Annals of Occupational Hygiene Advance Access originally published online on September 23, 2008
Annals of Occupational Hygiene 2008 52(8):673-674; doi:10.1093/annhyg/men065
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Canada, Chrysotile, and the Search for Truth
Editor-in-Chief, Annals of Occupational Hygiene, British Occupational Hygiene Society, Derby DE24 8LZ, UK
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: +44 1332 298101; E-mail: editor{at}ogs.org.uk
I had hoped that this issue would include a commentary on the health risks from chrysotile asbestos and the degree to which there is a consensus on this subject. The commentary has been written, submitted and peer reviewed, but cannot be published because it draws on a report which the Canadian government has had since mid-March, but has not published. This is an annoying piece of needless government secrecy, but it has wider interest as an example of the use of science in policy.
Canada's attitude to chrysotile is controversial because of its continuing production and promotion of the substance, preferring controlled use in a world where many countries have banned all asbestos. In 2006, Canada produced 
175 000 tonnes, which it exported to 70 countries (Natural Resources Canada, 2007). It is by no means the largest producer—2006 production estimates included 1 120 000 tonnes by Russia, 350 000 tonnes by China, 241 000 tonnes by Kazakhstan and 230 000 tonnes by Brazil. But Canada as a promoter of asbestos seems inconsistent with its international image as a supporter of the weak, and its prominence in western communities and cultures makes it an easy target of criticism. There is no similar campaign about Kazakhstan.
It was therefore a welcome development when in November 2007 the Canadian federal department of health (Health Canada) called a meeting of asbestos experts from different parts of the world, who had previously expressed very different views about chrysotile, to see what degree of consensus now existed about the risks. The panel met in Montreal for 2 days, and in March 2008 finalized a suite of reports: a detailed chronological summary of the discussions, a summary consensus document which sought to bring together what the disparate experts felt they could agree on and individual reports including some statements of reservation over particular points in the consensus document. There was a considerable degree of consensus (although not unanimity) because two major meta-analyses, with considerable differences in methodology, have produced wide areas of agreement in risk estimates (Hodgson and Darnton, 2000; Berman and Crump, 2008a,b). I had the stimulating job of chairing the meeting and overseeing preparation of the reports. The workplan provided to the panel by Health Canada said that the reports would be published on the Health Canada website, and in July 2008, the minister repeated that they would be published as soon as possible. This editorial is being written at the beginning of September and the reports have still not appeared. There is a federal election planned for 14 October, so everything has been shelved and it seems very possible that the reports will never be published.
This is a big disappointment to all concerned. It did seem that Canada had committed itself to establishing where the scientific consensus lay. It is sometimes argued that continuing use of chrysotile in developing countries is justified by the benefits, even in health terms, but this argument should be informed by the best evaluation of the science. There is a conference on the Rotterdam Convention in Rome at the end of October and Canada's position there ought to be informed by the ‘best evaluation of the science’, in this case the reports which Health Canada commissioned. The non-appearance of the reports clearly implies that Canada does not intend to use them in this way. Canada's critics said that this was going to be the outcome from the beginning and that the government's main interest will be commercial to prevent chrysotile being listed in the Rotterdam Convention.
The Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade is a treaty under the United Nations, which was agreed in 1998, and entered into force in 2004 (UNEP, 2005a,b). In all, 122 countries have now ratified it. The convention includes a list of chemicals, currently 39, which cannot be traded without the prior informed consent of the importing country. When a chemical is listed, a ‘decision guidance document’ is prepared, which contains information on any severe restrictions imposed on the chemical for health or environmental reasons. Signatory countries must then decide whether they wish to allow import of the chemical, to ban it, or to allow it subject to specified restrictions. Listing of a substance does not therefore amount to a ban on trade, but to mandatory sharing of information. It has been questioned whether developing countries have the resources to make the informed decision (Barrios, 2004), but clearly the procedure is preferable to unrestricted trade in dangerous substances.
Signatory countries can nominate chemicals to be added to the list, but in the end the decision is made by a conference of signatories. The inclusion of chrysotile was prevented by Canada and a small number of other countries in 1998, 2003, 2004 and again in 2006, when over a 100 countries were in favour of including chrysotile and 6 were against. Critics expect Canada to try to block the listing again at the October 2008 conference in Rome. But the purpose of this editorial is not primarily to complain about Canada, which has an admirable international record in many fields, but about the problem of disguising economic and political decisions as scientific ones, using outdated or possibly one-sided evidence. This problem, which is not unique to Canada, is highlighted in the current case of the Canadian government's delay in releasing an expert scientific panel report while at the same time taking a strong oppositional position on an international trade agreement directly related to the subject of the report.
Most people in occupational hygiene have come across situations in which bad decisions were made which endangered health, whether by individuals, corporations or governments. For governments, we hope there are systems in place which take the crucial technical decisions (those with important public health implications) away from the political arena. Such systems are in place, generally, in Western Europe. I spent a few years in health and safety policy in Britain and was impressed by the way ministers in a strongly deregulatory government backed decisions by Health and Safety Commission expert committees despite alleged costs to industries. Failure to implement, or act on, such systems can lead to costly mistakes.
A distinguished newspaper editor set a high standard for his staff and the rest of us: ‘Comment is free, but facts are sacred’ (Scott, 1926). While the science may not be perfect and there are always differences of opinion concerning the interpretation of the evidence, it is always crucial that international decisions take into account the best available science. The Canadian review had the strength of being the product of debate between scientists known to have opposed starting positions. The report did not make recommendations concerning use, controls or bans. These are political and economic decisions. It is unfortunate that Canada has to date chosen not to make the results of these useful scientific deliberations public.
Publication deadlines mean that this is being written in early September. Perhaps it will all be proved wrong. Perhaps the new Canadian government will publish the panel reports and go to Rome at the end of October and put its case on the basis of the international scientific consensus, with its strengths and limitations. We shall see.
FOOTNOTES
The free full text of this article can be found in the online version of this issue.
Received September 9, 2008; in final form September 9, 2008
REFERENCES
Barrios P. The Rotterdam Convention on Hazardous Chemicals: A Meaningful Step Toward Environmental Protection? Georget Int Environ Law Rev (2004) 16. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3970/is_200407/ai_n9429400/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1. Accessed 4 September 2008.
Berman DW, Crump KS. Update of potency factors for asbestos-related lung cancer and mesothelioma. Crit Rev Toxicol (2008a) 38(Suppl 1):1–47. http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/Pdf/AddCoversheet?xml=/mnt/pdfserve/pdfserve/621364–795452336.xml. Accessed 4 September 2008.[Web of Science][Medline]
Berman DW, Crump KS. A meta-analysis of asbestos-related cancer risk that addresses fiber size and mineral type. Crit Rev Toxicol (2008b) 38(Suppl 1):49–73. http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/Pdf/AddCoversheet?xml=/mnt/pdfserve/pdfserve/207137–901415193.xml. Accessed 4 September 2008.[Web of Science][Medline]
Hodgson JT, Darnton A. The quantitative risks of mesothelioma and lung cancer in relation to asbestos exposure. Ann Occup Hyg (2000) 44:565–601. http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/50/8/751. Accessed 4 September 2008.
Natural Resources Canada. Canadian Minerals Yearbook, 2006. Mineral and Metal Commodity Reviews. Chrysotile (2007) Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa. http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/mms/cmy/content/2006/20.pdf. Accessed 4 September 2008.
Scott CP. (1926) The Manchester Guardian. Manchester, UK.
United Nations Environment Programme. The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade: Text and Annexes (2005a) Rotterdam Convention Secretariat, UNEP, Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.pic.int/en/ConventionText/ONU-GB.pdf. Accessed 4 September 2008.
United Nations Environment Programme. Rotterdam Convention: Overview (2005b) http://www.pic.int/home.php?type=t&id=5&sid = 16. Accessed 4 September 2008.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  T. Ogden Data Sharing, Federal Rule of Evidence 702, and the Lions in the Undergrowth Ann. Hyg., October 1, 2009; 53(7): 651 - 655. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Turci, M. Tomatis, R. Compagnoni, and B. Fubini Role of Associated Mineral Fibres in Chrysotile Asbestos Health Effects: The Case of Balangeroite Ann. Hyg., July 1, 2009; 53(5): 491 - 497. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. L. Ogden Canadian Chrysotile Report Released--At Last Ann. Hyg., June 1, 2009; 53(4): 307 - 309. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||