Breathtaking negligence

Manufacturers in India insist asbestos is not a health hazard despite growing global evidence to the contrary

The September 2 issue of India Today carried an advertorial from the Chrysotile Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers’ Association (CACPMA), an association of 14 large manufacturers. The focus of the ad was to inform the public that chrysotile asbestos does not cause cancer.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has categorically said, “there is practically no safe level of exposure or use of asbestos against cancer”.

The WHO, acting through the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), has recognised that all varieties of asbestos are carcinogenic, causing both lung cancer and mesothelioma or cancer of the lung lining.

The September 2 advertorial also ignores both a 1995 Supreme Court judgement to the contrary, plus a growing global aversion to asbestos: 36 countries have already banned it, and all European Union countries have agreed to put bans in place by 2005.

Asbestos was also the subject of a trade dispute in which the World Trade Organisation (WTO) passed a judgement upholding France’s decision to ban asbestos imports from Canada in the interests of public health (a case in which India was mentioned in passing). WTO’s landmark verdict of March 12, 2001 has validated the rights of member states to prohibit the import and use of goods that contain carcinogenic substances such as white asbestos.

Asbestos is a generic term used for several naturally occurring fibrous, silicate materials and is used in a variety of everyday as well as industrial applications. Roughly 95 per cent of mined asbestos is used to manufacture asbestos-cement products.

It is a “silent killer” in that its effects are both gradual and not easily noticeable. But asbestos poisoning reaches everyone from the person mining it to the ultimate consumer of products containing asbestos.

There are six varieties of asbestos; all of them tend to break into microscopic fibres. Because of their small size, once released, they remain suspended in the air. Asbestos fibres are indestructible — they are resistant to chemicals and heat.

Diseases like asbestosis have no cure. Worse, once the exposure has taken place, merely removing the victim from the site does not limit or arrest the progress of the disease nor the risk of cancer.

The threat from inhalation of asbestos fibre was known as far back as 1924. But this fact was not disclosed to workers involved in the asbestos industry. By the mid-1930s, it was proved that a small amount of asbestos fibre in the lungs could cause fatalities.

Mesothelioma and asbestosis currently kill more people than any other single work-related illness, according to Dr T K Joshi, an occupational health expert with the Centre for Environment and Occupational Health, Loknayak Hospital, New Delhi.

The Supreme Court’s recognition of the hazards of asbestos came in the case of Consumer Education and Research Centre (CERC) versus Union of India (reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court) when it directed the Union and state governments “to review the standards of permissible exposure limit value of fibre... in tune with the international standards reducing the permissible limit”.

In India, a technical committee appointed by the ministry of industry had considered the restrictions on use of asbestos and asbestos products by 43 countries including India and submitted a report. This committee, headed by A K Mullick, submitted a report in January 1995.


The full report isn’t readily available even with the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). In its advertorial, CACPMA has claimed that it uses state-of-the-art technology and manufactures asbestos cement products under strictly controlled conditions. These claims have been debunked several times by experts like Barry Castleman, a leading international expert on occupational health and an environment consultant.

“It is noteworthy that the largest multinational corporations that controlled the global asbestos business and operated major interests in India 20 years ago have since gone into bankruptcy proceedings over the liabilities from so many lives asbestos destroyed. Some are doing quite a brisk business in India, answering critics with the mantra of ‘controlled use’ and state of art technology.... How can any state-of-art technology alter the carcinogenic nature of the asbestos fibre?” he wrote.

Chrysotile asbestos is classified in Europe as a category 1 carcinogen (the severest kind). White asbestos or chrysotile asbestos fibre constitutes about 95 per cent of the world production and commercial use of asbestos.

In India, 1,25,000 tonnes of chrysotile white asbestos are used annually to manufacture asbestos cement products. Most of this is imported from Canada, Russia, Brazil, Zimbabwe with some quantity being mined in Bihar and Andhra Pradesh which is used by the small scale sector.

The advertorial claims that, of the total sales of asbestos cement products, more than half goes to the rural sector, while 20 and 30 per cent are in the urban and industrial sectors, respectively. This is all the more dangerous given the sad state of medical facilities in rural areas.

The advertorial adds that asbestos can be an occupational health hazard only when its dust becomes airborne and is respirable and when such dust is inhaled in excessive amounts over a prolonged period. Stray or short casual exposure involves no measurable risk.

The process of manufacture of asbestos cement roofing sheets is wet and the asbestos fibre is firmly locked into the cement matrix. But the fact is that with the passage of time, fibres are released in the air due to normal wear and tear, which we all inhale at one point of time or the other.

The industry says it is “maintaining health records of the workers as stipulated by the Supreme Court of India in its 1995 judgment” in the CERC case. But the truth is it has outwitted and violated sub para 1 of the 31st para of the judgment where “industries are directed (1) to maintain and keep maintaining the health record of every worker up to a minimum period of 40 years from the beginning of the employment or 15 years after retirement or cessation of the employment which ever is earlier”. How do they violate this norm? By not employing workers for more than few years at a time.

Even though the Indian government has not ratified the International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) direction on the permissible exposure limits of asbestos, the Supreme Court had asked the Union and state governments to abide by ILO standards that came into force from June 16, 1989.

It was against the background of instances of occupational health exposure of the asbestos workers brought to the notice of members of Parliament and a press release dated February 13, 2002 released by the CACPMA saying “Scientific findings help asbestos cement industry dispel risk tag” that several questions were raised in both houses of Parliament. The questions were addressed to the minister of commerce and industry and minister of labour on May 6, 14, and 17 and on August 2.

In reply to the questions of May Raman Singh, then minister of state of commerce and industry, and Muni Lal, then minister of state for labour, both stated that there was no conclusive evidence of the harmful effects of asbestos.

Muni Lal also expressed ignorance of the ILO resolution. Rajiv Pratap Singh Rudi, minister of state for commerce and industry, gave roughly the same reply in August, adding, “as such, there is no proposal before the government to close these units.”

This ignorance on the part of the government is remarkable given that the 12-member expert group was set up by the environment ministry in August 2001 for taking decisions on the action plan and strategy for banning asbestos.

The committee was scheduled to report to the policy implementation cell of the ministry of industry and commerce by November 2001 but it is yet to submit its report. It is a comment on the state of environmental and health policy in India.

published in Business Standard on October 22, 2002