Global Asbestos Regulations?
In 2003 and 2004, a proposal made under a United Nations' protocol, the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (the Convention), called for the disclosure of information by countries wishing to export chrysotile (white asbestos). On both occasions, delegates meeting in Switzerland agreed that chrysotile met the criteria for inclusion on the PIC list but strident opposition, orchestrated by Canada, blocked the adoption of this proposal.1
Thirty experts2 now meeting in Geneva who constitute the Chemical Review Committee (CRC) of the Rotterdam Convention are debating the listing of chrysotile once again after submissions from Australia, Chile, the European Community, Latvia and Switzerland. According to an observer who was present at sessions held last week:
“The representatives on the CRC are there as expert scientists, and are not meant to represent their country position. However, the Canadian expert, Lars Juergensen, is backed by a large group from the government and has been trying to put forward changes to the way the CRC operates that would prevent chrysotile from being reconsidered. These have not been supported by the expert group, but nevertheless the Canadian pressure remains strong. Both Ukraine (now a Party with an expert represented) and Russia (not yet a Party but attending as observers) have also been lobbying without any constraint … Brazil has an expert on the committee (and) has observers present from the Ministries of Health, Environment and Industry. The latter department has raised concerns about chrysotile inclusion, but in a moderate manner.”
Documentation on the sessions being held from February 11-18, 2005 can be viewed online.3
The continued blocking of this humanitarian attempt to protect workers in developing countries from the hazards of asbestos exposure is deplorable. In an email sent on February 13, 2005, Laurie Kazan-Allen, the Coordinator of IBAS, asked Lars Juergensen, the Canadian CRC delegate, why an important Canadian epidemiological study has not been submitted for the CRC experts to consider. She wrote:
“Submissions supporting the inclusion of chrysotile have been made to the CRC by Australia, the European Community, Chile, Latvia and Switzerland. I feel that a Canadian document could also have been useful to the CRC experts had it been submitted. I refer to the report issued on July 19, 2004 entitled The Epidemiology of Asbestos-Related Diseases in Quebec4 which appeared on the website of the National Institute of Public Health in Quebec. The seventy-three page document exploded the Canadian asbestos industry's assertions that chrysotile is safe by detailing the repercussions of chrysotile mining, processing and use in Québec; the researchers identified 832 cases of pleural mesothelioma in Québec between 1982-1996:
'In comparison to the international community, the situation among Quebec men is only surpassed in several counties in the United Kingdom, several states in Australia and several regions in the Netherlands. Incidence rates of mesothelioma of the pleura rose significantly between 1982 and 1996 in Quebec's male population with a 5% average annual rate of increase…'
The scientists noted that:
'the incidence of mesothelioma in Quebec is greater than that observed in the rest of Canada, and in Sweden, Norway, Israel, and several East European countries…Quebec men and women also show significantly higher rates of mesothelioma of the pleura than men and women in the rest of Canada and in several other countries.'
Significant numbers of individuals suffering from lung cancer and asbestosis were also identified.”
Widespread condemnation of Canada's politically-motivated opposition to chrysotile inclusion has been expressed by asbestos victims' groups, NGOs and concerned individuals who are calling on the CRC experts to uphold the rules and ethos of the Rotterdam Convention.
February 14, 2005
_______
1 See: Defiance of UN Convention
2 http://www.pic.int/incs/crc1/zinf%201/English/CRC%201-INF%201%20experts.pdf.
3 http://www.pic.int/en/ViewPage.asp?id=377
4 This document is the English translation of a report first published in French which appeared on the website of the National Institute of Public Health in Quebec (http://www.inspq.qc.ca/publication) on November 14, 2003.
