Laurie Kazan-Allen

Blog pages:





Laurie Kazan-Allen

July 9, 2020

Action Mesothelioma Day 2020

For over 15 years “Action Mesothelioma Day” (AMD), has been a UK calendar event traditionally observed on the first Friday in July. AMD is a focal point for the activities of UK asbestos victims’ support groups and mesothelioma charities, an occasion for socializing and fellowship, an opportunity for raising research funds and a time for reaffirming one’s membership of a community of like-minded individuals.1 Over the years, AMD has taken place on blisteringly sunny days and under stormy skies with summertime showers, on occasion, preventing butterfly and dove releases. While every event had its own personality, many included musical interludes, floral tributes and post-AMD teas with homemade cakes. My take-away from the events I attended over the years was always one of amazement at the generosity of spirit and strength of character on show by people who had every right to feel aggrieved at the turn their lives had taken. The sustained effort of the volunteers and staff who organized these events was invisible but apparent nevertheless in the smoothness with which the activities were rolled out, the significant input of asbestos victims and the reassuring presence of medical personnel, should a participant be taken ill.

With all this in mind, the prospect of a socially distanced AMD filled me with consternation. Of course, no one would expect people with asbestos-related diseases to take part in a public event with the coronavirus pandemic rampant in the UK. That being so, how could AMD 2020 be marked in a way which would both uphold its objectives and respect the needs of the mesothelioma community.

Of course, there was no need to worry. Asbestos victims’ support groups and mesothelioma charities more than rose to the challenge with a multitude of virtual AMD events rolled out on July 3, 2020 to keep the conversation going and to maintain a high profile for efforts to address the UK’s deadly asbestos legacy not least of which is the ongoing death toll of 5,000+ per year.2 Online information sessions, virtual get-togethers and interviews were accessible on various platforms including facebook and youtube3 throughout the day.4 The announcement of new initiatives – such as the HASAG counselling service5 – and new resources – including a Mesothelioma Charter and an AMD briefing6 – were both timely and welcome.

Feedback from AMD suggests that while face-to-face events remain the preferred option, there was a good response to the virtual and online events with one veteran AMD organizer pointing out that it was the first time she had been able to “attend” events organized by other groups. Commenting on AMD 2020, Joanne Gordon, Chair of Asbestos Victims Support Groups UK Forum said:

“In recent months, there has been a big effort by victims’ groups to create new content and resources informed by the views of our members which prioritized the input of those suffering from asbestos-related diseases for AMD 2020. The videos produced and material created are a great resource which will be much used in the future. Discussions with Forum members continue about the impact of this unusual, and hopefully only, COVID-19 AMD.”7

1 Kazan-Allen, L. Action Mesothelioma Day 2019. July 15, 2019.
Kazan-Allen, L. Action Mesothelioma Day 2018 – Photos. July 18, 2018.

2 HSE releases annual workplace fatality figures for 2019/20. July 1, 2020.

3 Youtube Premieres: Virtual Action Mesothelioma Day 2020. July 3, 2020.
Virtual Action Mesothelioma Day 2020.

4 June Hancock Mesothelioma Research Fund. Join us for Action Mesothelioma Day 2020.

5 HASAG Counselling Service.

6 UK Mesothelioma Alliance. Mesothelioma Patient Charter.
Thompsons Solicitors. Action Mesothelioma Day 2020 – Your Asbestos Questions Answered.

7 Email from Joanne Gordon received July 4, 2020.

June 18, 2020

Outrage over Toxic Corporate Strategy!

The bald-faced hypocrisy of the American multinational Johnson & Johnson in withdrawing its iconic talc-based baby powder from sale in North America whilst continuing to market it abroad has led to global condemnation.1 Asbestos victims’ groups, consumer associations, trade unions and civil society campaigners from Asia, Latin America and Europe have demanded explanations about the company’s actions and denounced the implicit double standards which prioritized the lives of Americans at the expense of other nationalities.2

Responses signed by J&J personnel or public relation spin doctors to officials representing Medicina Democratica Movimento di Lotta per la Salute [Democratic Medicine Fight for Health Movement] (Italy), Associazione Italiana Esposti Amianto [the Italian Association of the Asbestos-Exposed], Associazione Familiari Vittime Amianto [Italy’s Asbestos Victims’ Family Association], the Brazilian Association of the Asbestos-Exposed (ABREA), the Consumers Association of Penang (Malaysia), the Ban Asbestos Network of Japan (BANJAN), Arugaan (Philippines), the EcoWaste Coalition (Philippines) and the Associated Labour Unions – Trade Union Congress of the Philippines, repeated ad nauseum the company line:

  • “Johnson & Johnson decided to stop marketing Johnson's talc-based Baby Powder in the United States and Canada as part of a wider evaluation of the product portfolio…”
  • “This decision was made after considering several factors – including changing consumer habits, misinformation about product safety and a wave of misleading advertising about related lawsuits – which ultimately decreased demand.”
  • “Johnson & Johnson remains firmly convinced of the safety of Johnson's talc-based Baby Powder. Decades of scientific studies conducted by medical experts around the world support the safety of our product.”3

A June 4 press release by the French Association for the Defense of Asbestos Victims (Andeva) denounced the infamy of J&J’s marketing strategy which valued the lives of North Americans more highly than those of non-Americans and called on the French Government to ban the import of Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based baby powder on the grounds of public health.4 In a June 17 press release, the Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK was scathing in its condemnation of J&J’s “deplorable” behaviour stating: “Human life is sacrosanct. If the company is unable or unwilling to protect the health of all its customers, then government action is called for.”5

Mobilization by the groups cited above and many others has raised the media profile of J&J’s outrageous behaviour and increased pressure on national governments, regional intergovernmental organizations and international agencies to take unilateral action.6 It goes without saying that heightened awareness of J&J’s duplicity will almost certainly result in more lawsuits being brought by non-Americans over toxic exposures to J&J baby powder. With the multinational’s decision-making accomplished at its New Jersey headquarters, it is time for foreign plaintiffs to use the U.S. legal system to seek redress for their injuries. It is almost impossible to imagine a NJ jury excusing Johnson & Johnson’s actions especially when a non-lethal version of its baby powder has been available for decades.

1 Kazan-Allen, L. Double Standards: Toxic Talc Banned at Home, On Sale Abroad. May 28, 2020.

2 Press Release: Death, Duplicity and Double Standards. May 25, 2020.

3 Letter from Johnson & Johnson S.p.A. (Italy) to Medicina Democratica Movimento di Lotta per la Salute (Democratic Medicine Fight for Health Movement). June 3, 2020.

4 AMIANTE DANS LE TALC: L’Andeva alerte le ministre de la Santé [ASBESTOS IN TALC: Andeva Alerts the Minister of Health]. June 4, 2020.

5 Press Release by the Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK. Health Alert: Asbestos in Baby Powder. June 17, 2020.

6 Talc à l'amiante: J&J cesse la commercialisation nord-américaine [Asbestos talc: J&J stops North American marketing]. June 8, 2020.,106629
L'Abeva alerte la ministre de la Santé quant à la présence d'amiante dans le talc [Abeva alerts the Minister of Health to the presence of asbestos in talc]. June 10, 2020.

May 19, 2020

China’s Rejection of Asbestos: Official

A paper published this month (May 2020) signalled that another major step had been taken by the authorities in China – a leading consumer and producer of chrysotile (white) asbestos1 – in acknowledging the deadly consequences of the commercial exploitation of asbestos. As the text entitled: Distribution of Asbestos Enterprises and Asbestosis Cases – China, 1997-20192 was published in the current issue of China CDC Weekly, an online platform for the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention – “a governmental and national-level technical organization” – and funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Academy of Engineering, it is probable that the authors’ findings will have been discussed at and endorsed by the highest levels of government.

In the first section of the paper, the co-authors set out the pariah status of asbestos:

“Asbestos is classified as a Class I Carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) because exposure causes mesothelioma and lung cancer in addition to asbestosis and plaques. So far, asbestos has been banned in 67 countries, but chrysotile, a commonly encountered form of asbestos, is still widely used in China and most developing countries. Most asbestos-caused cancers are not reported, recorded, and compensated in many countries … Enterprises should be encouraged to use safer substitutes and gradually ban asbestos materials in China.”

Asked about China’s current policy on the asbestos hazard, a long-time proponent of asbestos-free technology based in Beijing agreed that the production and publication of this paper was indicative of increasing government acknowledgment of the hazard posed by asbestos production and use. In an email exchange last week, he reported that the amount of pro-asbestos propaganda disseminated by the industry had been greatly reduced and that asbestos-containing products were “not promoted by anyone in the market in China.” The asbestos industry and its business was, he said, in decline in China.

The expert’s views are backed up by data showing that between 2012 and 2016, asbestos consumption in China decreased by 33% from 431,000 tonnes to 288,000t.3 Reviewing a chronological timeline delineating national asbestos restrictions,4 a pattern emerges showing increasing curtailment of asbestos use in China:

  1. China bans asbestos use in friction materials in the automotive industry.
  2. China’s Ministry of Health mandates new restrictions and guidelines in: Criterion for the Control and Prevention of Occupational Hazards in Asbestos Processing.
  3. China prohibits the use of asbestos in the building of infrastructure for the Beijing Olympics and the 2010 Asian Games.
  4. China bans the use of all types of asbestos, including chrysotile, as of June 1 in siding and wall construction materials under national standard GB50574-2010. Industry experts predict that the new code for the use of wall materials in buildings would decrease demand for asbestos-cement flat sheet products.
  5. China’s new “List of recommended substitutes for toxic and hazardous raw materials” is officially published on December 27 by China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. Asbestos is included in category 3, the most advanced class for which substitutes have been developed and are being used. In the document, asbestos is categorized as a toxic and hazardous substance which could be replaced by safer alternatives.

The global asbestos lobby – led in recent years by asbestos stakeholders in Russia and Kazakhstan – will be well aware of the significance of China’s shift in official policy. When China – a country which has the world’s second largest reserves of chrysotile asbestos – finally prioritizes public and occupational health over financial gain by outlawing the remaining uses of asbestos, other countries in the region will certainly follow suit. The future is asbestos free.

1 Currently, China not only has the second largest asbestos reserves but also is the third largest producer and consumer of asbestos products in the world.

2 Chen M, Wang H, et al. Distribution of Asbestos Enterprises and Asbestosis Cases – China, 1997-2019. May 1, 2020.

3 United States Geological Survey. Asbestos Statistics and Information.

4 International Ban Asbestos Secretariat. Chronology of Asbestos Bans and Restrictions.

April 27, 2020

International Workers’ Memorial Day (IWMD) 2019 vs 2020

As I anticipate IWMD 2020 in state-sanctioned isolation, I think back to last year’s IWMD; the contrast could not be starker. From a day of fellowship in Osasco, Brazil with the Association of the Asbestos-Exposed (ABREA) to one under lockdown in the UK, so much has changed that one has to strongly question whether the memory of the 2019 event had been enhanced retrospectively by the solitude which was to follow. And yet, I believe, that my recollection is accurate: from the calls of the watermelon hawker, to the beams of dappled sunlight filtered through the trees surrounding the Plaza Aquilino Alves dos Santos, to the camaraderie of the ABREA community, IWMD 2019 was a perfect manifestation of the day observed around the world to remember those injured or killed at work. Surrounded by pictures of loved ones whose lives had been sacrificed by the asbestos industry, ABREA supporters and colleagues from Europe and Asia recommitted themselves to the fight for asbestos justice in the presence of spiritual leaders, political figures, family members and friends. The small square was so crowded that one participant quipped: “Next year, we need a bigger square.”


April 28, 2019. International Workers Memorial Day Commemoration Service, Osasco, Brazil

Those gathered together in Osasco in 2019 were commemorating lives lost to diseases caused by exposure to asbestos, a mineral composed of deadly fibers invisible to the naked eye. In 2020, another microscopic killer is stalking our workplaces, institutions, streets and homes: COVID-19 has transformed our lives and stolen tens of thousands of people from their families and communities. Many of those lost were infected working on the frontline of the coronavirus pandemic; like the asbestos victims, they too were betrayed by employers who ill-prepared them for the dangers they were to face. This year, there will be no large rallies and few union gatherings to mark IWMD due to public health restrictions. Adapting to the ongoing global crisis, IWMD activities are going online with resources and events being accessed via facebook, twitter and ZOOM.1 In recognition of the vulnerability of frontline workers, the International Trade Union Confederation – representing 200 million workers in 163 countries – has changed the theme for IWMD 2020 to “Stop the Pandemic in the Workplace.” One can only hope that their efforts will further reinforce demands by the public for adequate protective equipment, universal testing of essential workers and appropriate financial compensation for their service.

Applauding the innovations being pioneered under these difficult circumstances, I will hold close my memories of IWMD 2019: nothing can surpass the experience of standing within a circle of individuals sharing a common ethos and history. I am confident that the solidarity experienced last year will survive this pandemic and that we will call on each of our governments to honor our debt to those whose avoidable deaths were caused by exposures to asbestos, COVID-19 or other deadly agents. On April 28, we will, whether alone or in company: “Remember the Dead, and Fight for the Living.” Be safe!

1 Hazards Campaign Briefing and Call to Action Plan.
Also see: Union Safety Website:
Also see: Lecco ricorda le vittime dell'amianto con messa e video in streaming [Lecco remembers asbestos victims with streaming and streaming videos]. April 23, 2020.

March 17, 2020

Another Bitter Blow for Italy’s Asbestos Victims

A TV news item about the current reality of life under lockdown in Casale Monferrato, the Italian town at the epicentre of the country’s asbestos epidemic, featured interviews with Oncologist Daniela Degiovanni, palliative care specialist and director of a hospice which has cared for asbestos patients for more than a decade, and the current Mayor Federico Riboldi.1

The speakers explained how the decades-long struggle by the town against the deadly asbestos hazard had created a proclivity for this evolving 21st century danger to be taken seriously by local people. There was, said Dr. Degiovanni, a great deal of fear amongst the population, with both townsfolk and healthcare workers affected by the virus.

The broadcast included footage of closed shops in the city center, people wearing face masks and the iconic flag in the national colors calling for: Eternit Giustizia (Eternit Justice).2


There is no question that people already suffering from asbestos-related illnesses and respiratory conditions will be less able to throw off the effects of the coronavirus. It is also likely that the physicians treating them will be part or become part of medical teams caring for virus patients. In fact, on March 12, Dr. Federica Grosso, the head of the Mesothelioma Unit in Piedmont, Alessandria, ~30 kilometers from Casale Monferrato, uploaded a tweet noting the sad demise of her first mesothelioma patient due to the coronavirus. According to a report in La Stampa newspaper, former traffic policeman and mesothelioma patient Giorgio Rosso died on March 8 from Covid-19.3 Seventy-one year old Mr. Rossi had worked in Casale Monferrato from 1973 until 2005 and had been diagnosed with the signature asbestos cancer in 2018. During a short break from his mesothelioma treatment and after having had a high temperature for some while, he was taken to the emergency room at Casale Monferrato hospital where he was tested for the virus (March 5).

Unfortunately, that test proved positive and this much-beloved and popular man from Casale Monferrato died three days later. Writing about this trauma, journalist Silvana Mossano – whose husband Marco Giorcelli, editor of the Casale local newspaper Il Monferrato, died of mesothelioma aged 52 in 2012 – wrote movingly of Mr. Rosso’s death: “He did not imagine that it would have been a virus smaller than the already invisible asbestos fiber that would end his life.”

In the weeks and months to come, we fear that many more mesothelioma victims and others with asbestos-related diseases will die from Covid-19. Our thoughts are with our friends and colleagues whose compromised health systems make them vulnerable to this plague and with the medical professionals who will, once again, be on the frontline in the fight to save life from an invisible and deadly killer.

1 Casale Monferrato al Tg2: come la città martire dell'amianto affronta il coronavirus [Casale Monferrato at TG2: how the iconic asbestos city is facing up to the coronavirus]. March 11, 2020.

2 Eternit was the company responsible for thousands of asbestos deaths amongst workers, their relatives, consumers and members of the public throughout Italy.

3 Mossano, S. Casale Monferrato, lottava con un mesotelioma ma ha perso con il coronavirus: l’addio a Giorgio Rosso [Casale Monferrato, struggled with mesothelioma but lost with coronavirus: farewell to Giorgio Rosso]. March 8, 2020.

17 Marzo, 2020

Un altro duro colpo per le vittime dell’amianto in Italia

Di Laurie Kazan-Allen

Traduzione a cura di Raffaella Casati

In un recente servizio televisivo riguardante l’attuale situazione a Casale Monferrato, il comune italiano al centro della lotta contro l’amianto, sono stati intervistati Daniela Degiovanni, oncologa specializzata in cure palliative e da oltre dieci anni direttrice di una clinica per la cura delle vittime dell’amianto, e l’attuale sindaco Federico Riboldi.1

Entrambi hanno evidenziato come il pluridecennale coinvolgimento della città contro i pericoli mortali legati all’amianto abbia favorito una propensione da parte dei cittadini a prendere particolarmente sul serio la nuova minaccia del 21 secolo. La dott.ssa Degiovanni ha dichiarato che il livello di tensione è molto alto tra la popolazione, dato il numero di cittadini e personale medico affetti dal virus.

Sono state mandate in onda anche immagini del centro città, con negozi chiusi, persone che indossano maschere protettive e la bandiera tricolore che cita “Eternit: Giustizia”.2


Non c’è dubbio sul fatto che le persone che già soffrono di malattie legate all’amianto o di altre patologie respiratorie avranno maggiori difficoltà nel combattere gli effetti del coronavirus. è anche probabile che gli specialisti che si prendono cura di questi pazienti entreranno a far parte delle équipe mediche dedicate al trattamento dei malati che hanno contratto il virus. Il 12 marzo, la dott.ssa Federica Grosso, responsabile dell’Unità Mesotelioma di Alessandria, ha pubblicato un tweet cha annunciava il decesso dovuto al coronavirus di un suo paziente già affetto da mesotelioma. Secondo un articolo pubblicato su La Stampa, Giorgio Rosso, ex vigile urbano, è deceduto l’8 marzo a causa del Covid-19.3 L’uomo di 71 anni aveva lavorato a Casale Monferrato dal 1973 al 2005 e aveva contratto il “cancro da amianto” nel 2018. Nel corso di una breve pausa dal trattamento del mesotelioma, e dopo una persistente febbre alta, il 5 marzo si era recato al Pronto Soccorso dell’ospedale di Casale Monferrato, dove era stato sottoposto al tampone per il coronavirus.

Il test è risultato positivo, e l’uomo tanto noto e amato in paese è deceduto tre giorni dopo. La giornalista Silvana Mossano - il cui marito Marco Giorcelli, editore del quotidiano locale Il Monferrato, ha perso la battaglia contro il mesotelioma nel 2012 all’età di 52 anni - ha cos commentato la morte di Giorgio Rosso: “Non avrebbe mai immaginato di morire a causa di un virus ancora pi piccolo delle fibre di amianto”.

Il nostro timore è che nelle settimane e nei mesi a venire, altri pazienti malati di mesotelioma o affetti da patologie legate all’amianto possano essere vittime del Covid-19. Il nostro affetto e i nostri pensieri vanno agli amici e colleghi resi pi vulnerabili a questo virus, nonché al personale medico che si troverà ancora una volta in prima linea nella lotta contro un nemico invisibile e mortale.

1 Casale Monferrato al Tg2: come la città martire dell'amianto affronta il coronavirus. 11 Marzo 2020.

2 Eternit è l’azienda responsabile di migliaia di decessi dovuti all’amianto tra lavoratori, loro famigliari, consumatori e cittadini in tutta Italia.

3 Mossano, S. Casale Monferrato, lottava con un mesotelioma ma ha perso con il coronavirus: l’addio a Giorgio Rosso. 8 Marzo 2020.

February 11, 2020

Asbestos Bankruptcies: Winners and Losers

The news that the 2020 incarnation of Uralita – Spain’s former asbestos giant – had sought protection from its asbestos liabilities by seeking voluntary bankruptcy last month (January, 2020), led me to revisit exit strategies pursued by other asbestos conglomerates.1 In 1982, the U.S. Johns-Manville Corporation (JM) filed for voluntarily bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to escape its asbestos liabilities. Nearly 20 years later, T&N Ltd. – the company which had dominated the UK asbestos industry for more than fifty years – sought protection from asbestos claims by filing for administration under the UK Insolvency Act of 1986. Around the same time, the Australian asbestos giant James Hardie Industries Limited relocated to the Netherlands and underwent a corporate reorganization, dumping its asbestos liabilities into an underfunded charitable trust called: The Medical Research and Compensation Foundation. In July, 2018, Eternit S.A. – formerly Brazil’s biggest asbestos conglomerate – filed a judicial recovery plan to stave off bankruptcy.

A discernible pattern is apparent from the actions of the asbestos Goliaths from North America, Europe, Australia and Latin America; when push came to shove, these companies which had been household names, blue chip stocks and dominant players in local and national economies prioritized – as always – corporate profits over workers’ rights. Countless Americans died from asbestos-related diseases as JM took its time rearranging its finances, only emerging from bankruptcy proceedings in 1988. After that, the submission of claims restarted but no lawsuits could be brought and payments made were a fraction of what they might have been. It is early days in the Uralita bankruptcy but it is likely asbestos claims will be frozen until the situation is resolved. Unfortunately, time is never on the side of someone with asbestos cancer and many of the injured will die in the meantime.

There are lessons to be learned from the developments cited above: asbestos companies can never be trusted. People working today for companies such as Hindustan Composites Limited and Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd in India, Orenburg Minerals and Uralasbest in Russia, Kostanai Minerals in Kazakhstan, PT Trigraha and PT Jeil Farjar in Indonesia could pay with their lives – and those of their families – for their daily bread. There is no place in the 21st century for the asbestos industry. Trust it at your peril.

1 La CNMV suspende la cotización de la antigua Uralita al suspender pagos [The CNMV suspends the price of the former Uralita by suspending payments]. January 31, 2020.

January 8, 2020

New Year, Old Lies

Reeling from a series of body blows in 2019, the asbestos lobby began 2020 with a feeble attempt to regain control of the asbestos narrative with a feature on a Russian website on January 5 which rehashed industry propaganda supporting the continued use of chrysotile (white) asbestos, asserting that despite being banned in 63 countries, asbestos could be safely used under controlled conditions. Asbestos was, the author claimed, Donald Trumps’s “favorite stone” and “the current US President… actively advocates for its defense.” Citing multiple examples of historical asbestos use, the author noted that “mass hysteria” in America over asbestos had been a gold mine for lawyers and asbestos removal firms even though “Russian scientists unanimously reiterate that, subject to safety measures, asbestos is an extremely useful mineral.”1

It is no wonder that the industry is desperate, having suffered a catalogue of defeats throughout 2019 with asbestos bans being achieved in Colombia and upheld in Brazil, government support for asbestos prohibitions being progressed in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam and increasing awareness of the asbestos hazard in Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil and even Russia – the world’s largest asbestos producer. The year’s final and most probably largest upset for asbestos vested interests was a pronounced shift in the asbestos policy of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), one of the most important financial donors in the Asia-Pacific region. In December, an ADB representative confirmed:

“The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has since 2009 explicitly prohibited ADB financing for the production of, trade in, or use of unbonded asbestos fibers. However, the purchase and use of bonded asbestos cement sheeting where asbestos content was less than 20% has been permitted. This was consistent with prevailing industry standards and safety guidance. Given increased concerns regarding the potential risks of these products, ADB is now taking steps to address this. From 2020, ADB will refrain from financing any new projects containing any presence of asbestos; this update will be reflected in the next review of ADB’s Safeguard Policy Statement.”2

As Asia is the largest market for asbestos and as the ADB is a major donor for infrastructure and other projects, this prohibition marks a seismic moment for the struggle to protect populations from the dangers of toxic exposures throughout the region. There is little doubt that where the ADB goes other financial institutions and regional authorities will follow. There is no place in the 21st century for asbestos – not in Asia, not anywhere!

1 ЛЮБИМЫЙ КАМЕНЬ ДОНАЛЬДА ТРАМПА [Donald Trump's favorite stone]. January 5, 2020.

2 Email received by Laurie Kazan-Allen. December 20, 2019.

October 11, 2019

Asbestos Hot Potato: The São Paulo

News circulating last month (September 2019) that the Brazilian aircraft carrier the São Paulo1 was to be auctioned set off alarm bells in France as well as in Brazil. Before its sale to the Brazilian Navy, the vessel had been part of the French fleet; originally commissioned as the Foch in 1963, she remained in service in France until 2000 when she was sold to Brazil’s Ministry of Defence.2

The Foch was the sister ship of the infamous aircraft carrier the Clemenceau which caused an international incident when it was sent to India for dismantling in 2006, due to the presence of around 760 tonnes of asbestos-containing material plus quantities of PCBs, lead and mercury.3 After protests by asbestos victims’ groups, Greenpeace and civil society campaigners and a Supreme Court ruling in India, the French Government reversed its position and brought the Clemenceau home. The demolition of the ship – which started in 2009 and was completed by the end of 2010 – was undertaken in Hartlepool, UK at the Graythorp Yard.

On October 1, 2019, the Brazilian Association of the Asbestos-Exposed (ABREA) wrote to Emmanuel Macron, the President of France, asking for his assistance in ensuring that the São Paulo was appropriately disposed of and not sold off for scrap to a cash buyer planning to beach it at one of the many unregulated facilities in South Asia.4 The letter from ABREA pointed out:

“…according to the Basel Convention, the export of toxic waste is prohibited. The São Paulo aircraft carrier is therefore a toxic dump because it is full of asbestos and this fact violates strongly the Basel Convention to which Brazil is a signatory... according to paragraph 8.3 of the tender notice, the French government must authorize the sale of the São Paulo aircraft carrier.”

ABREA’s fears regarding the final destination of the São Paulo were substantiated by an article published on October 2 which said:

“The likely fate [of the São Paulo] is the same as its predecessor, the aircraft carrier Minas Gerais – formerly owned by the British and Australian Navies – which operated between 1960 and 2000 in Brazil until it was sold as scrap and wound up at the ‘ship graveyard’ in Alang, in India.”5

On October 4, 2019, ANDEVA – a French association of asbestos victims’ groups – also asked for the intervention of the French President requesting that Macron use his authority to block any attempt to export the ship to Asia where there is no capacity to undertake its dismantling safely as per international conventions and treaties.

1 Brazil's Aircraft Carrier To Be Auctioned Off After 30 Years Of Disappointment. September 26, 2019.

2 Letter to Brazil’s Ministry of Defense. September 16, 2019.

3 Kazan-Allen, L. Osasco: Birthplace of the 21st Century Ban Asbestos Movement. April 2006.

4 Letter to Macron (Portuguese). October 1, 2019

5 Casco do porta-avies São Paulo será leiloado em dezembro [São Paulo aircraft carrier hull to be auctioned in December.] October 2, 2019.

September 4, 2019

Brexit Collateral Damage: Asbestos Imports?

After hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths caused by asbestos exposures in Britain, the possibility of post-Brexit asbestos imports was of such concern that campaigners in Liverpool sought a meeting with Metro Mayor Steve Rotheram, who is also the Honorary President of the Merseyside Asbestos Victims Support Group (MAVSG). In a September 3, 2019 media release, MAVSG’s John Flanagan summed up the Group’s fears as follows:

“Decades of Liverpool dock workers were exposed to lethal cargoes of asbestos transported to the UK through our docks. As a result of this and other toxic exposures, the Merseyside area has a horrendous incidence of asbestos-related diseases including fatal cancers. MAVSG has been working for more than 25 years to support the injured and obtain justice for them and their families. We have become increasingly concerned about the possibility of toxic imports via Liverpool in the aftermath of Brexit. Any deal with the US – a country which has no asbestos ban and continues to use asbestos in a range of products – must stipulate that no shipments of asbestos-contaminated goods would be allowed to enter the UK.”1

Mayor Rotherham’s subsequent letter to Andrea Leadsom MP, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, asked that she “guarantee that any trade deal negotiated with any country, and specifically the USA, does not allow the importation of asbestos, in items containing asbestos – such as automotive parts.” With the UK’s current constitutional crisis, the day to day running of the country has been suspended and the odds that such a guarantee will be forthcoming are exceedingly low. In recognition of the Tory Government’s drive to “deregulate and downgrade measures protecting occupational and public health,” Mayor Rotherham is considering all available options to safeguard the lives of Liverpool City Region residents including that of acting “unilaterally to protect our citizens” from the asbestos hazard.

Just over 20 years ago, the asbestos prohibitions eventually adopted by the UK were implemented under the cover of the European Union’s ban as British politicians were too afraid of becoming embroiled in a World Trade Organization dispute to take unilateral action.2 Should Brexit indeed come to pass, who will ensure that toxic material from the US – a country where asbestos use remains legal and where the pro-asbestos President has said that asbestos was “100 percent safe”3 – is not shipped to the UK? With much of the 7 million tonnes of asbestos imported to the UK during the 20th century still in place, British consumers as well as workers have legitimate grounds for concern.

1 Media Release. Liverpool Blockade on Asbestos Imports. September 2, 2019.

2 Kazan-Allen, L. United Kingdom Bans Asbestos. British Asbestos Newsletter, Issue 36, Autumn 1999.

3 Rosner, D. Deregulating Safety: The Case of the Effort to Ban Asbestos. June 2017.

August 16, 2019

A Tale of Two Cities 2019

Although on different continents and with ~10,000 miles between them, Wittenoom, Australia and Minaçu, Brazil share a common history. For decades both towns were the location of asbestos mines operated by private companies for commercial gain. As the largest local employers, Australian Blue Asbestos Pty Ltd. and SA Minerações Associadas (SAMA) wielded immense political influence at municipal, regional and federal levels and worked assiduously to create a climate in which corporate profits were prioritized over occupational and public safety.


Aerial View of SAMA Industrial Area and Cana Brava Mine (Source: SAMA Sustainability Report, 2013, p. 51).


Wittenoom Asbestos Mine 1979.

The epidemic of disease and death caused by asbestos exposures which took place in Wittenoom have long been acknowledged; decades after mining ceased, people continue to die from the inhalation of toxic fibers during their childhoods. Given that human biology is a constant, it is predictable that despite decades of denial by vested interests, the deadly outcome in Minaçu would be the same. Confirmation of this was first made public in a 682-page report by the [Federal] Chamber of Deputies’ Environment and Sustainable Development Commission entitled “the Asbestos Disaster in Brazil”1 and substantiated this year (2019) in a PhD dissertation by Brazilian anthropologist Arthur Pires Amaral who revealed a conspiracy of silence in Minaçu which prevented injured workers and grieving families from publicly denouncing SAMA or speaking out about their illnesses. 2

The Australian solution to the problem of Wittenoom – which remains a perverse tourist attraction for some but highly hazardous due to the presence of millions of tonnes of asbestos-contaminated mining waste – is to compulsory purchase land still owned by the public in order to bring the whole area under State management.3 Legislation proceeding through the West Australian Parliament to accomplish this goal has been taken: “to ensure the health and safety of the public, including the current [few] residents of Wittenoom… [and] to finalise the closure of Wittenoom and bring this matter to an end… The longer Wittenoom remains, the greater the risk posed by this area becomes.”

While closing the town of Minaçu is not an option, ensuring that the operations of the asbestos mine do not recommence to provide fiber for export purposes only – as vested interests are aggressively lobbying for – is of paramount importance. Minaçu’s emerging asbestos epidemic was caused not only by corporate greed but also by political and economic dynamics not yet fully divulged. All of those who profited from SAMA’s operations have blood on their hands. It is time for the people of Minaçu to publicly disavow the asbestos narrative of yesteryear and demand their right to live a life safe from toxic exposures.

1 Dossiê Amianto Brasil (Brazil’s Asbestos Dossier):  Report of the Working Group of the House of Representatives Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development to analyze the implications of asbestos use in Brazil. Brasilia, 2010. Accessed: June 28, 2019.

2 Amaral, Arthur Pires. Com o peito cheio de pó: uma etnografia sobre a negação do adoecimento de trabalhadores do amianto na cidade de Minaçu (GO) [With a chest full of dust: an ethnography about the denial of asbestos workers illness in the city of Minaçu (GO)]. 2019. Orientation of the work: Professor Monica Thereza Soares Bargain. 289 f. Thesis (Doctorate in Social Anthropology) - Federal University of Goiás, Goinia, 2019.

3 Wittenoom Closure Bill 2018. Second Reading Speech. August 2019.$File/Bill120-1SR.pdf

July 22, 2019

Asbestos Shame: At Home and Abroad

Never in living memory have asbestos articles appeared on the front-pages of two leading British newspapers in the same fortnight. The features entitled Revealed: the asbestos risk at hundreds of schools in the print version of The Guardian on July 5, 20191 and UK firms trading in deadly asbestos in the print version of The Sunday Times (Scotland)2 on July 14, 2019 were joined by other online pieces on July 4, 7, 8 & 14. In these pieces, journalists Frances Perraudin and Carlos Alba considered the price paid by UK citizens for the failure of successive governments to address the national asbestos legacy and the circumstances in which UK-registered limited partnership companies continued to profit from global asbestos sales.


While The Guardian’s coverage looked at the imminent hazard posed by asbestos within the national infrastructure – and highlighted the danger to pupils and teaching staff of toxic exposures at schools – The Times revealed the names of key global asbestos traders with UK connections: Scottish-based CJ Petrow International, an “associate company” of one of the world’s biggest traders in asbestos, the South African company CJ Petrow & Co (Pty); Astrade Solutions LP, registered at a virtual office in Edinburgh; Minerals Global Trading LLP, formerly based in north London; and Worldwide Cargo Logistics Solutions, LLP (company number OC387036) registered in north London.3 The hypocrisy of companies in the UK – which has the world’s highest incidence of asbestos mortality and has banned asbestos use – brokering asbestos trade deals between Russia and developing countries is obvious. In 2015, almost half of all the asbestos mined in Russia was traded by UK-registered companies or businesses associated with them:

  • Astrade Solutions LP was responsible for 106 shipments of asbestos totalling 34,636 tons to Cuba and Vietnam worth ~$13.7m;
  • Minerals Global Trading LLP shipped 263,660 tons worth $71.46m to India, Indonesia, China, Mexico, Malaysia, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Thailand and Sri Lanka;
  • the South African company CJ Petrow & Co (Pty) exported 65,324 tons of asbestos valued at $38.7m to India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Mexico.

Details reported in The Times articles about the asbestos middlemen including an embezzlement scandal and banking fraud in Moldova, a $10bn “mirror trading” scandal in Russia and the involvement of off-shore companies based in the Seychelles, Panama and the Marshall Islands combined with the protections provided by the “obscure [British] law that allows companies to trade in secrecy,” suggest that while the businesses in question are happy to reap dividends from their involvement in the asbestos trade, they are not inclined to publicize the nature or extent of their activities. With the impending “coronation” of a new Prime Minister, the political maelstrom surrounding Brexit and the escalation of tension in the Middle East, is it likely that action will be taken to curtail Britain’s ignominious role in the global asbestos catastrophe any time soon? The struggle continues.

1 Perraudin, F. 700 English schools reported over asbestos safety concerns. July 4, 2019.
Perraudin, F. Revealed: the asbestos risk at hundreds of schools. July 5, 2019. [Not online; hard copy only – front page and page 7.]
Perraudin, F. Britain’s death toll from asbestos at crisis level, figures reveal. July 7, 2019.
Perraudin, F. Asbestos deaths reach peak after ‘past criminal failings.’ July 8, 2019. [Not online; hard copy only – page 5.]

2 Alba, C. Revealed: the Scottish links to asbestos trade. July 14, 2019. [Page 1, Subscription only.]
Alba, C. UK firms trading in deadly asbestos. July 14, 2019. [Page 7, Subscription only.]

3 Companies House. Worldwide Cargo Logistics Solutions, LLP. Accessed July 21, 2019.

July 4, 2019

Making History!

Towards the end of June 2019, it became clear that real progress had been made in the global struggle for asbestos justice by victims, their supporters and grassroots campaigners during the latter half of that month. From France to Brazil via Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia, India, the Congo, Spain and Italy research was published documenting the occupational and public hazard posed by exposures to asbestos,1 legal victories were achieved and outreach projects came to fruition.

For decades asbestos stakeholders denied that operations at the SAMA chrysotile asbestos mine in Minaçu posed a health risk to workers or members of the public; these assertions were strongly supported by representatives of the mine’s “yellow” trade union. With the closure of the mine and the sacking of the SAMA workforce, the truth is beginning to emerge. The publication of an article documenting the deaths of seven members of one family, all of whom had worked for SAMA, provided tangible proof of the tragic repercussions of the industry’s actions.2 The asbestos hearing held at the Chamber of Deputies in Rio de Janeiro on June 28 and the launch of the book Eternidade: The Social Construction of Brazil’s Asbestos Ban during that event highlighted the importance of the work done by victims groups throughout the country.3


From left: Author Marina Moura, ABREA Co-Founder Fernanda Giannasi and Carlos Minc, Secretary of the Environment for the State of Rio de Janeiro.

Around the world, research documenting the tragic impact of asbestos exposures was made available by international agencies, national authorities, grassroots campaigners and medical experts:

  • On June 17, warnings about a future epidemic of asbestos-related diseases in China were printed in a column by medical expert Dr. Liang Xiansun in Hong Kong’s first free health newspaper;
  • On June 18, training sessions and discussions took place at The Awareness Raising Workshop on the Impact of Asbestos and Asbestos-Related Diseases held in Vientiane, Laos; on June 19, asbestos awareness sessions were held in the city for student nurses and dentists.
  • On June 21, the UN Environment Agency issued an alert warning of the human health hazard posed by asbestos in the natural environment, highlighting the potential threat posed by airborne and waterborne asbestos fibers and urging that measures to minimize toxic exposures be implemented.
  • On June 25, a medical expert in Vietnam warned that: “Exposure to asbestos also increases the risk of lung cancer, especially among smokers (3 times higher risk than just smoking).”
  • On June 27, epidemiological data on mesothelioma mortality was published by Public Health France covering the period since asbestos was banned (1998-2017). Certain geographical areas and occupational groups were at higher risks, such as people in the North, North-West and South-East of France and construction workers. The report concluded that: “Exposure to asbestos is and will remain for several decades a major public health issue.”
  • On June 27, Cambodia’s National Asbestos Profile was launched in Phnom Penh by the Minister of Labour and Vocational Training Ith Samheng; the text highlighted categories of workers at high risk of contracting asbestos-related diseases and cited international evidence regarding the deadly hazard posed by asbestos exposures.
  • In Indonesia, grassroots campaigners raised the alert over the increase in national asbestos usage and committed to an expansion in asbestos outreach programs and collaborative projects to protect citizens.
  • The death of a 39-year old mesothelioma patient from the Congo was the subject of a paper published in a peer-reviewed environmental health journal (June 2019); it was believed to be the first case of malignant mesothelioma from the Central African region to be reported.

Again, during the fortnight June 17-30, news of multiple legal victories achieved in European asbestos cases was circulated:

  • A court in Pamplona, Spain issued full compensation to the family of a Spanish worker who died from lung cancer having been occupationally exposed to asbestos as a result of which he contracted lung cancer;
  • An Administrative Court of Rennes (Ille-et-Vilaine) awarded damages against the French State of between €3,000-10,000 to 50 former sailors based in the north of the country for “asbestos anxiety” caused by exposures to asbestos experienced during military service between 1950 and 2000.
  • The Second Court of Assizes of Naples rejected an appeal made by defendant Stephan Schmidheiny who was accused of the voluntary murder of 8 people who died from exposure to his company’s asbestos; 6 of them were employees of the Eternit plant in Bagnoli and 2 were family members. Legal proceedings in Naples began before Judge Alfonso Barbarano.

Recent developments in India highlighted the repercussions of growing asbestos awareness amongst consumers, with Visaka Industries Ltd., India’s second biggest manufacturer of asbestos-cement roofing, announcing on June 25 that it was expanding production of asbestos-free building products. A person of a cynical disposition might question whether this transition was motivated by consumers’ preferences or a substantial price increase of Russian asbestos fiber exports as reported in a June 15 circular by insulation and packings manufacturer Eastwell Industries Ltd., in Maharashtra, India.

While Brazilian authorities took steps in June to ensure that the country’s asbestos ban was being observed in the city of Campos dos Goytacaza in Rio de Janeiro State, a website was launched by the former asbestos manufacturer Brasilit as per a court agreement to enable former asbestos workers from the cities of Belém, Capivari, Contagem, Esteio, Recife, São Caetano do Sul and Rio de Janeiro to access free medical care. On June 25 & 26, a “healing camp” was held in South Chungcheong Province in the west of South Korea to enable 70 victims of asbestos-related diseases and family members to relax in a soothing environment, visit local tourist attractions and develop new techniques for managing their illnesses.

After multiple attempts over twelve years to outlaw the commercialization of asbestos in Colombia, the Ana Cecilia Nio ban asbestos bill was finally green-lighted by the Colombian Congress on June 17, just days before Congress adjourned; once the bill is signed by President Duque, asbestos users will have until January 1, 2021 to make the transition to asbestos-free technologies.4

The battle for asbestos justice which is being fought all over the world is making progress at every level of society; starting the asbestos dialogue remains an important first step but following up with collaborative projects, outreach initiatives and enforcement of regulations is absolutely crucial. The struggle continues!

1 For details of all these occurrences see news IBAS items between June 17 and June 30, 2019.

2 Tragni, CF. The Mine that Kills. June 27, 2019.

3 Malheiros, T. Livro sobre a luta pelo banimento do amianto no Brasil será lançado na Alerj, sexta-feira (28/6) [Book on the fight for banning asbestos in Brazil will be released in the Legislative Assembly in Rio de Janeiro, Friday (28/6)]. June 22, 2019.

4 Posso, A. El presidente Duque sancionará la ley que prohíbe el uso de asbestos en Colombia [President Duque will sanction law that bans asbestos use in Colombia]. July 3, 2019

June 24, 2019

Global Mesothelioma Fellowship

A small gathering took place at the Law Society in London on June 18, 2019 to honor the efforts of an Australian doctor who has arguably seen more mesothelioma patients than any other general practitioner: Dr. Gregory Deleuil, Medical Advisor to the Asbestos Diseases Society of Australia (ADSA). For thirty-five years, Dr. Deleuil, or Dr. D as he is referred to at the Society’s offices in Perth, has been providing medical support for the Society’s members. After ten years, his involvement became personal as well as professional when his mother Alice was diagnosed with mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos in Darwin, Australia; she died nine months after receiving the diagnosis (1996).

Dr. D. has travelled extensively to raise awareness of the public health as well as the occupational hazard posed by exposure to asbestos and has lectured throughout the United Kingdom – including multiple presentations at the annual Parliamentary Asbestos Sub-Group Asbestos Seminar – as well as in Poland, Slovenia, the Netherlands and Belgium. During his frequent trips to the UK, he had the occasion to learn about June Hancock and the Fund – the June Hancock Mesothelioma Research Fund (JHMRF/ the Fund)1 – which was set up in her memory and he took part in several events co-hosted by the Fund and the law firm of Irwin Mitchell, which had represented June in her titanic battle to hold T&N, plc to account for the negligence of its subsidiary J. W. Roberts Ltd.

In 2009, Dr. D visited Armley (Leeds) in the company of campaigner Jason Addy from the Save Spodden Valley group. He saw first-hand the conditions in which residents had lived check-by-jowl with the J.W. Roberts asbestos factory in Canal Street. It was exposure to the asbestos from this factory that caused the mesothelioma contracted by Maie Gelder, the mother of June Hancock. When June contacted the same cancer 12 years later, she was in no doubt about what lay ahead. It is a rather chilling coincidence that Dr. Deleuil and June Hancock both lost their mothers to the same cancer caused by non-occupational asbestos exposure.2

Upon learning of the publication by the JHMRF of the landmark Mesothelioma Handbook (2016), Dr. D. initiated discussions between the Asbestos Diseases Society of Australia and the JHMRF for permission to publish an Australian adaptation of the Handbook. The Australian version, which was launched in 2017 by author Dr. Clayson, was warmly welcomed by mesothelioma sufferers and family members who said that it had proved a valuable and informative resource.3


June 18, 2019: Presentation to Dr. Deleuil (center) of the June Hancock Mesothelioma Research Fund Lifetime Achievement Award.

Present for the June 18 event in London were solicitors Adrian Budgen, Ian Bailey, Guy Darlaston, Alida Coates and Leah O’Keefe from Irwin Mitchell; Laurie Kazan-Allen, a Patron of the June Hancock Mesothelioma Research Fund, also attended. Adrian Budgen had been June’s solicitor and was instrumental in establishing the Fund to carry on June’s battle to conquer mesothelioma. In his capacity as a Trustee of the Fund, he made the presentation to Dr. Deleuil of the inaugural June Hancock Mesothelioma Research Fund Lifetime Achievement Award for services to asbestos victims saying:

“On behalf of my fellow JHMRF trustees, I am both honoured and delighted to present the first June Hancock Mesothelioma Research Fund Lifetime Achievement Award to you (Greg Deleuil) in special recognition of your nearly 40 years of outstanding service to mesothelioma sufferers and their families, in Australia, and your very important campaigning and awareness-raising work around the world, including the UK. We owe you a great debt of gratitude, Greg, and this award comes with our very best wishes and love; thank you from the bottom of our hearts.”


1 To date, the JHMRF has raised £2 million for UK mesothelioma research. The website of the June Hancock Mesothelioma Research Fund can be accessed at:
Also see: Bridge, V. and Budgen, A. Too Close To Home. British Asbestos Newsletter. Issue 100, Spring 2016. [Pages 62-63].

2 Deadly Legacy. May 27, 2009.
Also see: Kazan-Allen, L. Remembering June Hancock. British Asbestos Newsletter; Issue 67, Summer 2007.

3 Clayson, H. Mesothelioma Handbook. 2016.

May 16, 2019

Asbestos Refusniks vs. The United Nations

The predictable but nonetheless despicable behaviour of asbestos stakeholders who held United Nations representatives to ransom at the May 2019 meeting of the 9th Conference of the Parties (COP9) to the Rotterdam Convention1 continues as their “victory” is exploited for political and social gains. In Russian language articles and on-line features such as one uploaded yesterday (May 15, 2019) headlined: “The meeting of the parties to the Rotterdam Convention ended in favor of chrysotile asbestos (translated via Google),”2 the news from Geneva was trumpeted with a 100% industry bias and erroneous statements such as:

  • “Chrysotile asbestos is the safest industrial fiber…”
  • “with controlled use, chrysotile asbestos and products based on it are safe for both workers and consumers.”
  • “In finished products, chrysotile fiber is in a bound form, which excludes the possibility of its entering into the respiratory tract of the end user.”
  • “The prohibition of the use of chrysotile asbestos is unreasonable and will inevitably entail disastrous consequences.”3

Prohibiting chrysotile asbestos is not an option under the terms of the Rotterdam Convention. The threat of a ban, however, is the rabble-rousing cause used by the asbestos lobby to foment support amongst workers, community members, local authorities, politicians and other vested interests. In fact, under the terms of the Convention, a chemical or pesticide categorized as hazardous can only be included on a list (Annex III) which triggers the introduction of a prior-informed-consent regime whereby importing countries must be notified of potential hazards posed by the consumption of the listed substance.

To put it in terms that an asbestos lobbyist might understand: if Vladimir is in the market to buy a half liter of vodka in Moscow and is told he can buy a bottle of Beluga Vodka for 775 rubles (US $12.00) or a bottle of an unknown brand (B) for 125 roubles ($2) – but brand B might contain industrial alcohol which could cause blindness or death – he is free to make an informed decision as to which item he wished to purchase. The Rotterdam Convention was designed to provide the right-to-know to all countries so that vulnerable populations would not be put at risk of exposure to dangerous substances like chrysotile which they were unable to use safely.

The Russian-led 2019 veto which blocked the listing of chrysotile was intended to forestall such an exchange of information. The motivation was financial. According to a recent New York Times article, in 2018, 80% of asbestos output from the Uralasbest chrysotile asbestos mine – located in the city of Asbest in the Sverdlovsk Oblast region of the Urals – was exported. It is little wonder therefore that the Russian attendees at COP9 blocked the adoption of a UN protocol mandating that importers be advised of the potential hazards faced by purchasing chrysotile despite overwhelming support for such action.4

Convention Observer Omana George, from the Asia Monitor Resource Centre and a member of the ABAN delegation to COP9, expressed the views of many when she criticized the abuse of the Convention by chrysotile lobbyists:

“Their behaviour was boorish during our vigil for asbestos victims in the foyer of the Convention Center on May 7 and obstructive during the discussion on listing chrysotile on May 8 when they denied the existence of medical and scientific evidence supporting the links between exposure to chrysotile and the occurrence of asbestos-related cancers and fatal respiratory diseases. It was clear that Russian interests had orchestrated the opposition to listing chrysotile and it was a source of great frustration to delegates in the plenary session that once again, the commercial interests of the few had triumphed over the wishes of the many.”5


Omana George addressing the vigil for asbestos victims, May 7, 2019. Photo by IISD/ENB | Kiara Worth

1 George, O. and Kazan-Allen, L. The Rotterdam Convention 2019. May 10, 2019.

2 Заседание сторон Роттердамской конвенции завершилось в пользу хризотил-асбеста
[The meeting of the parties to the Rotterdam Convention ended in favor of chrysotile asbestos]. May 15, 2019.
Other Russian articles celebrating the Rotterdam Convention asbestos rout are listed below:
Вопрос о запрете хризотила в рамках Роттердамской конвенции перенесли еще на два года [The issue of banning chrysotile under the Rotterdam Convention was postponed for another two years.] May 9, 2019.
Жители Асбеста провели в Женеве пикет против запрета на добычу асбеста (Asbestos residents held a picket in Geneva against the ban on asbestos mining.) May 8, 2019.
Нет антиасбестовым запретам! Россияне, индусы и вьетнамцы провели митинг в Женеве [No anti-asbestos restrictions! Russians, Indians and Vietnamese held a rally in Geneva.] May 9, 2019.

3 All the international agencies tasked with protecting occupational and public health agree that the best way to prevent human beings from contracting asbestos-related diseases is to end the use of asbestos and products containing it including asbestos-cement material; exposure to chrysotile asbestos can cause several cancers as well as deadly respiratory disease.
Asbestos policies of Major International Agencies. May 25, 2018.

4 In Asbest, Russia, Making Asbestos Great Again. April 7, 2019.

5 Email from Omana George May 16, 2019.
Also see: ABAN Media Release. The Rotterdam Convention (COP9). May 10, 2019.
Also see: Chronological Record of the Contributions of National Delegations and Others to the Debate on Listing Chrysotile Asbestos on Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention at COP9 in Geneva, Switzerland on May 8, 2019.
Asian delegation slams the failure for the 7th time to list chrysotile asbestos onto the Rotterdam Convention due to unethical veto of asbestos producer countries and their allies.

May 7, 2019

The Brazilian Association of the Asbestos-Exposed [Associação Brasileira dos Expostos ao Amianto]

As International Workers’ Memorial Day (April 28, 2019) was being marked by memorial services, public rallies and sundry events around the world, I had the opportunity to participate in the annual ecumenical service of the Brazilian Association of the Asbestos-Exposed (ABREA). The event which was held in Osasco, the one-time center of Brazil’s asbestos-cement industry, took place in a square named in memory of ABREA’s first asbestos victim: Aquilino Alves dos Santos.1 The presence of so many ABREA members as well as international visitors from Japan, India, Indonesia and the UK prompted one attendee to quip “Next year, we need a bigger square.”

ABREA President Eliezer João de Souza stressed the service was for all religions and indeed a spiritualist Minister as well as Christian missionaries spoke to the gathering. With kind words they gave solace to those who had lost loved ones and praised the fellowship of the ABREA family. The slogan on the back of the tee shirt worn by one of the speakers was apposite: “Gente simples, fazendo coisas pequenas, em lugares não importantes, consegue mudanças extraordinárias.” The English translation is as follows: “Simple people doing small things in unimportant places can bring extraordinary changes.”


Indeed, ABREA members are from modest backgrounds. Many of them worked in the Eternit asbestos factory in Osasco or were relatives of those who did; some had worked in other asbestos-using plants or in the informal sector where asbestos use was routine. Most ABREA members had unskilled or semi-skilled jobs. And yet, their backgrounds did not prevent them from challenging companies which were national institutions or contesting the “evidence” of highly regarded industry experts. Through grassroots projects, media outreach initiatives, scores of lawsuits and legal arguments they brought a countervoice to the national asbestos dialogue. Indeed, a 132-page book entitled “Eternidade,” published in São Paulo two days before International Workers’ Memorial Day 2019, was subtitled: “A construcao social do banimento do Amianto no Brasil” [The social construction of Brazil’s asbestos ban]. The book, by Marina Moura, contained contributions from award-winning Brazilian journalists Eliane Brum and Conceição Lemes.


Photograph: Wendell Cristiano.

Acknowledging the sustained assistance provided by supporters in the struggle to obtain justice for the victims and to ban asbestos, on April 26, 2019 awards were presented by ABREA honouring Aldo Vincentin and José Roncadim, much-loved members who died of mesothelioma in 2008 and 2009 respectively, to:

Laurie Kazan-Allen, Coordinator of the International Ban Asbestos Secretariat, “em reconhecimento por sua dedicacao na luta pelo banimento global do Amianto [in recognition of her dedication in the fight for a global ban on asbestos].”

Maria Geruza Correia Elvas, Fundadora da Associação Pernambucana dos Expostos ao Amianto [Founder of the Pernambuco Association of the Asbestos-Exposed], “em reconhecimento por sua dedicação na luta por Justiça para as vítimas do Amianto [in recognition of her dedication in the fight for justice for asbestos victims].”

Dr. Eduardo Algranti “em reconhecimento por sua enorme dedicação às vítimas do Amianto [in recognition of his enormous dedication to asbestos victims].”

Dr. Jefferson Benedito Pires de Freitas “em reconhecimento por sua enorme dedicação às vítimas do Amianto [in recognition of his enormous dedication to asbestos victims].”

Dra. Elizabete Medina Coeli Mendonça “em reconhecimento por sua enorme dedicação às vítimas do Amianto [in recognition of her enormous dedication to asbestos victims].”

Solange Cristina Soares Pereira “em reconhecimento por sua enorme dedicação às vítimas do Amianto [in recognition of her enormous dedication to asbestos victims].”




From left: ABREA President Eliezer João de Souza, Gisela Vincentin and Fernanda Giannasi presenting the Aldo Vincentin award to Laurie Kazan-Allen. Photograph: Wendell Cristiano.

Despite the Supreme Court ruling in 2017 outlawing the commercial exploitation of asbestos, Brazilian stakeholders continue to press for an exemption to mine asbestos fiber for export. Commenting on this news, last week an ABREA spokeswoman told journalists: “ABREA is strictly against the export of asbestos, because what we don’t want for ourselves, can’t be allowed to happen to others.” The struggle continues.

1 Kazan-Allen, L. Report from Asian Ban Asbestos Mission to Brazil 2019. April 29, 2019.

April 17, 2019

Behind the White Curtain

In recent weeks, developments have been reported which shed light on the machinations of people working on behalf of the international asbestos industry to protect asbestos markets at the expense of public safety and occupational health; methods used by them to counter the growth in ban asbestos activism included undercover surveillance on campaigners, attacks on medical experts and the commissioning and publication of made-to-measure “science.”

In March, 2019, a dossier uploaded to the internet revealed details of a four year espionage operation, codenamed “Project Spring,” paid for by “asbestos industry stakeholders with connections to Kazakhstan” which spied on ban asbestos activists in Europe, Asia and North America.1 A British operative, employed by a corporate intelligence agency based in London, was tasked with carrying out the instructions of shadowy figures associated with the Union of the Chrysotile Cement Industry (Kazakhstan), Kostani Minerals JSC – which operates Kazaksthan’s only chrysotile asbestos mine – and the International Chrysotile Association (ICA), for decades the mouthpiece for global asbestos interests. In a recent letter by ban asbestos campaigners in Vietnam, sent to members of the National Assembly, the ICA and the Vietnam Roofing Association – a domestic lobbying group – were accused of spreading “untrue statements about chrysotile asbestos” and “false and incorrect information and data about the harmful effects of white asbestos” in Vietnam; providing inaccurate and outdated information; and “creating confusion and misunderstanding about the situation and the scientific basis for… [banning] white asbestos”.2

Emails from ICA Presidents Clement Godbout (2010) and Jean Marc Leblond (2013) to the asbestos industry’s favorite scientist David Bernstein are revealing about: how the lobby was working behind-the-scenes to influence asbestos dialogues in countries such as Ukraine, Malaysia and Indonesia and how much money it had at its disposal to do so. Positive feedback given by Bernstein to his paymasters included the following comment about the outcome of his 2010 trip to Jakarta: “the government was very positive about continuing the use of chrysotile asbestos in Indonesia… The Indonesian WHO representative was present and was very impressed.”3

Other pertinent information about the workings of asbestos lobbyists was revealed in a 49-page judgment handed down in the London High Court on April 10, 2019 by Mr. Justice Warby.4 The case was brought under the Data Protection Act 1998 by Dr. Robin Rudd, one of Britain’s leading medical specialists in asbestos-related diseases; his expertise is vital for claimants with mesothelioma, lung cancer and other diseases exposed to chrysotile (white) asbestos, found in a wide variety of asbestos-containing products, including asbestos cement. 5

Rudd had sought to establish the identities of associates of John Bridle, a former asbestos businessman and asbestos advocate, who had: “engaged in attempts, funded by the asbestos industry, to discredit the Claimant [Rudd] as an expert witness and/ or to intimidate him from continuing to act for claimants in mesothelioma cases.”6 Although the names of individuals were redacted in the verdict, extracts from some of the texts sent by Bridle about his attempt to neutralise Rudd were informative:

  • “The best and cheapest way to proceed is that I as [Asbestos] Watchdog make a complaint to his medical authority [the General Medical Council].”7
  • “Back to Rudd. I don’t expect to nail this crook as the establishment will circle the wagons round one of their own.”8
  • “I really feel I have at long last the silver bullet to bury them for good and the Rudd/XX conspiracy is the key.”9
  • Email to XX (a recipient) containing a reference to the “Rudd/CC conspiracy.”10

Mr. Justice Warby agreed that:

“He [Rudd] is entitled to know who his co-accused are. The same applies to the identities of others, whom he is said to have helped, or to have victimised, or the like. That is information that is integral to and indistinguishable from the allegations against him. It is unreasonable to withhold it from him.”11

Bridle was ordered to provide, by the end of April 2019:

“personal data relating to Dr Rudd which is contained in any such expert report, together with the date, and all information available to the data controller as to the source or sources of those personal data.”12

The information about the individuals and/or organizations involved in the attempt to discredit Dr Rudd is eagerly awaited by those who have crossed swords with John Bridle and others who have suffered at the hands of asbestos vested interests in the UK and abroad.

1 Kazan-Allen, L. Corporate Deceit: Asbestos Espionage at Home and Abroad. British Asbestos Newsletter. Autumn-Winter 2018-19.

2 Kazan-Allen, L. Vietnam’s Asbestos Frontline 2019. March 28, 2019.

3 Ruff, K. et al. Asbestos and insurance interests continue to use discredited scientific argument to sell asbestos and to deny justice to asbestos victims. April 11, 2019.

4 Dr. Robin Rudd vs. John Bridle and J & S Bridle Ltd. April 10, 2019.

5 Leigh Day & Co. Press Release. Landmark Judgment on Data Protection Act 1998. April 11, 2019
Dyer, C. Asbestos disease expert wins right to obtain information held on him, by lobbyist. April 12, 2019.

6 Dr. Robin Rudd vs. John Bridle and J & S Bridle Ltd. April 10, 2019. Para 10, page 4.

7 Ibid. page 17.

8 Ibid. page 14.

9 Ibid. page 15.

10 Ibid. Para 115, page 39.

11 Ibid. Para 199, page 40.

12 Ibid, Para 137, page 45.

March 18, 2019

Australia’s Asbestos Frontline 2019

Visits to the Perth offices of the Asbestos Diseases Society of Australia (ADSA)1 over recent weeks have reconfirmed a tragic reality: the Australian asbestos epidemic continues unabated. By the beginning of March 2019, the Society had registered 17 new cases of mesothelioma; the previous year, 115 ADSA members had been diagnosed with mesothelioma and 317 members had died from asbestos-related diseases.

ADSA staff continue to work at full capacity to provide the practical, legal and medical support needed by victims and their families. Despite all that entails, energy is still found to develop and implement fund-raising initiatives such as the ADSA golfing day on February 17; the $10,000 raised at the Meadow Springs Golf and Country Club in Mandurah were earmarked for mesothelioma research by Professor Anna Nowak and her team at the National Centre for Asbestos Related Diseases (NCARD). Plans are already well advanced for this year’s major fund-raiser: the ADSA walk for research and awareness. From November 10-15, 2019, participants will trek from Augusta to Perth via Cape Leeuwin, Margaret River, Cowaramup, Wild Wood, Cape Naturalise, Dunsborough and Busselton with donations, once again, going to NCARD.

The Society’s Annual General Meeting on February 24 provided the opportunity to catch up with administrative, legal, medical and political developments affecting the operations of the ADSA and the prospects of its members. A long-standing grievance remains the failure by politicians in Western Australia (WA) to enact legislation to provide asbestos claimants in the state the same rights as plaintiffs elsewhere in Australia who are entitled to a second award for damages should they contract an additional asbestos disease and who can claim compensation for their inability to provide care for another person, such as a child, or perform domestic or other duties.


From left: ADSA President Robert Vojakovic, Professor Anna Nowak (NCARD), Laurie Kazan-Allen, ADSA Counsellor Rose Marie Vojakovic, ADSA Medical Advisor Dr. Gregory Deleuil.

The best part of the AGM is always the chance to speak to ADSA members during the reception which takes place once official business had been conducted. This year was no exception as I made the acquaintance of a charming couple who had emigrated from the UK in the mid-1980s. More than 30 years later, the wife was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a disease she believed she contracted from exposure to asbestos dust liberated by the operations of a factory in Kent. Despite the thousands of miles she had travelled and the decades which had passed, the toxic exposure she had received would not be denied.

1 For more on the work of the Asbestos Diseases Society of Australia see:
Kazan-Allen L. November 2016: Asbestos Action and Reaction. December 9, 2016.
Kazan-Allen L. Western Australia’s Asbestos Legacy. May 10, 2015.
Kazan-Allen L Grace Under Fire. April 22, 2014.

January 28, 2019

Mesothelioma 2019: Another Life Lost

On Saturday (January 26, 2019), I received news that a much-loved friend had died. Paul Zygielbaum was an irresistible force of nature; he was dogged, kind-hearted and hilarious – the dinner table tale he told of wild turkeys scrabbling over his California roof will be part of our family’s folklore for decades to come.

After five years of symptoms, Paul was diagnosed with malignant peritoneal mesothelioma in 2003; he was only in his early fifties. Over the next fifteen years he endured multiple operations, medical procedures and treatment protocols to eradicate, or at least contain, the deadly cancer he contracted from workplace exposures to asbestos.


Paul sent periodic updates to his family and friends reporting back from the mesothelioma frontline. Most messages were upbeat, some were not. The last message we received from Paul arrived on January 2, 2019:

“Well, the universe is full of surprises. Or perhaps some of us are prone to fooling ourselves. I’m afraid that my cancer has not chosen to follow my plan for continued health and treatability. I recently underwent radiation treatment for 3 tumors. The follow-up CT scan showed some improvement but not total. Moreover, a variety of new tumors showed up in various places, and some of the older tumors became aggressive. The upshot is that the mesothelioma has won. There are no treatments left that would be useful. I am weakening, and I have placed myself into home hospice care. I know that there isn’t a lot of time left.”

Concluding his final email, Paul wrote:

“Having said goodbye prematurely before, there’s not much left for me to say now. Thank you for letting me be a part of your life. I hope that I have contributed positively. My very best wishes to everyone.

Hoping for a miracle – in his fight to survive mesothelioma Paul had, after all, overcome so many setbacks – proved fruitless. This time, the disease would not be denied. As this blog is uploaded in London (January 28, 2019) Paul’s funeral is taking place in California. His loss will be felt by many people for whom he had become a symbol of survival. That he succumbed to this horrific disease does not for a minute diminish the grace and vigor with which he fought it. Our thoughts today are with his beloved wife Michelle, his children, grandchildren, friends and colleagues. Rest in Peace, dear friend.

January 18, 2019

The Future is Here!

In the dying hours of 2018, the long-awaited ban on asbestos in Canada – formerly the world’s biggest asbestos producer – came into force. At a stroke, the global discourse on asbestos was changed forever; it was no longer a question of if countries would act on the asbestos hazard but when they would do so.

The fact that asbestos is still used in many parts of the world, despite all that is known about its deadly effects on human beings and the environment, constitutes a scandal of epic proportions, with up to 300,000 people dying every year from avoidable asbestos-related diseases.1 This is equivalent to wiping out a city the size of Cordoba, Spain, Cincinnati, US or Canberra, Australia every year.

That the unregulated global trade in asbestos persists is, to a large part, due to the dirty tricks, illegal actions and disinformation campaigns sponsored by asbestos stakeholders; disreputable corporate strategies exposed over recent months included: economic blackmail,2 toxic treaties,3 political collusion4 and undercover operations targeting members of the ban asbestos network.5

Despite the asbestos industry’s global machinations, the momentum of the ban asbestos campaign continues to accelerate. From January 12 to 14, 2019 there were a series of activities in Yangon, Myanmar to raise awareness of the asbestos hazard.


Amongst the organizations backing these events were: the Confederation of Trade Unions Myanmar (CTUM), the Building and Woodworkers’ International, the Solidarity Center, the Asian Ban Asbestos Network (ABAN) and the Italy-Burma Foundation. The participation of Myanmar Government and World Health Organization officials, Myanmar, Italian and Japanese academics, trade unionists, technical and other experts was evidence, if more were needed, of the growth in anti-asbestos collaborations amongst diverse civil society partners from multiple geographical areas. The future is asbestos-free!

1 Takala J. et al. Comparative Analysis of the Burden of Injury and Illness at Work in Selected Countries and Regions. June 2017. Central European Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

2 Economic blackmail by Russia against Sri Lanka’s asbestos ban decision slammed by international trade unions and health networks. January 3, 2018.
See also: Kazan-Allen L. The Asbestos Diktats of Russian Foreign Policy. August 9, 2018.

3 Kazan-Allen, L. Twenty-first Century Diplomacy: Gherkins for Asbestos. February 19, 2017.

4 Volya, T. The Asbestos Lobby in Ukraine. January 8, 2019.

5 Corporate Surveillance: ‘Substantial’ payout in asbestos spying scandal. Hazards, number 144. 2018.

November 27, 2018

The Spy, His Handler, Their Clients and Me

In September 2016, I was told via a phone call that a man I had been working with for four years and who I had come to regard as a friend was not the sympathetic documentary film-maker he purported to be but an agent working for a private security firm: K2 Intelligence Ltd. My initial reaction was total disbelief but my protestations were soundly dismissed and so began my descent into a two-year litigation quagmire that would test my memory, endurance and resolve.

Determined to ascertain the damage which had been done and the danger in which our colleagues in the global ban asbestos network may have been placed, I and fellow ban asbestos colleagues embarked on a lawsuit against K2, its Executive Managing Director Matteo Bigazzi and its agent Robert Moore in October 2016.

The more I discovered about the scope of the spy’s intrusion into my life with my private conversations recorded, my activities recounted and my thoughts relayed, the more I felt I had entered into a dystopian fantasy from which I would soon wake up. Alas, this was not to be. My exhaustive trawl through the 35,000 documents handed over following an injunction by a London court in 2016 was as dispiriting as it was informative.1

When I reread the scores of emails from Robert Moore and recalled the plethora of phone calls in light of this new information, it was clear that everything I had done to assist this person had been turned against me and the people I worked with. Someone I had valued had exploited not only my trust but that of key members of our network many of whom were working in countries where asbestos vested interests exerted considerable political and financial power. The knowledge that my actions might have endangered their lives was devastating and constituted the low point of my professional career.

I had been identified as the primary target of the spying operation codenamed “Project Spring,” in an eleven page document written in 2012 by Moore entitled “IBAS Phase One report.” I clearly remember the shock of reading this document on the small screen of my mobile phone when it first arrived. The shock did not lessen when I was able to review the dossier on a bigger screen. Having set out the objectives of this “project” which included a forensic examination of IBAS operations and contacts, Moore went on to make several observations:

  • Laurie “Kassan (sic)-Allen” (LKA) is prolific and thoroughly dedicated. Some might say obsessed.”
  • “I would like to engage with IBAS and LKA in the most genuine and heartfelt way possible so that I can establish both an intellectual and emotional connection with LKA.”
  • “I don’t believe she will be willing to share the extremely sensitive information I’m being tasked with finding out in this Project, if I present myself as a journalist who accepts the industry PR line about asbestos and cannot see the ‘truth’ as she sees it. The odds are always stacked against a documentary getting commissioned but if I am allowed to genuinely pursue a story and endeavour to get it commissioned I believe this will add to both my credibility with LKA and – more importantly – the veracity of my cover.”
  • “If you read the IBAS website you very quickly detect a degree of (justified) paranoia about the underhand tactics deployed by the asbestos industry to undermine and harass its critics. If I arrive with too tailor-made a calling card might I look too good to be true?”
  • “The longer I have to develop my relationship with LKA, the deeper and more personal my questions can be and the more likely I am to get the most truthful answers.”

After campaigning on asbestos issues for more than 20 years, I had not expected to find myself the target of a covert intelligence operation, paid for by asbestos vested interests in Kazakhstan2 and carried out by a British company which promised to help “clients manage risk and address problems in complex situations…”3 Over a four-year period, the spy received £336,000 in fees and £130,000 in expenses; in the absence of information on how much K2 invoiced its clients for “Project Spring,” I can only venture a guess that it was at least that much again.

The information needed by our lawyers to progress the litigation required hundreds of hours of my time to identify, organize and put it into context. Rereading the files was a distressing experience as I could only wonder at how gullible I had been in the first place. Of course, details divulged during legal proceedings – except those which became public – could not be shared nor could developments in the litigation be discussed with anyone outside the case. The draconian need for secrecy was something which I found very difficult to bear.

After all the technicalities, legal posturing, reversals, delays and denials, the case was settled earlier this month (November, 2018) with “substantial damages” paid by K2 to the ban asbestos campaigners and “no admission of wrongdoing or liability” by the intelligence agency.4

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the other campaigners in this case – Professor Rory O’Neill; Coordinator of the Asian Ban Asbestos Network Sugio Furuya; Solicitor Harminder Bains; and Barrister Krishnendu Mukherjee – and to acknowledge the unwavering commitment of our Solicitor Richard Meeran and the legal teams at Leigh, Day & Co and Matrix Chambers.

The patience and support of global ban asbestos activists sustained us through many dark days and sleepless nights and it is fitting to not only thank them for their encouragement but also highlight the huge leaps and bounds which they have made in the fight to shut down the asbestos industry in the very countries targeted by K2’s clients.5

The struggle for an asbestos-free future continues.

1 Media Advisory. Corporate Intelligence agency pays substantial damages to five anti-asbestos campaigners over claim for spying. November 7, 2018.
Portuguese Translation: Agncia de Inteligncia Corporativa paga danos substanciais em processo de espionagem contra ativistas anti-amianto. November 9, 2018.
French Translation:
L’agence d’intelligence économique verse des dommages et intérts substantiels sur une plainte pour espionage. November 8, 2018. 

2 In March, 2017 K2’s clients were identified as: Wetherby Select Ltd., a holding company registered in the British Virgin Islands, Kazakh national Nurlan Omarov and US citizen Daniel Kunin, both of whom were “directly involved in Kazakhstan’s asbestos industry.”
See also: Weinberg, K. Daniel Kunin interview: Georgia's Alistair Campbell. August 23, 2008.
Gillard, M. Lethal Lies: Part Two: Unmasking The Men Behind The Global Spying Ring. April 23, 2017.

3 K2 Intelligence Ltd. Leading the Way in Complex Corporate Investigations.

4 Media Advisory. Corporate Intelligence agency pays substantial damages to five anti-asbestos campaigners over claim for spying. November 7, 2018.
Evans, E. Security firm pays damages to anti-asbestos activists it spied on. November 8, 2018.

5 Kazan-Allen L. Global Overview: Asbestos Landscape 2018.

October 18, 2018

Canadian Asbestos Ban: Finally!

In September 2003, when delegates to the first international ban asbestos conference in Canada gathered in the Ottawa Parliament for two days of presentations and discussions,1 MPs supporting this event were subjected to a bombardment of pro-asbestos faxes, another “scientific report” exonerating chrysotile (white) asbestos was released by the industry lobby and Parliament Hill was awash with pickets bused in from Quebec’s asbestos mining region.

Fifteen years and many more ban asbestos discussions, sessions and initiatives later, the Canadian government has adopted prohibitions to shut down the import, sale and use of asbestos in the country which throughout most of the 20th century was the world’s largest asbestos producing nation.

The prohibitions are not perfect as they exempt the commercial processing of asbestos mining waste – containing up to 40% asbestos – and the use of asbestos in chlor-alkali production, but the significance of these prohibitions must not be underestimated.2 For decades Canadian asbestos stakeholders exerted a stranglehold on the national asbestos agenda to such an extent that:

  • in 1998 the Canadian Government instituted a legal challenge at the World Trade Organization against the French Government’s 1996 asbestos ban3;
  • Canadian civil servants and diplomats acted as unpaid lobbyists for asbestos vested interests interfering in asbestos dialogues in key markets such as Mexico, Brazil and India and making embassies available for pro-asbestos events;
  • the Canadian asbestos trade association – called the Asbestos Institute and more recently the Chrysotile Institute – which was partially funded by federal and provincial taxpayers, 4 for decades orchestrated a multilingual global marketing campaign using a variety of techniques including: the commissioning of spurious pro-asbestos “scientific reports;” disinformation campaigns to create doubt in the minds of government personnel, consumers and trade unionists regarding the hazards of asbestos exposures; and strong arm measures to silence critics and pressurize employees at international agencies tasked with protecting occupational and public health.

If Canada, a country so closely identified with asbestos, can finally face up to the truth, so too can other nations. The news from Ottawa provides hope that indeed the future is asbestos-free.

1 Kazan-Allen L. Canadian Asbestos - A Global Concern. September, 2003.

2 Canadian Prohibition of Asbestos and Products Containing Asbestos Regulations. October 1, 2018.

3 Castleman B. The WTO Asbestos Case and its Health and Trade Implications. December 1, 2000.

4 Kazan-Allen L. The Rise and Fall of the Chrysotile Institute. May 1, 2012.

September 28, 2018

Progress Report: Banning Asbestos in Canada

When it comes to asbestos, progress is never linear; it seems for every few steps forward, there are two steps back. The situation in Canada is a case in point. The consultation period over Canadian plans to ban asbestos is now completed and the introduction of legislation to prohibit asbestos use is on schedule. However, Canada’s perennial asbestos thorn in the side remains Quebec, the country’s former asbestos heartland where entrenched commercial, political and economic vested interests oppose the implementation of more stringent restrictions1 and legislation to prevent the commercial exploitation of mining residue.2

Currently, the Quebec standard allows workers to be exposed to 1 chrysotile asbestos fiber per cubic centimetre (1f/cm3); 10 times higher than that allowed by Ottawa (0.1 f/cm3) and 100 times higher than that in Switzerland and the Netherlands (0.01 f/cm3).3 A public consultation undertaken more than 18 months ago by Quebec’s Committee on Standards, Equity, Health and Safety (CNESST) to consider tightening up Quebec’s regulations remains bogged down with Quebec’s Premier Philippe Couillard wielding civil service doublespeak to explain continued delays:

“[scientific] literature must make the link between this level and this health issue. We must follow these rules and especially dispose of them in an organized manner, based on scientific evidence. And that's why there is a working group on this issue.”4

Even within the province of Quebec some workers are afforded higher levels of protection from asbestos exposures than others. “Relaxed regulatory requirements” – or “adaptations” as the CNESST calls them – are routine for workplace inspections in the former asbestos mining region of Chaudière-Appalaches where sustained pressure has been brought to reduce operational costs.

According to figures released this week by the Quebec Health Ministry the number of cases of the deadly asbestos cancer, mesothelioma has nearly doubled in Quebec since 2010: from 45 in 2010 to 88 in 2017. Civil servants working for Quebec’s Institute of Public Health as well as health and safety campaigners believe these figures under-report the true incidence of the disease as many doctors, despite mandatory reporting protocols, do not report cases of asbestos cancer.5

Although the long-awaited Canadian asbestos ban is expected within months, the battle to safeguard human life from toxic exposures looks likely to be a very long one.

1 Dufresne J. Amiante: des règles de sécurité assouplies, malgré des avis contraires [Asbestos: relaxed safety rules, despite contrary opinions.] September 26, 2018.

2 Despite the warnings of medical professionals, plans are progressing in the town of Thetford Mines to process asbestos mine tailings to reclaim magnesium and other valuable chemicals.
Archer L. The town fighting its killer reputation. May 30, 2018.
Also see:
K. Ruff. More Canadians than ever dying from asbestos. September 26, 2018.

3 Dufresne J. Amiante: des règles de sécurité assouplies, malgré des avis contraires [Asbestos: relaxed safety rules, despite contrary opinions]. September 26, 2018.

4 Dufresne J. Normes d’exposition à l’amiante : Québec tarde à prendre position.[Asbestos exposure standards: Quebec is slow to take a stand].

5 Number of Quebec cases of mesothelioma nearly double since 2010: report. September 26, 2018.

September 17, 2018

Progressing Global Efforts to Ban Asbestos

Last week, meetings on different continents underscored the continuing interactions of international campaigners working to eliminate the asbestos hazard and obtain justice for victims the world over. From September 12 to 14, 2018, the annual conference of the South East Asia Ban Asbestos Network (SEABAN) took place in Hanoi, Vietnam. Amongst SEABAN participants were delegates and experts from eleven countries including representatives of the World Health Organization, Australia’s Union Aid Abroad (APHEDA), Australia’s Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency, the Asian Ban Asbestos Network (ABAN), the Building and Woodworkers International, the Asia Monitor Resource Centre and Suisse Solidar – all of whom have formidable track records in quantifying and addressing the multitude of challenges posed by the widespread and unregulated use of asbestos.


Sugio Furuya, ABAN Coordinator, addressing SEABAN delegates in Hanoi.

Amongst the objectives for this SEABAN event was the need “to find solutions to accelerate the implementation of the Vietnam Government’s Resolution on banning asbestos before 2023.”1

Ten thousand miles away, members of the Brazilian Association of the Asbestos-Exposed (ABREA) were gathered in an assembly room in Osasco, São Paulo to welcome back to Brazil Italian asbestos researcher and campaigner Dr. Agata Mazzeo, whose 2017 PhD dissertation focused on the fight for the rights of the asbestos injured in Brazil and Italy.


From left: ABREA President Eliezer João de Souza, Dr. Mazzeo and ABREA members. Osasco, São Paulo, Brazil. September 15, 2018.

During her field work in Brazil, Dr. Mazzeo had become an integral part of the Brazilian ban asbestos network. On September 27, she will participate in a seminar in Vitória da Conquista, Bahia State to consider the public health problems and environmental impact caused by the commercial exploitation of asbestos in the Bahia mining town of Bom Jesus da Serra between 1939 and 1967; also taking part will be French asbestos activist and cancer researcher Professor Annie Thebaud-Mony and Brazilian legal, technical and medical experts.

The work undertaken by ABREA, a group founded in Osasco in 1995, was pivotal in securing the 2017 Supreme Court ruling which declared the use of asbestos unconstitutional throughout Brazil. This development was highlighted by Sugio Furuya during his presentation in Hanoi as an example of how grassroots mobilization can challenge superior political and economic forces and emerge victorious. The future is asbestos-free!

1 Press Release. Annual Conference of the South Eat Asia Ban Asbestops Network. September 13, 2018.

August 9, 2018

The Asbestos Diktats of Russian Foreign Policy

In desperate attempts to shore up the country’s fading asbestos industry, the Russian Government has resorted to strong-arm tactics against Asian governments’ plans to protect populations by banning imports of this acknowledged carcinogen. The most recent move was the subject of a Russian language article published on August 8, 2018, which detailed threats to embargo Russia’s imports of Vietnamese underwear in retaliation for the implementation of a 2023 deadline to outlaw the use of asbestos-containing construction products in Vietnam. In reaction to consultations over the ban, Vietnamese asbestos imports from Russia had fallen from 49,000 tons in 2016 to 22,000 tons in 2017; from 2014 to 2016, Russian asbestos imports to Vietnam averaged 50,000 tons/year which were valued at $30 million.1 It is not known yet what, if any, action Vietnam will take in light of this clear-cut example of commercial imperialism.

At the end of last year (2017), Russia abruptly halted imports of tea from Sri Lanka, causing a major threat to the Sri Lankan economy. Just 2 days later the Sri Lankan Government announced its decision to defer banning asbestos imports from Russia. Sri Lanka had previously announced a phasing out of asbestos starting January 1, 2018 with a full ban planned by 2024. Commenting on Russia’s actions, Sharan Burrow, General Secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), said:

“Imposing chrysotile asbestos on an unwilling nation is not fair trade, it is culpable homicide. Unions worldwide abhor this cynical economic blackmail. Russia must not and will not be allowed to blow a hole in fair trade rules.” 2

The importance of the Indian asbestos market to Russian exporters cannot be overestimated. India is the world’s largest asbestos importer with annual imports between 2014 and 2016 in excess of 350,000 tons; asbestos sales to India over this period accounted for nearly 25% of global consumption. 3 In February, 2017, a feasibility study was being circulated in India to selected stakeholders, excluding ban asbestos activists, which outlined proposals for a Free Trade Agreement between the Eurasian Economic Union – Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan – and the Republic of India which would have given the world’s asbestos giants: Russia and Kazakhstan unfettered and unrestricted access to the largest national asbestos market, in return for which India would be permitted to supply without any duty whatsoever products such as tea, cucumbers, gherkins, grapes and concentrates of coffee. Enquiries are being made regarding the status of this proposal.

From the course of action described above it is clear that Vladimir Putin’s Government stands shoulder to shoulder with the country’s asbestos vested interests. He seems to have an unlikely ally in the White House: President Trump has been vocal in his continued support for asbestos over the years asserting that it was “100% safe, once applied” in his book The Art of the Comeback (1997). According to Trump, asbestos had been unfairly maligned: “I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal.”4 New proposals made this summer by the Environmental Protection Agency which could see the use of asbestos increasing in the United States has incited a media firestorm which shows no signs of abating. I am sure that in such turbulent times the Kremlin is reassured by the presence of an ally in the White House.

1 ХРИЗОТИЛ. Асбест против трусов. Россия поставит "шлагбаум" для нижнего белья из Вьетнама
[CHRYSOTILE. Asbestos for underwear. Russia will stop Vietnamese underwear imports in retaliation for asbestos ban]. August 8, 2018.

2 Media Release. Economic blackmail by Russia against Sri Lanka’s asbestos ban decision slammed by international trade unions and health networks. January 3, 2018.

3 United States Geological Survey. Asbestos Trade Data. 2018.
Kazan-Allen L. Twenty-first Century Diplomacy: Asbestos for Gherkins. February 17, 2017.

4 Milman O. Russian mining firm puts Trump's face on its asbestos products. July 11, 2018.

July 24, 2018

America’s Long, Hot Asbestos Summer

As populations in North America and Europe sweltered during an unprecedented heatwave, asbestos remained a hot button issue in the US this month (July 2018) with Russian producers imprinting photographs of President Trump on asbestos shipments, claimants winning a landmark asbestos victory in Missouri, asbestos liabilities sky-rocketing and legacy issues exploding onto the public consciousness. News of US asbestos developments made front page news at home and abroad with a high level of global interest in the Trump seal of approval for Russian asbestos and the multi-billion dollar damages awarded in the case brought over asbestos contamination of baby powder.

On July 11, 2018, the Environmental Working Group, a US non-profit environmental organization, reported that workers from the Russian company Uralasbest, one of the world’s largest asbestos producers, had repaid Donald Trump’s much-valued support for asbestos by putting his picture on plastic-wrapped shipments of chrysotile (white) asbestos. The image was accompanied by the words “Approved by Donald Trump, 45th President of the United States.”1


On July 12, 2018 a St Louis jury ruled, after weeks of testimony, that the ovarian cancers suffered by the plaintiffs had been caused by the use of asbestos-contaminated baby powder produced by the American multinational Johnson & Johnson. This verdict was widely reported not only because it was the first US case to accept the link between ovarian cancer and toxic talc but also because of the size of the damages: the 22 claimants (or their estates) were awarded $4.69 billion.2

On July 16, 2018 Fitch Ratings Inc., one of the world’s biggest credit rating agencies, announced that the estimate for US asbestos-related losses due to claims and litigation had risen to an all-time high of $100 billion. In light of a substantial increase in US asbestos imports in the first quarter of 2018, it is likely that these liabilities will continue to rise.3

On July 19, 2018, an explosion of a steam pipe in lower Manhattan gave rise to headlines such as: Asbestos from Manhattan steam pipe blast forces evacuations; Pipe explosion NYC: What to Know about Asbestos, Health Risks; How NYC is Tackling Asbestos in Wake of Steam Pipe Explosion; Powerful Steam Pipe Explosion Spews Asbestos around Flatiron District; Asbestos Confirmed in Steam Pipe that Exploded in Manhattan, Con Edison Collects Asbestos-Laced Garb after NYC Steam Blast and Asbestos Covers Parts of NYC after Steam Pipe Explosion.4

Despite the huge number of US asbestos deaths5 and the massive challenges posed by the ubiquity of asbestos within the country’s infrastructure, the Trump administration remains determined to rollback efforts to protect occupational and public safety.6 With an asbestophile in the White House, the national asbestos epidemic will continue for decades to come.

1 Formuzis A. Russian Asbestos Giant Praises Trump Administration Actions to Keep Deadly Carcinogen Legal. July 11, 2018.

2 St. Louis Jury Returns $4.69 Billion Verdict in First Trial linking Baby Powder, Asbestos and Ovarian Cancer. July 12, 2018.

3 Fitch raises asbestos claims estimate to $100bn. July 16, 2018

4 Szekely P, Kvetenadze T. Asbestos from Manhattan steam pipe blast forces evacuations. July 19, 2018.

5 According to data sourced from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016, there were 39,395 asbestos-related deaths in the US in 2016.
Allen D, Kazan-Allen L. Global Asbestos Mortality Data. October, 2017.

6 As Asbestos Toll Mounts, Trump’s EPA Ignores It. June 22, 2018.

July 4, 2018

Asbestos Industry’s Summertime Blues 2018

The momentum of the worldwide campaign to ban asbestos is continuing during the summer (2018) with no let-up in sight. As the days here got longer and the weather warmer, grassroots activists embarked on outreach programs to raise awareness of the deadly repercussions of asbestos consumption and engage with decision-makers on the need for national prohibitions in asbestos hot spots in East and Southeast Asia, Europe and elsewhere.

On June 13, 2018, a documentary entitled: 𢭃Roadmap to banning white asbestos in Vietnam by 2023,” was broadcast on Vietnam national TV on channel 2. Included in the program were interviews with Vietnamese and international experts and campaigners – including members of the Vietnam Ban Asbestos Network who called for a national asbestos ban – as well as film relating the story of Australians such as Lou Williams who died from asbestos-related diseases. Evidence presented by Professor Trinh, President of the Vietnam OSH Association, Professor An Luong, previous Vice President of the Vietnam General Confederation of Labor, Australian campaigner Philip Hazelton and others documented the asbestos health hazard, the existence of safer alternatives and need for urgent government action.

On June 20, 2018, the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare Dr. Khampheng Saysompheng announced that Laos intended to eliminate occupational asbestos-related diseases by ending asbestos use. Calling for global action to ban asbestos, the Minister highlighted the need for member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to immediately prohibit the use of asbestos-containing construction materials saying: “Urgent action is required to prevent the extended use of asbestos as a construction material and to ban all forms of asbestos to protect lives, support safer economic growth and ensure social stability in the country under the National Action Plan.”1

On June 22, 2018 discussions took place in Phnom Penh to progress work on the National Asbestos Profile of Cambodia. The meeting was co-organized by the Ministry of Labour and (Australia’s) Union Aid Abroad – APHEDA Cambodia with representatives from 13 Ministries, trade unions, employers, the World Health Organization and the International Labor Organization attending. Research findings were reported from samples of building and friction materials that were collected in Cambodia and shipped to Australia for analysis. Over 50% of the products sampled contained asbestos. In the aftermath of these shocking results, participants acknowledged the urgent need to work towards phasing out asbestos use in order to eliminate asbestos-related diseases.


UK asbestos campaigners with Brazilian activist Fernanda Giannasi after June 26, 2018 Parliamentary Asbestos Seminar. Photo copyright Mick Holder.

On June 26, 2018, British asbestos victims confronted Parliamentarians with the reality of living with asbestos cancer at the annual Parliamentary Asbestos Seminar in Westminster. A few days later (June 29), French asbestos victims and campaigners met with colleagues from Brazil, Spain, the UK and Belgium to exchange information and plan legal and political strategies for addressing the challenges posed by asbestos fibers in human lungs, asbestos products in public buildings and asbestos waste at official and illegal dumpsites.2

On July 2, 2018 a week of asbestos action began in Seoul as part of the 10th anniversary celebrations of the Ban Asbestos Network of Korea (BANKO). On Monday (July 2), Korean, Japanese and Indonesian ban asbestos campaigners attended a Symposium at Seoul National University to discuss effective strategies for facilitating a regional ban and improving support for the injured. On Tuesday (July 3), ban asbestos demonstrations were held outside the Seoul embassies of asbestos-producing and exporting countries: Russia, Kazakhstan and China. During the rallies, BANKO members held press conferences and delivered letters to each of the embassies asking for their cooperation in ending global asbestos production.


Over the period July 4-8, international guests, including asbestos victims, will be invited to engage in one to one discussions with Korean mesothelioma patients in the cities of Seoul, Kwangchun and Pusan.3

Other major events planned this summer to progress the asbestos debate in South, Southeast and East Asia, will reinvigorate grassroots activism, reach out to stakeholders in diverse geographical areas and mobilize support from a broad spectrum of civil society groups. The pace of ban asbestos campaigning, as seen by the whirlwind of activity last summer, continues apace.4

Even as efforts to break the chains used to bind countries into purchasing asbestos – such as the Free Trade Agreement between the Eurasian Economic Union and the Republic of India5 and the boycott of Sri Lankan tea6 – intensify, aggressive marketing tactics and defensive strategies are being used to cultivate markets for asbestos in the industrializing world. On July 4, 2018 an article detailing the most recent of these efforts appeared in the Lao Vientiane Times headlined: “Chrysotile asbestos form can be used safely, meeting hears.”7 This feature described the first bilateral meeting between Lao and Russian “experts” in Vientiane (July 3) during which discredited and misleading arguments were promoted based on industry’s fallacious “safe use” dogma. Speakers at this event attacked the World Health Organization’s support for ending asbestos use and reasserted that the “safe and controllable use of chrysotile (white asbestos) containing products based on scientific and medical evidence of secured and controlled use approach” was possible.

Despite industry’s determined efforts to prioritize corporate profits at all costs, annual global sales of asbestos have decreased by 30%+ in recent years as more and more consumers turned their back on asbestos. With falling demand and increasing restrictions on use, the asbestos industry is in its death throes. You do not need to be clairvoyant to see that the asbestos industry is outdated, discredited and unsustainable. The future is asbestos-free!

1 Sengpaseuth P. Plans to end asbestos-use, related disease nationwide. June 23, 2018.

2 Oriot M. La Turballe. Les victimes de l’amiante en assises. June 29, 2018.

3 Activists urge Russia, China, Kazakhstan to stop mining of asbestos. July 3, 2018.

4 Kazan-Allen L. Ban Asbestos Campaign: Update Summer 2017. July 20, 2017.

5 Kazan-Allen L. Twenty-first Century Diplomacy: Gherkins for Asbestos. February 19, 2017.

6 Media Release. Economic blackmail by Russia against Sri Lanka’s asbestos ban decision slammed by international trade unions and health networks. January 3, 2018.

7 Chrysotile asbestos form can be used safely, meeting hears. July 4, 2018.

May 29, 2018

Paying the Price for Asbestos Use

According to a paper published online this month (May 2018): “Every 20 tons of asbestos produced and consumed kills a person somewhere in the world.”1 This chilling statistic corroborates a finding from another publication entitled: Global Use of Asbestos and the Incidence of Mesothelioma (2004) that concluded: “170 tons of produced and consumed asbestos will cause at least one death from mesothelioma, most often as a consequence of occupational exposure.”2 Mesothelioma is widely considered a signature disease for asbestos exposure and is often used as a benchmark for estimating the number of other diseases caused by asbestos exposure. Using the British incidence of asbestos mortality as a template, we calculate that the 170 tons of asbestos were also responsible for five deaths from asbestos-related lung cancer as well as three from ovarian and larynx cancer and one from asbestosis; summing up the loss of life it has been estimated that these 170 tons were responsible for 10 deaths – around one per 20 tons.3

The impact of the global asbestos epidemic documented by the texts cited above has been a fact of life for workers and communities for decades. Why, in the light of all that is known about the fatal consequences of human exposures, is the sale of this deadly carcinogen still legal?

The answer is to be found in the long-term, coordinated and multifaceted propaganda campaign orchestrated by asbestos industry stakeholders in collaboration with complicit governments, professional spin doctors and hired gun “scientists.” Using a multitude of measures, both legal and illegal,4 the propagandists implemented strategies in order to prevent asbestos prohibitions being adopted by international bodies,5 regional agencies and national governments.6 Although the most recent available data show that global asbestos production fell by 30+% between 2012 and 2015,7 vested interests in Russia and Kazakhstan remain determined to prioritize their profits regardless of the adverse effects on workers, family members, consumers and members of the public.

The cost of purchasing 20 tons of asbestos – enough to kill one person – in Asian retail markets is US$ 7,600. Having deducted shipping and other costs from this figure and the retail mark-up, leaves little for the producer of the raw fiber. And yet, it is enough for asbestos vested interests to continue their assault on innocent populations despite the foreknowledge of the consequences. Although in some countries, defendant corporations have been brought to account for the injuries their actions have caused, it is rare for entrepreneurs, CEOs and other corporate officers to face criminal charges for their wrongdoings. It is time for these individuals to be prosecuted for the industrial crimes they have committed.

1 Furuya, S et al. Global Asbestos Disaster. May 16, 2018.

2 Tossavainen A. Global Use of Asbestos and the Incidence of Mesothelioma. Int J Occ Env Health. 2004; Jan/Mar:22-25.

3 GBD Risk Factors Collaborators. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. September 16, 2017.

4 Kazan-Allen L. Campaigning for Justice: On the Asbestos Frontline. November 17, 2014.
Asbestos, criminal justice and industrial crimes. May 10, 2018.

5 Kazan-Allen L. Asbestos Showdown in Geneva. May 10, 2017.

6 Media Release: Economic blackmail by Russia against Sri Lanka’s asbestos ban decision slammed by international trade unions and health networks. January 3, 2018.

7 Allen D, Kazan-Allen L. Dramatic Fall in Asbestos Production. May 3, 2018.

April 20, 2018

Desperate Times for Asbestos Pedlars

Asbestos stakeholders are desperate. Day by day they see global markets for their products shrinking and evidence of the deadly impact of asbestos exposures on humankind mounting. The first two weeks of April brought them bad news on an almost daily basis:

  • On April 18, ban asbestos activists in Colombia staged a dramatic demonstration calling on Congress to shut-down the asbestos industry;1
  • On April 17, an online commentary urging the Ugandan government to ban the import, processing and sale of asbestos was published;2
  • On April 16, news was disseminated of a phased asbestos removal program for suburban railway premises in Mumbai, India which is replacing toxic asbestos roofing with safer steel products;3
  • On April 11, an article was published detailing a 35% fall in the consumption of asbestos roofing in Vietnam in 2017; 4
  • On April 8, plans to make the Indian State of Maharashtra “asbestos free” were discussed in an article about the implementation of a plan to outlaw asbestos manufacturing on health grounds;5
  • On April 7, a video of asbestos victim Sriyono was released to accompany an article revealing the plight of asbestos victims in Indonesia;6
  • On April 2, an academic paper was published detailing a new protocol to address a serious “underreporting of mesothelioma and cancer of the pleura” in Brazil.7

While scores of countries have already prohibited asbestos, others are in the process of doing so, with bans expected in key markets in months to come. Faced with so much gloom, the asbestos lobby has resorted to its well-worn tactics of denial, obfuscation and prevarication. The headline of an asbestos industry “news release” from Moscow issued on April 18, 2018 is a bald-faced lie: “White Chrysotile Asbestos is Safe.” 8 This assertion – and the conclusion which follows that “chrysotile asbestos therefore cannot cause diseases and is, therefore, safe” – is irrefutably dismissed by international agencies including the World Health Organization, The International Labor Organization, The International Agency for Research on Cancer and others who agree that exposure to all types of asbestos can cause a multitude of cancers and respiratory diseases.9 Supposed “evidence” cited by the asbestos lobby in this two-page diatribe is sourced from work commissioned by industry stakeholders including the Canadian Chrysotile Association and the International Chrysotile Association and authored by “scientists” with established links to asbestos defendants. In poorly written English and using unfocused arguments and aggressive language, the International Alliance of Trade Union Organizations “Chrysotile” (the body behind this document) “requires the modification of obsolete rules prohibiting the extraction, processing, and use of chrysotile asbestos… [which] stand in the way of progress.”

In March, 2018, Eternit S.A., formerly Brazil’s largest asbestos conglomerate, sought court protection from mounting liabilities in the face of a 2017 Supreme Court verdict banning asbestos. For decades, the company had fought tooth and nail to defend its markets, silence criticism and control the national asbestos debate. It failed. Having been defeated by the ban asbestos movement in Brazil, the company will now have to pay the price for its past actions. The writing is on the wall for all asbestos stakeholders, wherever they are: the future is asbestos-free! As they say in Brazil: A luta continua. [The struggle continues.]

1 La protesta de Greenpeace en Bogotá contra el asbesto. April 18, 2018.

2 Asbestos: What Uganda needs to do about the risky exposure. April 17, 2018.

3 Mumbai: Railway Stations To Have Environment-Friendly Metal Roofs. April 16, 2018.

4 Tấm lợp cho người nghèo: Chuyển dịch xu hướng mới [Roofing for the Poor: Shifting Consumption Patterns]. April 11, 2018.

5 New rules to make State free of asbestos. April 8, 2018.

6 Asbestos a time bomb in Indonesia. April 7, 2018.

7 Recovering missing mesothelioma deaths in death certificates using hospital records. April 2, 2018.

8 White Chrysotile Asbestos is Safe, Says International Alliance of Trade Union Organizations “Chrysotile.” April 18, 2018.

9 Asbestos Policies of Major International Agencies. June, 2017.

April 3, 2018

Award for Ban Asbestos Activist in Brazil – Covert Industry Disinformation in Canada

On March 28, 2018, Engineer Fernanda Giannasi received a prestigious award at a gala ceremony in Rio de Janeiro for her role in the struggle to end Brazil’s asbestos slaughter.


Fernanda Giannasi accepting the Globo award in Rio De Janeiro.

This recognition of the grass-roots movement to liberate citizens from the asbestos tyranny imposed by ruthless and rapacious vested interests was both timely and apposite. The occasion provided Fernanda with a platform to remind the Supreme Court of its duty to uphold the 2017 decision outlawing asbestos in the face of intense corporate pressure.1 It was also a visible manifestation of the victories that can be achieved when citizens in democratic countries take action to protect health and the environment.


Fernanda Giannasi (center) with ABREA President Eliezer João de Souza on her right and FIOCRUZ Professor Vanda D’ Acri on her left. March 28, 2018.

The demonstration of “people power” in Brazil took place at the same time as the Canadian asbestos ban scheduled to be implemented this year (2018) was under attack from anonymous and foreign pressure groups.2 Criticizing the federal government’s failure to upload submissions received during the asbestos consultation process, Canadian campaigner Kathleen Ruff wrote:

“Canadians will not know who made submissions or what they called for. This lack of transparency weakens democracy. And now we are witnessing a foreign company and an anonymous website, working for undisclosed asbestos interests, seeking to pervert Canada’s democratic process and undermine regulations to ban asbestos in Canada. This is corruption of democracy.”

To date, attempts to ascertain who was behind a disparaging press release sent to Canadian journalists3 and a similarly derogatory March 21, 2018 online commentary headlined: Muller & Green Comments on PM Trudeau’s Canadian Asbestos Policy4 have proved fruitless. An email sent to the website of public relations firm Muller & Green (M&G) has remained unanswered and a stilted and barely distinguishable conversation this week with the person who answered the M&G phone number 0203 289 7118 raised more questions than answers. Moreover, responses to personal enquiries made by health and safety campaigner Mick Holder at the building at 1 Fore Street Avenue, London EC2Y 9DT – the address listed as the site of the M&G London office – on Monday, March 26, 2018, failed to clarify the situation as there was no record of a company by the name of Muller & Green at the building.


1 Fore Street Avenue, London EC2Y 9DT (photo courtesy of Mick Holder).

Commenting on his enquiries, Mick explained:

“I spoke to reception who said they had no record of a company with such a name in the building but their list may not include very recently agreed tenants… In the building's ground floor is a large area run by We Work (web link below)5 who operate as a resource for businesses which don't want/can't afford regular office space on a sort of hot desking/hot meeting place/hot office kind of principle. I asked if Muller & Green PR was one of their clients and they happily looked and said not under that name.”6

The legions of dirty tricks and propaganda techniques used by those representing the asbestos industry since the early 20th century include numerous instances of industry-backed groups masquerading as public interest bodies to influence national governments, regional authorities, technical experts, medical associations and other decision-makers. It does not take a clairvoyant of exceptional transcendental powers to suggest that individuals representing the asbestos industry are behind the latest PR salvo on Canada’s plans to prohibit asbestos, the country’s biggest occupational killer. The asbestos lobbyists are wasting their time; the battle for asbestos in Canada has been lost. Fernanda and her ban asbestos colleagues in Brazil have been at the sharp end of this fight for decades. As we celebrate their success, we find inspiration in their example. As they say in Brazil: A luta continua! The struggle continues.

1 Setti R. Prmio Faz Diferença: pioneira na luta contra o amianto, Fernanda Giannasi Giannasi faz apelo ao STF [Prize for Making a Difference: Pioneer in the fight against asbestos, Fernanda Giannasi appeals to the Supreme Court]. March 28, 2018.

2 Ruff K. Foreign and anonymous interests seek to defeat Canadian asbestos ban. March 22, 2018.

3 PM Trudeau on Verge of Wasting $114 Million on Canadian Asbestos Policy. March 21, 2018.

4 Muller & Green Comments on PM Trudeau’s Canadian Asbestos Policy. March 21, 2018.

5 WeWork website:

6 Email Mick Holder to Laurie Kazan-Allen. March 26, 2018.

March 13, 2018

Par for the Course!

The mission and energy of the Asbestos Diseases Society of Australia (ADSA), one of the world’s leading asbestos victims’ support groups, shows no signs of diminishing more than 35 years after it was founded. After several visits to the Society’s offices last month (the latest on February 27, 2018), I can report that the staff were busier than ever; regrettably, they had already registered 20 new cases of mesothelioma since the beginning of the year among people coming to the society for assistance.

Despite the enormous amount of work which each case requires, the ADSA still makes time to raise funds for scientists at the Sir Charles Gairdner hospital who are at the cutting edge of medical research into the causation, treatment and a possible cure for asbestos cancer. On February 18, I was delighted to observe the latest fund-raising initiative which took place at the Meadow Springs Golf Course in Mandurah, some 40 miles from Perth. The event, organized by ADSA’s Vice President Dave Hall, consisted of 18 fearless teams (see photo below) playing a round of golf on a sunny Autumn Sunday.


Prizes down to 10th place were awarded, with Professor Anna Nowak presenting the winning team “Short Putt” with the annual ADSA trophy. The day raised $13,000 for mesothelioma research.


Commenting on the event, Robert Vojakovic President of the ADSA said:

“I am immensely proud of the fundraising efforts of many contributors who raised a total of $98,000 in the year 2017 which includes the proceeds of the February Golf Tournament and the ADSA Walk 2017. It gives me great hope that there will be advances in the search to find a cure for mesothelioma. The ADSA will continue with our fundraising efforts to support our talented team of researchers at the National Centre for Asbestos Related Diseases Western Australia.”

December 20, 2017

Asbestos Endgame: 2017!

The enduring rapaciousness of the asbestos industry has been confirmed today (December 20, 2017) with news that Sri Lanka, a country poised to protect human health by restricting asbestos use in 2018, has been bullied into backtracking by the Russian Government. A surprise announcement last week of an impending ban on Russian imports of Sri Lanka tea and agricultural products was widely seen as a “tit-for-tat” reprisal over plans to curtail Russian asbestos imports by Sri Lanka. The Russian embargo sent shockwaves through the Sri Lankan government and industry stakeholders; Russia is currently the largest importer of Ceylon tea – 48 and 36 million kilograms in 2011 and 2015, respectively. In 2016, Sri Lanka tea exports to Russia were valued at US$143 million. Most of the asbestos fiber in Sri Lanka comes from Russia.1 After an emergency cabinet meeting presided over by President Maithripala Sirisena in Colombo on Tuesday, December 19, 2017, the Sri Lanka government announced the asbestos ban would be postponed. The President said he would request Russian President Vladimir Putin consider suspending the embargo.

It seems unbelievable that in this day and age one country can dictate the health and safety policy of another; especially when the substance at the center of the dispute is known to cause a variety of fatal cancers and respiratory diseases.

It is no secret that asbestos vested interests have long relied on a variety of methods, including confidential trade agreements, to preserve asbestos markets; the main difference this time is that the threat to Sri Lanka was so blatant: you buy our asbestos or else!

Considering the huge strides being made around the globe by ban asbestos campaigners, one should not be overly surprised by the desperate measures being taken by the beleaguered industry. On November 27, 2017, Moldova, one of Russia’s closest neighbors, announced that the sale and import of chrysotile asbestos-containing materials and chrysotile asbestos fiber were to be outlawed by 2019. The same day, confirmation was published that Canada would abide by its decision to ban asbestos in 2018 despite a trade agreement with Ukraine which had come into effect on August 1, 2017.2 On November 29, 2017, Brazil’s Supreme Court ruled that the production, processing, use and sale of asbestos were unconstitutional and therefore not permitted anywhere in the country. The betrayal by former allies and pro-asbestos fellow travellers – Canada had been the world’s largest asbestos producer throughout the 20th century and Brazil was, in recent years, the world’s 3rd largest producer – must have been bitter pills for asbestos vested interests to swallow. To add insult to injury at a meeting in Delhi, India on December 16, 2017, a new organization – the Indian Ban Asbestos Network – was formed to progress efforts to end asbestos use in the world’s largest importing country!

The final days of 2017 have brought no respite for asbestos stakeholders who, despite trade agreements, bullying and the use of covert strategies, are seeing the demand for their goods plummet. When the asbestos mines have finally been shut and asbestos consigned to the history books, 2017 will be regarded as the year the world finally turned its back on asbestos. Happy New Year to one and all!

1 Sri Lanka: Sri Lankan government to temporarily suspend the ban on asbestos. December 20, 2017
Ban on Asbestos to be Relaxed. December 20, 2017.
Russia suspends tea imports from Sri Lanka; three ministers to fly to Moscow for urgent talks. December 17, 2017.

2 Canada will prohibit the import of asbestos products from Ukraine. November 27, 2017.

November 29, 2017

Seven Days, Six Countries, Five Voices – One Mission

As if by a fortuitous alignment of the planets, between November 21 and 28, 2017, the actions of a British campaigner, a Brazilian engineer, a Colombian Senator, an Australian physician and an Indian school teacher highlighted multiple facets of the global struggle for asbestos justice at places as diverse as the British Parliament, universities in Rio de Janeiro and Bogota, a monastery in the West Australian capital of Perth and a United Nations hearing in Geneva.

On Tuesday November 21, 2017, Mavis Nye, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2009 and is in recovery following treatment with the immunotherapy drug Keytruda, attended a meeting of the Parliamentary Asbestos Sub-Group at the House of Commons.1 During the discussions, Mavis drew attention to the discrepancy which now exists between civil court verdicts mandating that defendants cover costs for non-NHS funded treatments such as those she herself benefited from and awards made under the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme (DMPS)2 which only provide a one-off lump sum payment to eligible claimants. For a person diagnosed in her late sixties, as Mavis herself was, the amount paid by the DMPS would be around £168,000, enough to pay for about two years of immunotherapy treatment, were the entire award applied to that purpose.3


As a result of Mavis’ intervention on November 21, enquiries are being made into the feasibility of amending provisions of the DMPS to address this discrepancy. Next month (December 2017), Mavis and her husband Ray are launching the Mavis Nye Foundation “to provide a hardship fund and support and financial grants to aid newly diagnosed victims of mesothelioma in the UK.”4 In an interview, Mavis said: “I was so lucky and believe I was saved from this dreadful disease for a purpose. I hope that the new foundation will enable me to help those still suffering.”


Two days later (November 23, 2017) and thousands of miles away, at Brazil’s National School of Public Health (Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública), Engineer Fernanda Giannasi, retired labor inspector and advisor to Brazil’s Association of the Asbestos-Exposed (ABREA), addressed students studying for a Masters Degree in Public Health in Rio de Janeiro on Brazil’s struggle for asbestos justice, with a focus on the ongoing legal and legislative battles to prohibit asbestos use and secure the rights of the injured.5

As the Brazilian students were gaining the benefit of Ms. Giannasi’s knowledge, another asbestos information session was taking place in Bogota, Colombia. The public hearing was addressed by medical and scientific experts including: Luis Ernesto Gómez, Deputy Minister of the Interior, Dr. Adriana Estrada from the Ministry of Health, Dr. Fabián Méndez Paz, Director of the School of Public Health, Associate Professor Dr. Juan Pablo Ramos of the Department of Civil Engineering, Silvia Gómez, Director of Greenpeace Colombia and Cecilia Riao, sufferer of an asbestos disease.


Pivotal to the public hearing was input from Senator Nadia Blel, whose proposal to ban asbestos – as enshrined in the “Ana Cecilia Nio” Asbestos Ban Bill – was approved by the

7th Commission of the Senate on October 11, 2017. The bill is currently proceeding through the Congress.

Marking the end of Australia’s National Asbestos Awareness Week on Friday, November 24, 2017, an ecumenical service was held by the Asbestos Diseases Society of Australia at the Redemptorist Monastery in North Perth. At this 22nd annual service, the eulogy was given by Professor Anna Nowak, a much-loved and respected clinician held in the highest esteem by the Society’s members.


Photo courtesy of the Asbestos Diseases Society of Australia

Professor Nowak spoke about what she had learned from her patients about love and hope. “To own up to being an oncologist is a conversation stopper,” she said. “However,” she continued:

“my patients and their families have taught me to think differently. An oncologist’s office is a place of hope, of love, and of learning – and it’s not me that makes it that way. It’s my patients and their families, who teach me every day the meaning of hope, the meaning of love, and so many other lessons. Our patients are our teachers.”

On Tuesday, November 2, 2017, asbestosis sufferer and former school-teacher Nirmala Gurung testified before delegates at the United Nations Forum for Business and Human Rights in Geneva, Switzerland about the deadly effects of asbestos contamination caused by asbestos-cement manufacturing operations of British and Belgian companies in the Indian town of Kymore in the State of Madhya Pradesh.6 It is believed that representatives of the current owner of the company – Everest Industries Limited –had been invited to attend.


Nirmala explained how a school teacher became a victim of an industrial disease. In the text she has released prior to the event, she recalled that:

“During the dry season asbestos dust particles even blew into the classrooms. Parents and children used to come into the classroom covered with dust. The owners and workers in the UK and Belgium certainly knew about the hazards of asbestos but did not inform the community. I have seen many victims dying slowly and painfully. It’s really horrible to watch a healthy person turn into a skeleton. I wish the coming generation to be saved from this and that first and foremost there is a need for proper treatment of the asbestos waste which the factory dumped in the surrounding populated area. Asbestos must be banned and those suffering from asbestos diseases should be compensated.”

Mavis, Fernanda, Nadia, Anna and Nirmala are women on a mission; each one of them has had direct experience of the devastation caused by asbestos exposures, and each seeks to prevent future generations from coming to harm.7 The world is a better place with them in it.

1 Mavis Nye One of Few People in the World in Recovery from Mesothelioma. November 15, 2017.

2 “The scheme is in place to compensate people with Diffuse Mesothelioma who were exposed to asbestos either negligently or in breach of statutory duty by their employers, and who are unable to bring a claim for compensation against the employer or that employer's Employers' Liability insurer. The scheme can also make payments to eligible dependants of a sufferer of mesothelioma who has passed away.”
The Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme (DMPS).

3 There is a difference in amounts awarded under the DMPS to people diagnosed from July 25, 2012 to February 9, 2012 and those diagnosed after July 25, 2012 with payments to someone diagnosed in their late sixties in the earlier period listed around £134,500 and £168,000 in the later period.
Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme: Payment Tariff – for those diagnosed from February 10, 2015 onwards:
Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme: Payment Tariff – for those diagnosed from July 25, 2012 to February 9, 2012:

4 The Mavis Nye Foundation.

5 Aula aberta Banimento do amianto: uma luta coletiva e continua.

6 Environmental Exposure to Asbestos Kills Indian People; Kymore – A Slow-Motion Bhopal.

7 Although these events took place in 5 countries, the news of Nirmala’s trip to Switzerland will have a significant impact in India as well (see article below); this is why the headline refers to 6 and not 5 countries.

Madhya Pradesh village sees “slow death” of hundreds of asbestos victims caused by now closed British, Belgian subsidiary. November 21, 2017.

November 16, 2017

Shedding Light on Tragic Darkness

For decades, victims of an epidemic caused by fibers often too small to be seen were equally invisible, cast adrift by former employers and unacknowledged by governments. Off-loading suffering and treatment costs onto the injured not only left corporate profits undented but also enabled political support for the asbestos sector to go unchallenged. As long as stakeholders could hide the human tragedies caused by their commercial operations, their desired status quo – one in which business could continue as usual – would be allowed to prevail.

However, a remarkable grassroots mobilization of asbestos victims and campaigners eventually turned the tide: one by one, governments across the world are coming to recognize the irreversible harm caused by asbestos, and courts in many jurisdictions have awarded substantial compensation for the negligent behaviour of asbestos-industry employers – with such settlements going back several decades in a handful of countries. Still more needs to be done, but in considering future action we must recognise that the progress that has been achieved so far has only come about following sustained battles fought on multiple fronts against powerful vested interests over many years.

Highlighting these struggles, in recent months, three major documentaries have been screened – in a serendipitous confluence of activity from three different regions (Latin America, Asia and Europe).

The first of the films to appear was a Brazilian production entitled “Não Respire – Contém Amianto” (“Do not Breathe – Contains Asbestos”).1 It was premiered at the 6th Ecofalante Environmental Film Festival in June 2017 in São Paulo, Brazil where it won the jury prize for best film.


Last month (October 2017), the film was shown in the Brazilian city of Florianópolis, with more screenings planned at upcoming film festivals. Given that this year has been pivotal in the Brazilian struggle to ban asbestos, the timing for the release of a documentary exposing the horrific impact of asbestos exposures on Brazilian citizens could not have been better!

In October (2017), a documentary entitled “Sennan Asbestos Disaster” won the Citizen’s Prize at the Yamagata International Documentary Film Festival in Japan and the Mercenat Award at the Busan International Film Festival in Korea.2 This “heart-breaking epic chronicles the prolonged struggle of a dwindling group of dying former asbestos workers and others seeking justice and recognition from an indifferent Japanese government.” The film is 215 minutes long and took ten years of research, filming and post-production to bring to the screen.


On November 8, 2017, “Les Sentinelles: hommage aux victimes de l'amiante et des pesticides” [The Sentinels: tribute to the victims of asbestos and pesticides] premiered in Paris.3 The director of the documentary was Pierre Pézerat, the son of the famous scientist-activist-researcher Professor Henri Pézerat4 who for over 30 years fought to protect his fellow citizens and the environment from hazardous substances, including asbestos. Footage of Henri and fellow ban asbestos activists Annie Thebaud-Mony, Josette Roudaire and Jean-Marie Birbès reinforces the importance of sustained collaborations between experts and workers and highlighted the almost insurmountable challenges they faced and continue to face.


To successfully tackle a problem, one must first define and quantify the key elements to be addressed. “Visualization” of the formerly hidden asbestos epidemic was one of the earliest tasks for campaigners; ensuring that the faces of asbestos victims were seen and that the numbers of those affected were counted heightened asbestos awareness of decision makers as well as members of the public. These films, and others like them, will help ensure that the asbestos fallen and the lessons learned from their fight for justice will not be forgotten.

1 The English trailer for the documentary “Do not Breathe – Contains Asbestos” can be viewed on YouTube:

2 Sennan Asbestos Disaster. 2017.

3 Les Sentinelles.

4 Henri Pézerat.

November 6, 2017

The Global Asbestos Jigsaw

Reflecting this afternoon on the contents of news items uploaded to this website yesterday and today gave me pause to think. Taken as a whole, the asbestos developments in Europe, Asia, North America and Australasia which they detailed constitute a damning indictment of asbestos use, a shift in even the most hostile of political environments to a prohibition culture and a willingness not only to assign blame for failures to protect workers but also to order negligent political and commercial entities to compensate the injured and/or their surviving family members.

Although the six developments reported are but fragments of a global jigsaw puzzle seen together they reinforce the feelings of public revulsion at the ongoing damage caused by historic and continuing asbestos use. The October 27, 2017 verdict by the Tokyo High Court should put national governments on notice that they will be held to account for the damage done by their failures to act on the asbestos hazard. The Indian Parliament, the Colombian Congress and the People’s Consultative Assembly of Indonesia might do well to consider how they will afford to pay compensation to thousands of future victims whose lives will have been sacrificed for the profits of the asbestos industry.

In rhetoric used by asbestos profiteers the world over, industry stakeholders assert that as no cases of asbestos-related diseases have been diagnosed in their countries, there is no need to take action. Ignoring the fact that human biology is the same the world over, lobbyists for chrysotile (white) asbestos in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh rely on this propaganda to forestall ban asbestos legislation. The fact that amongst these news items are two which report cases of asbestos disease in these same countries is evidence of the disingenuousness of the industry’s argument.

Compared to the self-serving and unfounded claims of the International Chrysotile Association, the (Russian) Chrysotile Association and other interested parties, international agencies are in no doubt about the severity and reach of the deadly asbestos epidemic. In the paper: Barriers and Facilitators to the Elimination of Asbestos Related Diseases—Stakeholders’ Perspectives, which is the subject of one of the November 5 news updates, the authors are categorical that banning asbestos not only saves lives but also saves money. This finding undermines the very last shred of defense for this industry of mass destruction.

You don’t have to be a Greek oracle or the seer of Omaha to predict what the future holds for the asbestos industry. As night follows day, national ban asbestos prohibitions will be enacted, corporate profits will collapse in asbestos-based industries and political influence will evaporate. The future is asbestos-free!

October 23, 2017

Asbestos Disconnect: Russia vs. Australia

On October 20, 2017, two articles1 were published which clearly demonstrated irreconcilable views on the nature of asbestos, a word so toxic in many countries that it has been eliminated from the names of corporations and trade associations (e.g. Canada’s Asbestos Institute was rechristened the Chrysotile Institute), and has brought derision to eponymous communities – debate is ongoing regarding a change of name for the mining town called Asbestos in the Canadian Province of Quebec.2

The first article was in Russian and detailed attempts to preach asbestos industry gospel to students at Kazan Construction College, Tatarstan on October 12, 2017. The headline of the article gave an indication of its pro-industry slant: “Architectural students from Kazan rediscover chrysotile.” It is worth noting that the title of the lecture given by Vladimir Petrovich Uglev of the Chrysotile Association was “Chrysotile-cement materials and their applications.” The word asbestos did not appear in the title of the lecture nor does it appear in the name of the national trade association – the Chrysotile Association3 – representing asbestos stakeholders. Clearly, although the profits from asbestos sales are not too toxic for the association’s members to covet, the use of the word “asbestos” is too repellent for general discourse.

During his presentation, Uglev displayed a range of sample products, the qualities of which – no doubt – he extolled. He also attempted to bolster the audience’s interest by informing them of a competition with cash prizes for designs using chrysotile products for children’s play spaces or urban/garden/park environments. Online resources were available to assist designers with the calculations for their projects.

It is unlikely that the industry propaganda peddled by Uglev will be accepted at face value by the students from Kazan Construction College. This summer, the President of Tatarstan, of which Kazan is the capital, confronted an asbestos industry official about the poisonous nature of chrysotile.4 Clearly, information about the deadly effects of chrysotile is available in Tatarstan; given the almost 90 million Russians who use the internet and the online availability of information from international agencies and other independent sources on asbestos, the disinformation conveyed by Uglev will most likely receive the contempt it deserves.5

The second article published on October 20th originated in Australia, a country experiencing its worst epidemic of occupational mortality, the cause of which is asbestos. Although asbestos use was banned in 2003, the presence of millions of tonnes of asbestos-containing products throughout the national infrastructure, the environmental devastation caused by asbestos mining in New South Wales and Western Australia and the uncontrolled and widespread exposures experienced by workers, their families and members of the public has made the subject of “asbestos” a hot-button issue with local, regional and national asbestos awareness initiatives supported by asbestos victims’ groups, trade unions, independent agencies, government bodies, medical researchers and others. The subject of the article entitled: “‘Betty - the ADRI House’ brings asbestos awareness,” is one such initiative. Betty is a purpose built mobile model house designed to demonstrate where asbestos-containing products might be found in a typical pre-1987 Australian house. Betty and her minders have travelled extensively throughout New South Wales and further afield to educate residents, home renovators and others about the potentially fatal consequences of asbestos exposures. Quoted in this article are warnings by Asbestos Awareness ambassador and well-known actor John Jarratt:

“Most Australians believe that asbestos-related diseases are a thing of the past but they’re very wrong. Each week 13 Australians die of asbestos-related diseases. Today we know better and we do know the risks so if you’re a homeowner, renovator, tradie or property manager, please take the warnings seriously.”

The disconnect between the Russian and Australian articles could not be greater with the former urging increasing asbestos use and the later warning of deadly effects of toxic exposures. Asbestos propagandists know full well that Russians like people all over the world are dying from asbestos-related diseases. Despite their blanket assurances that chrysotile use is safe,6 new data shows that Russia is amongst the worst affected countries for asbestos-related mortality.7 Whatever the vested interests say, it is the ordinary people in both countries that are paying the price for the asbestos industry’s profits.

1 Студенты-архитекторы из Казани заново открыли для себя хризотил [Architectural students from Kazan rediscover chrysotile]. October 20, 2017.
‘Betty - the ADRI House’ brings asbestos awareness. October 20, 2017.

2 Five years after asbestos mine closure, Quebec town seeks new identity. Aug 25, 2016.

3 According to the Chrysotile Association website, it works to: “Promote the adoption and application of appropriate prevention and control measures, regulations, standards, work practices and techniques for the safe use of chrysotile [asbestos].”

4 1 Минниханов — минтрансу: «Г..…е дороги делаете!» [Minnikhanov vs Ministry of Transport]. August 28, 2017.

5 Asbestos policies of major international agencies.

6 A publication issued by the International Chrysotile Association in Autumn 2017 asserted that:
“The safe and controlled use of chrysotile is neither a myth nor a pipe dream. It is a well-known and well documented reality. The products marketed are without real health risks because the chrysotile fibre is encapsulated in a cement or resin matrix. Because it is encapsulated, the chrysotile fibre can’t be airborne (non airportable) and therefore can’t be breathed in (non-respirable).”
ICA. ASBESTOS Amphiboles MUST BE BANNED, Chrysotile MUST BE CONTROLLED. Autumn 2017.

7 See Table 1: Asbestos-Related Disease Mortality by Country and Disease 2016. October 2017.

October 17, 2017

Halloween: Asbestos Ghouls and Chrysotile Devils 2017

October 31 is marked in the U.S. and some others countries as Halloween, an opportunity for children to wear fancy dress costumes depicting supernatural figures such as witches, devils, ghosts, vampires, monsters, and characters from popular culture – in my children’s day, Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia costumes were very popular. Horror stories, hopefully age-appropriate, are a feature of the day.

From my vantage point, you don’t have to go far to find a horror story – one that details the activities of a coven of industry stakeholders responsible for a global epidemic of ill health and premature death. Supporters of the International Chrysotile Association (ICA) would certainly be amongst the ghouls so indicted. In the run-up to Halloween, the ICA has published a 30-page booklet aimed at forcing Canada to rescind its pledge to ban asbestos by 2018.1 Such strong-arm tactics will not succeed in swaying the government of Justin Trudeau2 but they have worked and continue to work in other countries where asbestos industry propaganda is distributed as fact.


Last week, news was circulated of an asbestos initiative targeting Russian students such as those at the Nizhny Novgorod State University of Civil Engineering who attended a lecture by Vladimir Galitsyn, director of the (Russian) Chrysotile Association, which extolled the unique properties of asbestos and encouraged the future use of asbestos-containing products. This is one of a series of lectures for students at secondary and higher educational institutions in Russia. There can be little doubt that the offer of cash prizes to the winners of a competition to encourage the use of chrysotile cement products provided an incentive for the students’ interest.

Asbestos stakeholders in Russia and elsewhere purport to represent the interests of people working in the asbestos industrial sector. As has happened in other countries, once the profits evaporate, the tens of thousands left behind with damaged lungs, shortened lives and polluted towns will be on their own. Asbestos comradeship has a limited lifespan; today’s highly vocal spokesmen of the ICA and Chrysotile Association have no interest in the broken lives and toxic landscapes left in the wake of their profit-driven activities.


1 ICA. ASBESTOS Amphiboles MUST BE BANNED, Chrysotile MUST BE CONTROLLED. Autumn 2017.

2 Ruff K. Asbestos lobby attacks Canada’s decision to ban asbestos. October 15, 2017.

October 6, 2017

Asbestos: Redemption, Restitution and Remediation

Canada, a country admired worldwide for its tolerance, civil liberties and enviable living standards, has long had a blind spot: asbestos. Despite the many advantages Canadians enjoy and the country’s top tier ranking as an educational powerhouse,”1 when it came to a substance once known as “white gold” there was no arguing with the perceived wisdom – carefully crafted over decades by industry stakeholders – that the production and use of Canadian asbestos was not injurious to human health.

When inconvenient truths were published in Quebec regarding the high levels of environmentally-caused asbestos cancer in mining areas, the researchers were vilified. When asbestos victims attempted to hold a meeting to discuss the asbestos threat to public health in 2008, they were threatened.2 Years after the dawning of the 21st century, the national discourse on asbestos remained much as it had been for years with political, economic and public support for the industry undiminished.

In under a decade, an astonishing reversal has been achieved led by scientists and researchers in Quebec supported by international experts, campaigning bodies and asbestos victims.3 It seems that almost every day another article or study is published indicting the one-time “magic mineral” for having caused a national epidemic of occupational disease and for having created widespread contamination of the built environment.4 The contrast between the current willingness to quantify the damage caused by this industry of mass destruction with the former wall of silence could not be greater.

As Canada finalizes legislation needed to ban asbestos use and implements measures to protect workers and the public from hazardous exposures, Brazil remains adrift on a sea of indecision and uncertainty. According to a much-argued over Supreme Court decision in August 2017, state legislation banning asbestos is constitutional and the federal government’s policy allowing the commercial exploitation of asbestos is not. If the Canadian ban is surprising due to the country’s former love affair with asbestos it is not quite as remarkable as an expected ban in Brazil. Canada had long ago run out of asbestos and would have needed tens of millions of dollars to develop a new underground asbestos mine. Brazil, now the world’s third largest asbestos producer, is actively mining, selling, exporting and promoting chrysotile (white) asbestos. With Supreme Court verdicts expected shortly regarding the constitutionality of asbestos bans in the State of Rio de Janeiro and elsewhere, it is likely that Brazil’s asbestos industry will be consigned to the history books before long. When this happens, epidemiologists, medical specialists, engineers and others will, as in Canada, find plenty of evidence of the harm which had been done by the country’s asbestos stakeholders. The only way ahead for Canada and Brazil is to prioritize the implementation of national bans, undertake phased remediation of contamination caused by decades of asbestos mining and use, provide assistance needed by those whose lives have been sacrificed to the greed of the asbestos industry and ensure that individuals, corporate entities and other vested interests which caused the epidemics of asbestos-related deaths now occurring are brought to justice. The struggle continues.

1 How Canada became an education superpower. August 2, 2017.

2 “Scientists cannot be silenced” The story behind how Canada finally banned asbestos. October 3, 2017.

3 Ruff K. How Canada Changed from Exporting Asbestos to Banning Asbestos: The Challenges That Had to Be Overcome. September 27, 2017.

4 Asbestos: doctors demand a tightening of exposure. September 25, 2017.
Workplace carcinogens lead to thousands of cancer cases in Ontario each year: study. October 3, 2017.

September 21, 2017

Asbestos Exit Strategies

Wherever asbestos has been used, political, social and commercial frameworks have been constructed to prioritise the interests of the asbestos industrial sector at the expense of workers, the public and the environment. Historically, the growth of support for national bans is accompanied by the erosion of these structures; what happened in Canada to asbestos associations and mining communities is now being replicated in Brazil and Russia.

For decades, Canada’s Chrysotile Institute (CI), formerly the Asbestos Institute, was the mouthpiece for the Canadian asbestos industry and a cheerleader for global asbestos interests.1 The institute’s operations, supported by cash injections from industry and both provincial and federal governments, shrunk as asbestos mines filed for bankruptcy.2 As public opinion turned against the asbestos industry, political support wavered and funding disappeared as a result of which the CI closed its doors in 2012.

Unlike Canada, Brazil still has – for the time being at least – a Chrysotile Institute: the Instituto Brasileiro de Crisotila (IBC). In the aftermath of decisions this summer by Brazil’s Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of state asbestos bans and the unconstitutionality of asbestos use, it looks like the IBC’s days are numbered. Adding insult to injury, a recent court decision annulled the National Agreement on the Controlled Use of Asbestos between the IBC and the National Commission of Asbestos Workers (Comissão Nacional dos Trabalhadores do Amianto/CNTA) and the National Confederation of [Asbestos] Industrial Workers (Confederação Nacional dos Trabalhadores na Indústria /CNTI), industry-funded groups purporting to represent asbestos workers. The recent court verdict ordered the IBC to desist from “financially supporting, directly or indirectly, any legal entity of a trade union nature representing workers…”3 Without such support, the demise of the CNTA and CNTI is almost certainly guaranteed.

It is not only former asbestos supporters, some of whom may face criminal or civil charges in the post-asbestos era, whose prospects are in ruins but also the future of mining communities with economies built on asbestos. Even as the Canadian towns of Thetford Mines and Asbestos struggle to reinvent themselves with the help of government funding, the Russian monotown of Asbest (Russian: Асбе́ст) is looking to diversify its economy with the support of the authorities of the Sverdlovsk region.4 The outlook for the people of Minaçu, the city which is home to Brazil’s only operational asbestos mine, is bleak.

Commenting on Minaçu’s future, Brazil’s leading ban asbestos campaigner former Labor Inspector Fernanda Giannasi said:

“For years we had advised the workers, local politicians and residents in Minaçu of the need to promote economic alternatives for the region so as not to be totally dependent on asbestos, as the commercial exploitation of this mineral would end either because of the exhaustion of the mine or because of the prohibition of production. None of our arguments convinced them and they continued to rely on demagogic and populist policies. They remained deaf to our appeals; perhaps now they will hear the voice of reason.”

When Eternit pulls the plug on the mine, the city of Minaçu and the state of Goiás will be left with a deadly legacy: generations of asbestos-injured citizens, contaminated infrastructures and polluted landscapes. Will Eternit SA, the company which owns the mine, be there to support the dying, remediate the buildings and clean-up the environment? If experience teaches us anything, the answer to that question is no.

1 Kazan-Allen L. The Rise and Fall of the Chrysotile Institute. May 1, 2012.

2 Canada: Asbestos Profile. 2016.

3 A farsa do lobby do amianto: Sentença – Acordo nacional do uso seguro do amianto celebrado entre CNTA/CNTI e IBC é extinto [The asbestos lobby farce: Judgment – National agreement on the safe use of asbestos between CNTA/CNTI and IBC is void].

4 Куйвашев поручил властям Асбеста подготовить комплексную стратегию развития города [Kuyvashev instructed the Asbest authorities to prepare a comprehensive city development strategy]. August 9, 2017.

Blog pages:





       Home   |    Site Info   |    Site Map   |    About   |    Top↑