Dust diseases and the legacy of corporate manipulation of science and law

Ongoing downplaying of the carcinogenicity of chrysotile asbestos by vested interests

Industries that mine, manufacture and sell asbestos or asbestos-containing products have a long tradition of promoting the use of asbestos, while placing the burden of economic and health costs on workers and society. This has been successfully done in recent years and decades in spite of the overwhelming evidence that all asbestos types are carcinogenic and cause asbestosis. In doing so, the asbestos industry has undermined the WHO campaign to reach a worldwide ban of asbestos and to eliminate asbestos-related diseases. Even worse, in recent years they succeeded in continuing asbestos mining and consuming in the range of about 1.3 million tons annually. Nowadays, production takes place predominantly in Russia, Kazakhstan and China. Chrysotile is the only asbestos type still sold and represents 95% of asbestos traded over the last century.The asbestos industry, especially its PR agency, the International Chrysotile Association, ICA, financed by asbestos mining companies in Russia, Kazakhstan and Zimbabwe and asbestos industrialists in India and Mexico, continues to be extremely active by using slogans such as chrysotile can be used safely.Another approach of the asbestos industry and of some of its insurance agencies is to broadly defeat liability claims of asbestos victims.In doing so they systematically use inappropriate science produced by their own and/or by industry-affiliated researchers. Some of the latter were also engaged in producing defense material for other industries including the tobacco industry. Frequent examples of distributing such disinformation include questioning or denying established scientific knowledge about adverse health effects of asbestos. False evidence continues to be published in scientific journals and books.The persisting strong influence of vested asbestos-related interests in workers and public health issues including regulations and compensation necessitate ongoing alertness, corrections and appropriate reactions in scientific as well as public media and policy advisory bodies.

Perspectives on the knowledge of asbestos disease in the United States - what was known, by whom, and when

Historical research on asbestos disease can be traced back to the early twentieth Century. The majority, if not all of the early research was conducted outside the United States. There are a number of historical time-lines published that chronical these studies. However, what these time-lines do not address is how widespread this information was, who had access to it, and who may have been furthering this research here in the United States. To address these questions, we can look to the writings of early pioneers in occupational medicine like Alice Hamilton and Carey P. McCord from that era to determine the extent that asbestos disease was mentioned or being discussed. Based on the works of Dr. Hamilton and Dr. McCord, the dissemination and penetration of knowledge about asbestos within the medical and industrial hygiene communities during the first half of the twentieth Century in the United States were very limited or non-existent.

Asbestos-related cancers: the 'Hidden Killer' remains a global threat

Introduction: Asbestos, the most frequent cause of occupational cancer, continues to be consumed on a massive scale, with millions of people exposed on a daily basis. This review explains why we have failed in curtailing the silent epidemic of asbestos-related disease and why the numbers of asbestos victims are likely to remain high. Emerging and developed countries have to be reminded that asbestos exposure has yet to become a problem of the past. The worldwide spread of asbestos, followed by the surge of asbestos-related cancers, resembles the lung cancer epidemic caused by smoking and stimulated by manufacturers.Areas covered: Underreporting of malignant mesothelioma and asbestos-induced lung cancer, frequently-used arguments in the amphibole/chrysotile debate and the conclusion from bona-fide research organizations, that all forms of asbestos are carcinogenic, are reviewed. Special attention is paid to the consequences of ubiquitous environmental asbestos and the 'changing face' of malignant mesothelioma in countries with heavy asbestos use in the past.Expert opinion: Experts in oncology, respiratory medicine, occupational and public health, and basic researchers must take responsibility and acknowledge the ongoing silent epidemic of asbestos-related diseases. The call for a world-wide asbestos ban is more urgent than ever.

How can the integrity of occupational and environmental health research be maintained in the presence of conflicting interests?

BACKGROUND

The sciences, and especially the research subspecialties of occupational and environmental health, are being misused. The misuse serves to interfere with the advancement of policies that depend on rational evidence needed for policies to protect public health.

METHODS

We selectively surveyed the independent scientific literature. In addition, the efforts of respected international professional organizations of scientists whose focus is on maintaining and improving public health have been considered. This commentary is unique in assembling not only the factual basis for sounding alarms about significant bias in occupational and environmental health research, but also about the manipulative mechanisms used, and, in turn, the methods needed to keep science honest.

RESULTS

Scientific integrity is based on the principle that research is conducted as objectively as possible; it cannot be compromised by special interests whose primary goals are neither to seek truth nor to protect human health. Evidence demonstrates a significant risk of bias in research reports sponsored by financial interests. Practices of corporate malfeasance include the orchestrated contamination of editorial boards of peer-reviewed scientific journals with industry apologists; interference with activities of national regulatory bodies and international review panels engaged in safeguarding occupational and public health; constructing roadblocks by capitalizing on uncertainty to undermine scientific consensus for much-needed government regulation of carcinogenic, endocrine-disrupting and/or immunotoxic agents; promoting "causation" criteria that lack foundation and effectively block workers' access to legal remedies for harms from occupational exposures resulting in morbidity and premature mortality; and, violating standards of professional conduct by seducing reputable scientists with financial incentives that make them beholden to corporate agendas.

CONCLUSIONS

Well-orchestrated assaults on science continue unabated and must now be met head-on. Success could be achieved by promoting and protecting the integrity of research. Furthermore, avoiding influence by conflicted corporate affiliates in occupational and public health regulations is needed. Identifying, managing and, ideally, eliminating corporate influence on science and science policy are needed to protect research integrity. Protecting the public's health, preventing disease, and promoting well-being must be the unambiguous goals of research in occupational and environmental health.

Prevention of Asbestos Exposure in Latin America within a Global Public Health Perspective

Background:

Asbestos consumption in Latin America (LA) amounts to 10% of yearly global production. Little is known about the impact of asbestos exposure in the region.

Objective:

To discuss scientific and socio-economic issues and conflicts of interest and to summarize epidemiological data of asbestos health effects in LA.

Discussion:

Recent data on chrysotile strengthened the evidence of its carcinogenicity and showed an excessive risk of lung cancer at cumulative exposure levels as low as 1.5 fibre-years/ml. Technology for substitution is available for all asbestos-containing products and ceasing asbestos production and manufacturing will not result in unemployment and loss of income, except for the mining industry. The flawed arguments used by the industry to maintain its market, both to the public and in courtrooms, strongly relies on the lack of local evidence of the ill effects and on the invisibility of asbestos-related diseases in LA, due to the limited number of studies and the exposed workers’ difficulty accessing health services. The few epidemiological studies available show clear evidence of clusters of mesothelioma in municipalities with a history of asbestos consumption and a forecasted rise in its incidence in Argentina and Brazil for the next decade. In Brazil, non-governmental organizations of asbestos workers were pivotal to counterbalance misinformation and inequities, ending recently in a Supreme Court decision backing an asbestos ban. In parallel, continuous efforts should be made to stimulate the growth of competent and ethical researchers to convey adequate information to the scientific community and to the general public.

Recent Scientific Evidence Regarding Asbestos Use and Health Consequences of Asbestos Exposure

To justify the continuous use of two million tons of asbestos every year, it has been argued that a safe/controlled use can be achieved. The aim of this review was to identify recent scientific studies that present empirical evidence of: 1) health consequences resulting from past asbestos exposures and 2) current asbestos exposures resulting from asbestos use. Articles with evidence that could support or reject the safe/controlled use argument were also identified. A total of 155 articles were included in the review, and 87 % showed adverse asbestos health consequences or high asbestos exposures. Regarding the safe/controlled use, 44 articles were identified, and 82 % had evidence suggesting that the safe/controlled use is not being achieved. A large percentage of articles with evidence that support the safe/controlled use argument have a conflict of interest declared. Most of the evidence was developed in high-income countries and in countries that have already banned asbestos.

Corporate practices and health: a framework and mechanisms

BACKGROUND

The Global Burden of Disease estimates that approximately a third of deaths worldwide are attributable to behavioural risk factors that, at their core, have the consumption of unhealthful products and exposures produced by profit driven commercial entities. We use Steven Lukes' three-dimensional view of power to guide the study of the practices deployed by commercial interests to foster the consumption of these commodities. Additionally, we propose a framework to systematically study corporations and other commercial interests as a distal, structural, societal factor that causes disease and injury. Our framework offers a systematic approach to mapping corporate activity, allowing us to anticipate and prevent actions that may have a deleterious effect on population health.

CONCLUSION

Our framework may be used by, and can have utility for, public health practitioners, researchers, students, activists and other members of civil society, policy makers and public servants in charge of policy implementation. It can also be useful to corporations who are interested in identifying key actions they can take towards improving population health.

Corporate corruption of science-Another asbestos example

BACKGROUND

Kelsh et al. [2007]: Occup Med (Lond) 57:581-589 published a paper reanalyzing one of the few data sources publicly available on mesothelioma amongst brake workers, the Australian Mesothelioma Surveillance Registry (AMSR). This reanalysis was commissioned by lawyers representing the automobile manufacturing companies and did not align with an independent analysis published by Leigh and Driscoll [2003]: Occup Environ Health 9:206-217.

METHODS

We sought to reevaluate the AMSR data ourselves to understand how the company-sponsored research categorized the data.

RESULTS

In our re-analysis of the 78 brake-related folios in the AMSR, we determined that 57 were employed brake mechanics, 35 were employed brake mechanics with no other asbestos exposure besides brake work or repair, and 41 of these cases had no other asbestos exposure besides brake work or repair. Our classifications differed significantly from Kelsh et al.

CONCLUSIONS

We discuss how Kelsh et al. methodically reduced the relevant cases by following overly stringent criteria for inclusion. Am. J. Ind. Med. 60:152-162, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The export of hazardous industries in 2015

In the 1970s, there were many reports of toxic hazards at corporate subsidiaries in the developing world that were no longer tolerated in the corporations' "home" countries. Following the chemical disaster in Bhopal, India, in 1984, leading corporations then announced that they applied uniform standards of worker and environmental protection worldwide. With globalization, corporations should also be obliged to take responsibility for their separate supplier, contractor and distributor companies, and licensees of their technology.The asbestos industry today consists of national corporations. Individual countries must overcome the influence of the asbestos-exporting countries and asbestos companies and stop building with asbestos, as recommended by WHO, ILO, and World Bank. WHO precautions for limiting governmental interaction with the tobacco industry should be applied in dealing with the asbestos industry.