Asbestos Hazard, an ILO Priority
January 2006 began with a detailed statement by the International Labor Organization (ILO) entitled: Asbestos: the iron grip of latency which highlighted the global damage done by asbestos. Dr. Jukka Takala, Director of the ILO's SafeWork Program, wrote:
“Asbestos is one of the most if not the most important single factor causing work-related fatalities, and is increasingly seen as a major health policy challenge worldwide... asbestos is still the No.1 carcinogen in the world of work.”1
Takala is critical of the dumping of asbestos on developing economies, saying that the increase in their consumption of the toxic mineral will “prove to be a health time bomb in these countries in 20 to 30 years' time.”
Since ILO Convention No.162, concerning safety in the use of asbestos, and its accompanying Recommendation 172 were drafted twenty years ago, epidemiological research, in countries such as Finland, Italy, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Australia, the UK and the U.S., has substantiated the existence of national asbestos epidemics. When the ILO's asbestos policy was adopted in 1986, only the Scandinavian countries had banned asbestos; by the beginning of 2006, 39 countries in Europe, the Americas, the Middle East, Asia and Australasia had imposed national bans. Major international bodies including the International Programme on Chemical Safety (ILO/WHO/UNEP),2 the European Union, the Collegium Ramazzini, the International Social Security Association, the World Trade Organization, the International Federation of Building and Woodworkers and the International Metalworkers' Federation support the pro-ban position. In 2000, the International Commission on Occupational Health (ICOH), some of whose members worked for asbestos-consuming companies, issued a call for a global asbestos ban at their General Assembly. In June 2005, Professor Jorma Rantanen, President of the ICOH, “confirmed that the evidence showing the dangers of asbestos is irrefutable and that proven alternatives for asbestos exist and are in use.”3 The Joint ILO/WHO Committee on Occupational Health, a tripartite committee including representatives of governments, workers, and employers, unanimously agreed in December 2003 that special attention should be paid to the “elimination of silicosis and asbestos-related diseases” in future collaborative programs.
Asbestos lobbyists are furious that the ILO has changed tack citing Takala's comments as proof of his conversion to a pro-ban stance on asbestos:
“We are still far away from a global ban on asbestos use and production… It is a big but important challenge to expand the asbestos ban to all countries in the world.”
Yet, the statement above is not, in fact, a deviation from the ILO's asbestos policy; Article 10 of ILO C162 Asbestos Convention 1986 stated:
“Where necessary to protect the health of workers and technically practicable, national laws or regulations shall provide for one or more of the following measures –
(a) replacement of asbestos or of certain types of asbestos or products containing asbestos by other materials or products or the use of alternative technology, scientifically evaluated by the competent authority as harmless or less harmful, whenever this is possible;
(b) total or partial prohibition of the use of asbestos or of certain types of asbestos or products containing asbestos in certain work processes.”
This was hardly a radical statement coming some twelve years after Occupational Cancer Convention No. 1394 was adopted; Article 2 (1) said:
“Each Member which ratifies this Convention shall make every effort to have carcinogenic substances and agents to which workers may be exposed in the course of their work replaced by non-carcinogenic substances or agents or by less harmful substances or agents; in the choice of substitute substances or agents account shall be taken of their carcinogenic, toxic or other properties.”
In the 21st century those who protect civil society from hazardous substances are under constant attack. The ILO is charged with the “promotion of social justice and internationally recognized human and labor rights.” If the ILO does not defend the human rights of workers to engage in work which is not hazardous to their health, then who will?
February 22, 2006
_______
1 http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inf/features/06/asbestos.htm
2 WHO: World Health Organization; UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme.
3 Royer L. ILO Worker's Group Turns up the Heat on ILO & WHO to Support a Global Asbestos Ban. June 14, 2005. Unpublished memo.
4 Occupational Cancer Convention, 1974 (No. 139) accessed February 22, 2006: http://webfusion.ilo.org/public/db/standards/normes/appl/appl-displayConv.cfm?conv=C139&hdroff
