's recall that, during the electoral campaign of last June, the Deputy and President of the Privy Council at that time, Mr. Denis Coderre, announced that a re-elected Liberal government would vote against the inclusion of chrysotile on the PIC Procedure. In April, parliamentarians of the Quebec National Assembly had unanimously adopted a motion calling for the Canadian government to take a position in the interests of the industry, the workers and the chrysotile-consuming countries.

Chrysotile is the only type of asbestos exploited in Canada. A recent study(*) involving laboratories in Switzerland, Germany and United States, headed by toxicologist Dr David Bernstein, confirms that the half-life (days necessary to eliminate half the fibres remaining in lungs after exposure) for chrysotile fibres is approximately 11 days. Half-life for cellulose fibres is 1 000 days and half-life for ceramic fibres is 60 days.

Canadian chrysotile mining facilities respect Convention 162, "Safety in the Use of Asbestos", of the International Labor Organization (ILO). In 1986, the ILO had recognised that regulations on asbestos must be based on scientific fact.

Regarding the Institute:
------------------------
The Chrysotile Institute is a private tripartite organization, established in 1984 by the Canadian chrysotile producing companies, trade unions and the Canadian and Quebec governments. The Institute is dedicated to promoting the safe use of chrysotile in Canada and throughout the world.

((*))((*)) The biopersistence of Canadian chrysotile asbestos following inhalation; Inhalation Toxicology, 15 : 1247-1274, 2003, Authors : D.M. Bernstein; R. Rogers; P. Smith.

For further information: Mr. Clement Godbout, President, (514) 877-9797 (back in Montréal on Sept. 20); Source: Chrysotile Institute

Lawyer: Japan settles asbestos lawsuit

By Hana Kusumoto, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Monday, September 20, 2004
TOKYO — Japanese government officials agreed to pay about $2.74 million to a group of former employees who suffered from lung disease after working on ships containing asbestos at Yokosuka Naval Base, Japan, an attorney involved in the case said.

The government will pay each of the 20 workers about $128,000 and will award about $229,000 to the family of a worker who died last year, according to Takeshi Furukawa, the plaintiffs’ attorney. One plaintiff will not receive compensation since the 10-year statute of limitations had expired.

The 22 workers are one of the three groups Furukawa represents. The workers claimed compensation for contracting lung problems after working at shipyards. They worked at Yokosuka between 1946 and 1997, handling asbestos-filled materials. They said they were not provided with protection such as masks.

“It is great that an early resolution will be reached in terms of victims’ relief,” a Defense Facilities Administration Agency spokesman said. DFAA handles most issues related to U.S. bases such as managing Japanese personnel.

The settlement sets a hopeful prospect for reaching an early settlement in the third lawsuit, Furukawa said. The third lawsuit, involving 15 plaintiffs, was filed July 2003 and is still pending.

The first group of 17 former workers who filed a lawsuit in 1999 were awarded $230 million yen (about $2.1 million). However, on appeal, the Tokyo High Court overturned part of the ruling and rejected $727,000, saying statute of limitations had expired for five plaintiffs.

The Japanese and U.S. governments are in negotiations over the issue, according to Japanese officials. Japan claims that the U.S. is responsible for reimbursing Japan for the money because of provisions in a contract between the two nations regarding Japanese workers at U.S. bases. According to Japanese sources, the U.S. position was that it was not responsible to reimburse Japan.

Maj. James Bell, a U.S. Forces Japan spokesman, said USFJ would not comment either on the settlement or any negotiations on reimbursement taking place between the United States and Japan. Bell said it was a long-standing policy for USFJ to refuse to comment on pending legal matters or negotiations. Bell would not confirm whether, in fact, negotiations with Japan on reimbursement were taking place.