Salud Ocupacional

The case for a global ban on asbestos

BACKGROUND

All forms of asbestos are now banned in 52 countries. Safer products have replaced many materials that once were made with it. Nonetheless, many countries still use, import, and export asbestos and asbestos-containing products, and in those that have banned other forms of asbestos, the so-called "controlled use" of chrysotile asbestos is often exempted from the ban. In fact, chrysotile has accounted for > 95% of all the asbestos used globally.

OBJECTIVE

We examined and evaluated the literature used to support the exemption of chrysotile asbestos from the ban and how its exemption reflects the political and economic influence of the asbestos mining and manufacturing industry.

DISCUSSION

All forms of asbestos, including chrysotile, are proven human carcinogens. All forms cause malignant mesothelioma and lung and laryngeal cancers, and may cause ovarian, gastrointestinal, and other cancers. No exposure to asbestos is without risk. Illnesses and deaths from asbestos exposure are entirely preventable.

CONCLUSIONS

All countries of the world have an obligation to their citizens to join in the international endeavor to ban the mining, manufacture, and use of all forms of asbestos. An international ban is urgently needed. There is no medical or scientific basis to exempt chrysotile from the worldwide ban of asbestos.

Chemicals studied and evaluated in long-term carcinogenesis bioassays by both the Ramazzini Foundation and the National Toxicology Program: in tribute to Cesare Maltoni and David Rall

The Ramazzini Foundation (RF) in Bentivoglio, Italy and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina have carried out several hundred chemical carcinogenesis bioassays: 200 by RF and 500 by NTP. Of these, 21 have been evaluated by both laboratories. The 14 chemicals for which both laboratories have designed, conducted, and reported bioassay results are: acrylonitrile, benzene, chlorine, diesel fuel, ethylbenzene, methylene chloride (dichloromethane), propylene, styrene, styrene oxide, toluene, trichloroethylene, trichlorofluoromethane, vinylidene chloride, and xylenes. The other seven chemicals (two are fibers) were evaluated by both laboratories, but results have not yet been published. Results of these 14 interlaboratory studies were compared both to explore consistency of carcinogenic responses and to identify possible factors that may reveal reasons for any differences observed. Individual carcinogenesis results from each laboratory were duplicated and complementary. Of the 14 chemicals compared, 11 (80%) were either carcinogenic (9 chemicals) or noncarcinogenic (2 chemicals) in both studies. Eight of the paired chemicals had at least one carcinogenic target site in common. The other three were carcinogenic in one laboratory but not in the other. Possible explanations for these differences include dose, method of administration, duration of follow-up, and whether or not total tumors are counted. The collaboration between these two pioneering bioassay laboratory programs contributes greatly to our understanding of chemical carcinogenesis and results in better protection of workers and the general population from chemical diseases, especially cancers.