If Canadian asbestos is so safe, why does Canada export more than 95 percent of all the white asbestos it produces? The fact of the matter is that Canadian asbestos has been deemed too hazardous to be used at home and so asbestos producers happily sell it to India.
At the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)-organised conference ‘Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management’ (SAICM), currently taking place in Bangkok, Dr Jukka Takala, Director of InFocus Programme on Safety and Health at Work and the Environment, SafeWork-ILO, made the following statement: "The ILO has updated its estimates on global accidents and diseases related to work. Out of 2 million work-related fatalities, a (...) single substance, asbestos causes some 100 000 of these fatalities".
While Takala also expressed ILO’s will to see all 177 member-countries ban asbestos, Clemant Godbout, chairman of the Canadian-based Asbestos International Association (AIA), was declaring, at the two-day International Conference on Chrysolite Asbestos Cement Products, held in New Delhi, 10-11 November: "Rotterdam Convention[1] is bad. It is a problem. It is big a mistake against a good product. Canada proposes objection to the Convention along with the group of over 60 countries where white asbestos is being used." Godbout proudly added: "We are the ambassadors of chrysotile fibre in our respective countries."
The recommendations on all forms of asbestos will be discussed by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee of the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure for certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, which meets in Geneva (17-21 November). If adopted, these chemicals will become subject to the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure.
“All forms of asbestos, should be added to an international list of chemicals subject to trade controls. A committee of government-appointed experts under the Rotterdam Convention made this recommendation. The recommendation to add five additional forms of asbestos to the PIC list (one is already listed) was triggered by bans to protect human health in Australia, Chile and the EU, ” according to a release from Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).
Once widely used as insulation for houses and specialized equipment, asbestos was eliminated in many countries when it became understood that its tiny fibres were being inhaled into the lungs of workers and residents. The fibres have the potential to cause cancer, other illnesses, and death. Asbestos is still used in seals, gaskets, joints, brakes, armaments, and other applications, although cost-effective substitutes are increasingly available for many applications, says the FAO release.
The Delhi Conference, organised by Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers' Association (ACPMA), in collaboration with the Asbestos Information Centre (AIC), made an unsuccessful attempt to misinform Indian citizens regarding the safety of asbestos products. Indeed, at the same time, a group of asbestos victims from Gujarat and Rajasthan were meeting members of Ban Asbestos Net work of India (BANI), a group of civil society organsiations in New Delhi, asking them to appeal to National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) for compensation and remedy. One such victim is the widow of Kodanthan Pani Azhakappan, who died after 28 years of service in Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd.
Over the last three decades, Canadian asbestos industry's lies have been exposed by many independent scientists and researchers and by international agencies, which say that the concept of "controlled use of chrysotile" exists only as an industry myth. If the use of chrysotile cannot be controlled in many Western countries which have very strict health and safety regulatory regimes, how can it be controlled in developing countries where even the most basic precautions often lack?
The hypocrisy of Canadian asbestos interests is crystal clear but the Indian Government keeps turning a blind eye onto it. At the Delhi-based Manufacturers Conference, the Indian Environment Minister dared saying that asbestos is not a health hazard. It tantamounts to saying poison is non-poisonous. In addition to this, and though the Government of India banned asbestos in 1995, the Consumer Affairs Ministry has entrusted the responsibility of formulating norms for asbestos usage to AIC, co-organiser of the recently held Delhi conference.
The concerned Indian ministries are committing an act of treason by selling the health of Indian workers and citizens to the ambassadors of the killer fiber. The Indian ministers and officials stand accused of the death and deliberate murder of the workers since they are knowingly subjecting Indians to continuing asbestos exposure.
Despite global evidence of continuing death toll due to white asbestos exposure, A K Saraf, ACPMA chairman, says there is a need to know the health consequences of this particular usage. The 11 November 2003 ACPMA press release said: "Asbestos cement products are environment friendly and are produced under controlled conditions, which are safe for human beings." How does M. Saraf explain the World Trade Organisation (WTO)’s 2001 decision to uphold the ban on asbestos by the European Community for its carcinogenocity, then?!
There is no excuse for exposing the people of India to debilitating and fatal asbestos-related diseases. Indian asbestos interests and their foreign allies must be exposed and the use of this carcinogenic substance must be banned to protect future generations.
A sections of the media is doing a great disservice to the nation by choosing to put profit above public health by carrying features saying white asbestos products as safe instead of investigating the facts, despite its ban in more than 36 countries. BANI condemns the inhuman lust for advertisement revenue over human health by these media houses.
------------------------------------------------------------
[1]The Rotterdam Convention was adopted in 1998 under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and FAO as a response to increasing awareness of the health and environment risks associated with hazardous chemicals. It gives importing countries the tools and information they need to identify potentially hazardous chemicals and to exclude those they cannot manage safely. When trade is permitted, requirements for labelling and the provision of information on potential health and environmental effects promote the safe use of the chemicals.