I have become interested in the history of banning Asbestos and the struggle so many have had through the years to make Governments listen to a plea that Asbestos causes Mesothelioma and other nasty cruel diseases and how the US can ensure their Government listen.
In my search I came across several writings of Laurie Kazan-Allen. We became friends when I was diagnosed 2009 with the dreadful outcome of my contamination through washing Rays clothes. To be honest I can’t remember the day we met I believe it was at the Mesothelioma UK Patient and Carers Conference in London. 2010 as she pops up at different meetings and conferences I go to. I do remember that through her was how I got to get my foot into the Houses Of Parliament. I was in awe of her by then as I watched how she spoke like a Union Leader. So knowledgeable and determined that she was listened to.
Asbestos in Schools and the Debate we had with British Lung Foundation over the Coalition of Mesothelioma Research and the secured generous gift of £5 million from the Victor Dahdaleh Foundation to support ground-breaking research into the disease, matching government funding that was announced earlier this year. We have shared exciting times. When it comes to banning Asbestos Laurie was there fighting the issues.
She has written:
“The UK’s asbestos century ended on August 24, 1999, one month after the European Union (EU) banned chrysotile. The Asbestos (Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 1999, signed by Deputy Prime Minister Prescott, came into force on November 24, 1999 five years ahead of the European deadline. Chrysotile had been the only type of asbestos permitted in the UK since amosite and crocidolite were banned in 1985. Statutory Instrument No. 2373 forbids the import of crude fiber, flake, powder or waste chrysotile and the new use of asbestos cement, boards, panels, tiles and other products. Chrysotile-containing products installed prior to November 24, 1999 can remain in place until they reach the end of their service life. The sale of second-hand asbestos cement products and building materials covered with asbestos-containing coatings is forbidden. Two pages of time-limited derogations apply to specialist items such as “diaphragms in electrolytic cells in existing electrolysis plants for chloralkali manufacture,” and “split face seals of at least 150 millimetres in diameter used to prevent leakage of water from hydro-electric power generation turbines…” The residual problem of brake linings was dealt with in a complementary piece of national legislation that implemented European Commission Directive 98/12/EC. Laid under the Consumer Protection Act, the Road Vehicles (Brake Linings Safety) Regulations 1999 prohibited “the supply, exposure for supply or fitting to a motor vehicle or trailer of brake linings containing asbestos” as of October 1, 1999.
While the chrysotile prohibitions were expected, their arrival during the dog days of the Summer parliamentary recess was surprising. Perhaps Ministers believed vacationing representatives of the asbestos industry and producer governments would remain unaware of the new legislation. The low-key announcement was understandable in light of the industry’s increasingly desperate attempts to counter growing anti-asbestos sentiment. Diplomatic threats and sabre-rattling had delayed UK legislation for two years. When Labour first came to power, Prime Minister Blair expressed his determination to “deal effectively with the problems of asbestos.” Environment Minister Angela Eagle told the House of Commons that “a mechanism for introducing a domestic ban on the import, supply and use of asbestos” was being investigated. In the weeks and months that followed, it became clear that more cautionary counsels had prevailed. A year after her first statement, Eagle commented: “Any decision by the UK Government to proceed with further restrictions on the importation, supply and use of chrysotile will be based on robust scientific evidence, thereby fulfilling obligations under World Trade Agreements.” The reason for the deceleration was simple: on May 28, 1998 the Government of Canada lodged a request with the World Trade Organization (WTO) for consultations with the European Commission “concerning certain measures taken by France for the prohibition of asbestos and products containing asbestos.” Should the UK follow the French lead, it might well receive similar attention. A decision was taken to adopt a more circuitous strategy: a UK ban would be pursued under the protective cover of European mobilization. Health and Safety Executive (HSE) personnel worked closely with their counterparts at Directorate General (DG) III of the European Commission. In 1997, a senior HSE official had been seconded to DGIII to work on the draft legislation. In response to an EU appeal for information, the HSE commissioned a report entitled Chrysotile and Its Substitutes: A Critical Evaluation for submission to the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment. Statements by government spokesmen emphasized the importance of the HSE’s input into the consultation and decision-making process. Sir Frank Davies, Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, said: “We have worked long and hard to secure a ban for the good of Europe as a whole, taking a leading role in helping to establish a solid scientific foundation for it.” John Prescott believes that the UK “played a leading role in securing sound science around the safety of alternatives, without which there most probably would have been no ban.”
Sources : http://ibasecretariat.org/lka_uk_ban.php
Commemorative 100th Edition of British Asbestos newsletter! I was proud to have a article written in the Newsletter that was published. I was in the House of Lords when it was presented.
The 100th Issue of the British Asbestos Newsletter, which has become a feature of the global campaign to end the use of asbestos, has just been published. The Commemorative Edition is representative of the breadth of asbestos politics. There are articles on developments in the treatment and nursing of mesothelioma patients, Parliamentary initiatives to achieve just compensation, the histories of social movements such as The Forum and SPAID, legal initiatives in Scotland, the continuing threat posed by asbestos in schools, the on-going struggles to have asbestos banned under the Rotterdam Convention, estimates of the future toll of asbestos deaths, and the industry use of art to promote its products. There are stories of individuals, social movements and regional communities.
A Review: British Asbestos Newsletter Spring 2016 by Jock McCulloch, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
The 100th Issue of the British Asbestos Newsletter, which has become a feature of the global campaign to end the use of asbestos, has just been published. The Commemorative Edition is representative of the breadth of asbestos politics. There are articles on developments in the treatment and nursing of mesothelioma patients, Parliamentary initiatives to achieve just compensation, the histories of social movements such as The Forum and SPAID, legal initiatives in Scotland, the continuing threat posed by asbestos in schools, the on-going struggles to have asbestos banned under the Rotterdam Convention, estimates of the future toll of asbestos deaths, and the industry use of art to promote its products. There are stories of individuals, social movements and regional communities.
It is difficult to date the origins of the struggle against asbestos since it has been fought globally for more than fifty years on many fronts in so many national settings. The Asbestos wars have been unusual as they have been a forum in which lying by corporations, regulatory authorities, medical specialists and research scientists has been common.
Access to information has been the key to the continued use of chrysotile and from the 1930s the industry in the US, the UK and elsewhere sought to capture and re-frame knowledge of risk using a variety of techniques. The industry suppressed or hid evidence of a hazard initially among miners and factory workers and later among those with bystander exposure. It has manufactured doubt by falsely claiming there has been insufficient evidence to justify a ban and finally it has systematically corrupted the relevant science. Like big tobacco, the asbestos industry has fought ruthlessly to keep its products in the market place despite overwhelming evidence of the damage to public health. Like tobacco, the asbestos industry has been successful in shifting its costs onto individuals, publics and states. If all the externalized health, economic and social costs of asbestos mining and manufacture generated by Johns Manville, James Hardie, Turner & Newall, Eternit and Cape Plc were included in their balance sheets, those companies would have made little or no profit.
No industry has been more polarizing than asbestos. It has seen senior executives fail to act on knowledge of risk, company doctors ignore injuries to employees, scientists produce false data for financial gain or to further their careers, regulatory authorities side with employers, insurance companies refuse to honour policies, courts favour the powerful, and journalists believe the lies they have been told. On the other side are company doctors who have stood up bravely for their patients and lost their careers, state officials who have fought hard to reduce risk in the workplace, lawyers who at great personal cost have taken on cases which they had little hope of winning, and journalists who have exposed the mendacity of senior management and the failure of state authorities to regulate a hazardous industry. The one constant has been the heroism of individuals, community activists and trade unionists in confronting powerful corporations. For twenty years the Newsletter has provided those actors with a forum.
We know that by 1956 the three principal asbestos diseases had been identified and were well understood by the major mining and manufacturing companies in the US, the UK and Western Europe. Today, more than sixty years later, around two million tons of chrysotile will be mined and consumed in the developing world. In the OECD states, while large numbers of men and women exposed before the banning of the magic mineral, will die from asbestos induced disease. So what has the BAN achieved? The Newsletter has been an important forum for discussion and a reliable source of information for social movements, carers, medical researchers, lawyers, journalists, health professionals, historians, and trade unionists. Importantly, it has also helped to bring together the disparate groups which make up the ban asbestos front
There are two ways to view the current use of asbestos. The first is frustration that a global ban still has not been achieved. The alternative is to acknowledge that without the hard work and courage of small groups who have been so well represented by BAN, asbestos would no doubt still be sold in OECD states. For this reason alone, it is time to celebrate the Commemorative Edition of the British Asbestos Newsletter.”
July 9 2016 http://ibasecretariat.org/jm-revue-british-asbestos-newsletter-100th-issue.php
http://tinyurl.com/hfoypkd
Laurie carries on her worldly fight with Asbestos Japan, Brazil, India Canada. Wherever there is a need to Ban, she is there beside so many others struggling to make our world safe
In 1931, the United Kingdom introduced the first asbestos regulations to control this toxic cancer causing mineral. In 1999, sixty-eight years after that first regulation, the UK officially prohibited all use of asbestos. This happened just 16 years after Iceland became the first country to issue a complete ban on the deadly mineral.
Since then, more than 50 countries have issued either comprehensive or partial bans on asbestos. Some countries, like the United States, still allow for the toxic mineral to be used under certain circumstances or in limited proportions. Why would a country allow this toxic mineral’s use to continue when it has been clearly linked to life threatening diseases such as mesothelioma? In 2014 alone, mesothelioma was the cause of death for 2,567 citizens in the United Kingdom. Are the benefits of using asbestos worth the loss of so many lives? What are the factors preventing a universal ban of its production and use?
Pro-Asbestos Lobbying Groups
There are groups that heavily promote the use of asbestos to political leaders in developed countries. They spend millions of dollars doing so and are known to use all sorts of deceptive tactics to promote their own interests. Often these groups have economic ties to companies, industries and even countries that produce and/or use asbestos.Their websites may actively promote the idea that asbestos can still be used in ways that will not harm humans. This position is not accepted by most health authorities.
Low Mesothelioma Rates in Underdeveloped Countries.
Some research shows that countries with no bans on asbestos tend to have lower mesothelioma death rates than countries with asbestos bans. This anti-intuitive conclusion is due to the fact that many countries with no ban on asbestos typically don’t have well-developed health-related infrastructures. Therefore, capturing disease rates and causes of death is often less than perfect.
It’s a Cheap and Effective Building Material
Asbestos is not expensive and with its ability to be woven, anti-corrosive, and fire resistant, it can increase the profitability for companies that produce and use asbestos, resulting in more money for a country. When you take a country like Russia, which produces over 600 thousand metric tons of asbestos annually, it can result in an immediate financial loss if you were to ban the mineral. While the immediate profits can never outweigh the cost of lives lost from asbestos-related diseases, they can blind those in power and prevent laws to prohibit asbestos.
In Conclusion
As long as asbestos is mined, sold, and used in any country, it is a threat to people world-wide. The World Health Organization strongly believes that the most efficient way to eliminate asbestos-related diseases is to stop the use of all types of asbestos. The WHO plans to continue educating countries on why there needs to be a comprehensive ban on this toxic mineral so that we can make our world a better and safer place for our children.
https://bainbridgeelearning.co.uk/countries-will-not-ban-asbestos/
Leave A Comment