Make India Asbestos Free

Make India Asbestos Free
For Asbestos Free India

Ban-Asbestos-India

Journal of Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI). Asbestos Free India campaign of BANI is inspired by trade union movement and right to health campaign. BANI has been working since 2000. It works with peoples movements, doctors, researchers and activists besides trade unions, human rights, environmental, consumer and public health groups. BANI demands criminal liability for companies and medico-legal remedy for victims. For Details: krishnagreen@gmail.com

Tuesday, June 4, 2019

Indian Govt maintains studied silence on India's role on white chrysotile asbestos at UN Meet

Official Press Release of  Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,  Government of India maintains studied silence about India's role with regard to white chrysotile asbestos at  9th meeting of the  Conference of the Parties  to UN's Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade

Notably, the UN Meeting was concluded on 10th May, 2009 but the Press Release was issued on 16th May, 2019. Government's silence on white chrysotile asbestos is deafening.    

The joint meetings of three UN conventions on chemicals and waste was held in Geneva. The theme of the meetings this year was “Clean Planet, Healthy People: Sound Management of Chemicals and Waste”. 

The three meetings of these three Conventions included the fourteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal  (COP 14), the ninth meeting of the COP to Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade and the ninth meeting of the COP to Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. 


An Indian delegation of Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and comprising other ministries such as Agriculture, Chemicals, and Electronics and Information Technology participated in the meeting held in Geneva, Switzerland, from 29 April to 10 May 2019.

The Press Release issued by Press Information Bureau talks about Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal and Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants but feigns ignorance about its won position on Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade. India joined Pakistan to support the position of asbestos producing countries like Russia to oppose listing of white chrysotile asbestos in the UN list of hazardous chemicals unmindful of domestic law and scientific findings.  This silence is the silence of embarrassment it feels for having adopted a scientifically untenable position.  

The Press Release is available at  

Friday, May 10, 2019

Indian government fails to reconcile its ban on mining of all kinds of asbestos and trade in asbestos waste by opposing listing of carcinogenic white chrysotile asbestos mineral fiber in UN list of hazardous chemicals at the Geneva meeting

Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI)                            ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)       

PUBLIC STATEMENT

Indian government fails to reconcile its ban on mining of all kinds of asbestos and trade in asbestos waste by opposing listing of carcinogenic white chrysotile asbestos mineral fiber in UN list of hazardous chemicals at the Geneva meeting

India is yet to ban import, manufacture and use of white chrysotile asbestos

India government fails to disassociate itself from the deleterious influence of asbestos promoters like Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Syria, Zimbabwe, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, the International Alliance of Trade Union Organizations “Chrysotile”, Fiber Cement Product Manufacturer’s Association of India and Asbestos Cement Product Manufacturer’s Association

Government must abandon its unscientific and unethical double speak on hazardous carcinogenic white chrysotile asbestos mineral fiber at the meetings of UN’s Rotterdam Convention

Is it defensible for the government to take contradictory position carcinogenic white chrysotile asbestos mineral fiber? Under domestic law domestic law it is hazardous and carcinogenic but in UN Meetings, it says it is non- carcinogenic and non-hazardous.

Lack of consensus led to voting at the CoP-9 of Rotterdam Convention and adoption of new Annexure VII to the Convention for establishing procedures and mechanisms on compliance, sets precedent for all existing and proposed UN treaties including the proposed legally binding Treaty on TNCs and other Business Enterprises with Respect to Human Rights

10 MAY, 2019: Disregarding the finding and observation with regard to carcinogenic white chrysotile asbestos mineral fiber published on National Health Portal (NHP) , Centre for Health Informatics (CHI), National Institute of Health and Family Welfare (NIHFW), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), Government of India, Indian delegation opposed inclusion of this hazardous mineral fiber in the UN list of hazardous chemicals. Taking a unscientific position which is manifestly contrary to the domestic laws and government’s submissions in the Parliament, the delegation expressed its opposition during the meeting of 9th conference of parties to the UN’s Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure (PIC) for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (April 29-May 10, 2019) in Geneva.

On 8th May, Rotterdam Convention Secretariat introduced the documents (RC/COP.9/10; Add.1) with regard to Chrysotile asbestos underling that that this issue has been on the agenda since the meeting of the Third Conference of Parties (COP-3) of the Rotterdam Convention. Countries like Australia, Colombia, Norway, Canada, Peru, Georgia, Uruguay, Gabon, Nigeria, Bahrain, EU, Japan, Iraq, Togo, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Moldova, Switzerland, Vanuatu, Republic of Congo, Senegal, Maldives, Kuwait, Benin, Saudi Arabia and Cameroon supported listing of chrysotile asbestos in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention, which the UN list if hazardous chemicals and pesticides.

Unfortunately, India joined countries and entities like the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Syria, Zimbabwe, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, and the International Alliance of Trade Union Organizations “Chrysotile” opposed the listing of chrysotile asbestos in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention on the ground that there is lack of new evidence of effects on human health and the environment. Countries like Venezuela, Cuba and Iran wished to comprehend the logic of those countries which are opposed to listing of chrysotile asbestos and sought discussion on it.

The opponents including India disregarded incontrovertible conclusive scientific evidence provided by the World Health Organization (WHO) pointing out how all forms of asbestos cause cancer in humans. The International Labour Organization (ILO) observed that ILO’s Asbestos Convention should not be used to justify continued use of asbestos because it was never intended for promotion of use of asbestos.

It is quite apparent that Indian government delegation acted under the tremendous influence of the Fiber Cement Product Manufacturer’s Association of India (FCMPAI), a cartel of asbestos companies which opposed listing of white chrysotile asbestos citing discredited national governmental studies which admittedly, Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers Association had co-sponsored, showing no negative health impacts. An entity called “Workers of Kazakhstan”, an apparent front of asbestos companies wanted chrysotile variety of asbestos to be treated differently.

As a consequence of the opposition from the seven countries and the asbestos companies, the consideration of listing of chrysotile variety of asbestos in the UN list of hazardous chemicals has been deferred for the 10th meeting of Conference of Parties of the Rotterdam Convention.

The inter-ministerial Indian delegation at the COP 9 failed to factor in the publicly and officially stated stance of National Health Portal, Government of India with regard to all forms of asbestos including white chrysotile asbestos. It states that “All forms of asbestos (chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite, tremolite, actinolite and anthophyllite) are in use because of their extraordinary tensile strength, poor heat conduction, and relative resistance to chemical attack. Chemically, asbestos minerals are silicate compounds, meaning they contain atoms of silicon and oxygen in their molecular structure. All forms of asbestos are carcinogenic to humans. Exposure to asbestos (including chrysotile) causes cancer of the lung, larynx, and ovaries, and also mesothelioma (a cancer of the pleural and peritoneal linings). Asbestos exposure is also responsible for other diseases such as asbestosis (fibrosis of the lungs), and plaques, thickening and effusion in the pleura.”  It observes that “Exposure to asbestos occurs through inhalation of fibers in air in the working environment, ambient air in the vicinity of point sources such as factories handling asbestos, or indoor air in housing and buildings containing friable asbestos materials.” The delegation included India’s official contact point, Manoj Kumar Gangeya, Director, Hazardous Substances Management Division, Union Ministry of Environment, Forests a& Climate Change.

The official brief for the Indian delegation to the meeting of Rotterdam Convention remains unchanged. Its brief stated that “The implication of listing of chemicals is rise in trade cost” and delay in import/export of hazardous chemicals. This is far from the truth. In its myopia, the brief does not factor in the health cost incurred due unrestricted trade in hazardous chemicals.

In a 29 page long “Draft decision guidance document” on Rotterdam Convention – Operation of the Prior Informed Consent procedure for banned or severely restricted chemicals” for “Inclusion of chrysotile asbestos in Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention” is on the agenda. (Item 5 (b) of the provisional agenda, Matters related to the implementation of the Convention: listing of chemicals in Annex III to the Convention). As per the Draft decision guidance document, “Chrysotile (serpentine forms of asbestos) is included in the PIC procedure as an industrial chemical. It is listed on the basis of the final regulatory actions to ban or severely restrict its use as notified by Australia, Chile and the European Community (EC).” Chrysotile is by far the predominant asbestos fibre consumed today (94% of the world’s production) and is processed into products such as friction materials, asbestos-cement, cement pipe and sheet, gaskets and seals, paper and textiles. The asbestos-cement industry is by far the largest user of chrysotile fibres, accounting for about 85% of all use. Sadly, the Draft decision guidance document has not been approved.

It may be recalled that at the very first meeting in 2005, the Chemical Review Committee (CRC) under the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, the CRC agreed to recommend to the Conference of the Parties that Chrysotile Asbestos should be listed in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention. The CRC is a group of government designated experts established in line with Article 18 of the Convention that evaluates candidate chemicals for possible inclusion in the Convention. Chrysotile (serpentine forms of asbestos) is included in the PIC procedure as an industrial chemical.

Given the fact that the need for consensus has been used as a tool for blocking progress on the listing of hazardous chemicals in the UN list of hazardous chemicals and given the fact that all previous efforts to achieve consensus has been exhausted, Switzerland called for a vote to adopt a new Annexure VII to the Rotterdam Convention for establishing procedures and mechanisms on compliance. The voting resulted in with 120 parties supporting the proposal and 6 parties opposing it.

Countries like Brazil and Russian Federation opposed it. Countries like Chine and Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela, Pakistan, Cuba, Qatar, Argentina and Iran expressed their concerns regarding this precedent in decision making. The proceedings of the 9th meeting of Conference of Parties Rotterdam convention have been recorded in the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).

The proposed Annex VII of the Rotterdam Convention allows parties who do not agree to a compliance mechanism to opt out. This predicament is extremely dangerous for all the existing and proposed UN agreements and treaties including the proposed legally binding Treaty on TNCs and other Business Enterprises with Respect to Human Rights ahead of the 5th Session of the UN Open-Ended Inter Governmental Working Group (OEIGWG) to elaborate an international legally binding instrument to regulate within the scope of international human rights law and the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises in Geneva during 12-19 October, 2019 in Geneva. It is a universal fact that exposing human beings to asbestos fibers constitutes violation of human rights by asbestos companies. If a mandatory UN treaty on TNCs and other Business Enterprises gets adopted and comes into force asbestos based companies can be held liable both under civil and criminal law but before that happens Government of India has a duty to protect the human rights and public health of present and future generation of Indians by disassociating itself from the seven countries that are promoting white chrysotile asbestos unmindful of its human and environmental cost.

So far Government of India has ignored Supreme Court’s order of 27 January, 1995 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 206 of 1986. The Court observed: “The development of the carcinogenic risk due to asbestos or any other carcinogenic agent, does not require a continuous exposure. The cancer risk does not cease when the exposure to the carcinogenic agent ceases, but rather the individual carries the increased risk for the remaining years of life. The exposure to asbestos and the resultant long tragic chain of adverse medical, legal and societal consequences, remains the legal and social responsibility of the employer or the producer not to endanger the workmen or the community of the society. He or it is not absolved of the inherent responsibility to the exposed workmen or the society at large. They have the responsibility legal, moral and social to provide protective measures to the workmen and to the public or all those who are exposed to the harmful consequences of their products. Mere adoption of regulations for the enforcement has no real meaning and efficacy without die professional, industrial and governmental resources and legal and moral determination to implement such regulations.” Rotterdam Convention’s PIC procedure and the recommendations of CRC are consistent with Supreme Court’s verdict.

Given the fact that mining of asbestos is rightly banned in India because of its hazardous nature, a member of Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers Association (ACPMA) has revealed to the government and the public that the chrysotile type asbestos fiber “will be imported from Brazil , Canada and Russia.” It is the only kind that remains to be totally banned in India. Now the fact is that Brazil and Canada have banned asbestos but India has emerged as the biggest consumer of Russian white asbestos although India has technically banned mining of all kinds of asbestos and trade of asbestos waste (dust and fibers).
All the central ministries and state governments were supposed to incorporate specific directions of the Court given in its verdict of 27 January 1995 and reiterated on 21 January 2011 with regard to fresh ILO Resolution of June 14, 2006 introducing a ban on all mining, manufacture, recycling and use of all forms of asbestos besides WHO‟s resolution of 2005 seeking elimination of future use of asbestos but it has been ignored so far. The Court referred to the In the "Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety", Vol-1, published by International Labour Office, Geneva, the latest 4th Edition, 1991 that provides definition of asbestos-“Its Pathology has been stated at page 188 in Vol-1, which is as follows:- "The retained fibres in the alveolar region are 3 um or less in diameter but may be up to 200 um long. Animal experiments strongly point to the longer fibres, 5 um and over, as being much more fibrogenic than shorter fibres. A proportion of the longer fibres, especially amphiboles, become coated with an iron Protein complex producing the drumstick appearance of asbestos bodies. All types of asbestos cause similar fibrosis”  (Supreme Court, 1995). Drawing on the Encyclopedia, it recorded that “The signs and symptoms of asbestosis are similar to those caused by other diffuse interstitial fibroses of the lung. Increased breathlessness on exertion is usually the first symptom, sometimes associated with aching or transient sharp pains in the chest.” The Supreme Court has recorded that “whenever asbestos fibres are used for insulation and other purposes, the possibility of asbestosis among workers due to inhalation of asbestos fibres cannot be ruled out”  (Supreme Court, 2005). It noted that these materials are highly dangerous to human health, if inhaled or if contacted with skin surface.

Admittedly, Government of India’s National Health Portal states: “The burden of asbestos-related diseases is still rising, even in countries that banned the use of asbestos in the early 1990s. Because of the long latency periods attached to the asbestos related diseases, stopping the use of asbestos now will result in a decrease in the number of asbestos-related deaths only after a number of decades. There is no safe use of asbestos and no safe limits set by WHO, ILO (International labour organization)” . It discloses that “The prevalence of asbestosis in four cement factories (Ahmadabad, Hyderabad, Coimbatore and Mumbai) varied from 3% to 5%” and “In asbestos textile industry prevalence of asbestosis was 9% in workers having less than 10 years exposure, in contrast to the reported average duration of over 20 years”  (National Health Portal, Government of India).

Notably, in a reply to the Parliament, Union Minister of Health and Family welfare stated that “The Ministry of Mines has informed that the Grant of fresh mining leases and renewal of existing mining leases for Asbestos are presently banned in the country on Health Grounds”  (Union Ministry of Health and Family welfare, 2014). He also shared the findings of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), Union Ministry of Health and Family welfare which has “informed that major health hazards of asbestos include cancer of lung, mesothelioma of pleura and peritoneum and specific fibrous disease of lung known as asbestosis. All types of asbestos fibers are responsible for human mortality and morbidity….Directorate General Factory Advice Service and Labour Institutes, (DGFASLI) under Ministry of Labour & Employment has intimated data of workers suffering from Asbestosis in factories registered under the Factories Act, 1948.As per the information provided by DGFASLI, it is informed that 21 no. of Asbestosis cases were reported in Gujarat in 2010 and 2 cases in Maharashtra in the year 2012”. This has been shared by the Union Minister for Health and Family Welfare in a written reply to the Parliament and released by Press Information Bureau, Government of India.

India continues to ignore that the Schedule I of Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 provides the List of Processes Generating Hazardous Wastes. The list has 36 processes generating hazardous wastes. It must be also noted that Production of Asbestos or Asbestos containing materials which generates Asbestos-containing residues, Discarded Asbestos, Dust/particulates from exhaust gas treatment is at the serial no. 15 in the list. So far your ministry has ignored that Schedule VI of Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 that provides List of Hazardous Wastes Prohibited for Import and Export. The list had 30 such hazardous wastes which are also covered under UN‟s Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. The list mentions Waste Asbestos (Dust and Fibers) at serial no. 16 with its Basel No. A2050. It is noteworthy that given the fact that all asbestos based products have a life span, it is natural that all asbestos based products are potential asbestos wastes.

It may be recalled that on June 22, 2011 Indian delegation led by Mira Mehrishi, Additional Secretary, Government of India and the head of the Indian delegation had supported the listing of Chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous chemical substance at the fifth Conference of Parties to the Rotterdam Convention amidst standing ovation. Under the influence of foreign and domestic asbestos companies, India reversed its position and adopted an unscientific and unethical stance.

Even under Factories Act, 1948, the List of 29 industries involving hazardous processes is given under Section 2 (cb), Schedule First, asbestos is mentioned at serial no. 24. The Act defines "hazardous process" as “any process or activity in relation to an industry specified in the First Schedule where, unless special care is taken, raw materials used therein or the intermediate or finished products, bye-products, wastes or effluents thereof would--(i) cause material impairment to the health of the persons engaged in or connected therewith, or (ii) result in the pollution of the general environment” . This leaves no doubt that asbestos is a hazardous substance.
So far governments have ignored the fact that the United Nations Committee of Experts on the Transportation of Dangerous Goods classifies Chrysotile Asbestos in Hazard Class and Packing Group, UN number 2590, Class 9 – Miscellaneous dangerous goods and articles. Its International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code is UN No: 2590: Class or division 9.
Government is acting as if its left arm does not know what the right arm is doing. How can it reconcile its position in UN meeting with its current phasing out of asbestos roofs from some 8000 railway stations across the country? Taking note of hazards from asbestos of all kinds, new rules have been framed in Maharashtra as a step to make the state free of asbestos. It is significant that bitter protests of villagers led to the cancellation of asbestos based factories in Bhojpur, Muzaffarpur, Vaishali, West Champaran and Madhubani in Bihar.

Given the fact that Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals is the Designated National Authority (DNA) for industrial chemicals under the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent Procedures (PIC) that entered into force on 24th February, 2004, which is a legally binding instrument, it should be rescued from the vice like grip of the foreign and domestic asbestos companies. The parties to the Convention are required to communicate their import policy for these chemicals to the PIC Secretariat. The exporting Party has to provide the export notification to the importing Party in respect of banned or severely restricted chemicals in the importing country. The export notifications received from other Parties for industrial chemicals are examined by Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals, being the DNA for industrial chemicals, and acknowledgment/ reply is sent to the DNA of the exporting country. How can India deprive itself of this procedure with regard to import of hazardous and carcinogenic white chrysotile asbestos?

While there has been failure in listing of white chrysotile asbestos in the UN list of hazardous chemicals, the fact remains nothing stops Government of India to comply with Supreme Court’s verdict of 27th January, 1995 by adopting ILO resolution of 2006 which seeks elimination of all kinds of asbestos for the protection of human health.

For Details: Gopal Krishna, LL.B., Ph.D, Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI)*/ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), E-mail: krishnaruhani@gmail.com, Mb: 9818089660,
Web:  www.asbestosfreeindia.org

 *Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI) has been working for freedom from asbestos related diseases since 2000.


Saturday, May 4, 2019

BANI letter to Chemicals & Fertilizers Minister for inclusion of carcinogenic white chrysotile asbestos mineral fiber in the UN list of hazardous chemicals under Rotterdam Convention

To
 

Shri D.V. Sadananda Gowda
Union Minister 

(Chemicals & Fertilizers)

Government of India
New Delhi

Date: May 4, 2019

Subject-Inclusion of carcinogenic white chrysotile asbestos mineral fiber in the UN list of hazardous chemicals under Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure (PIC)

for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade

Sir,

With reference to the meeting of 9th conference of parties to the UN’s Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure (PIC) for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, this is to urgently request you to direct the Indian delegation which is participating in the conference underway (April 29-May 10, 2019) in Geneva to make its position consistent with the finding and observation on National Health Portal (NHP), Centre for Health Informatics (CHI), National Institute of Health and Family Welfare (NIHFW), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), Government of India with regard to carcinogenic white chrysotile asbestos mineral fiber. Indian delegation is participating in the meetings of the Conferences of the Parties (COP) to the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm (BRS) Conventions.

We submit that the inter-ministerial delegation participating at COP 9 must be asked to factor in the publicly and officially stated stance of National Health Portal, Government of India with regard to all forms of asbestos including white chrysotile asbestos. It states that “All forms of asbestos (chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite, tremolite, actinolite and anthophyllite) are in use because of their extraordinary tensile strength, poor heat conduction, and relative resistance to chemical attack. Chemically, asbestos minerals are silicate compounds, meaning they contain atoms of silicon and oxygen in their molecular structure. All forms of asbestos are carcinogenic to humans. Exposure to asbestos (including chrysotile) causes cancer of the lung, larynx, and ovaries, and also mesothelioma (a cancer of the pleural and peritoneal linings). Asbestos exposure is also responsible for other diseases such as asbestosis (fibrosis of the lungs), and plaques, thickening and effusion in the pleura.”  It observes that “Exposure to asbestos occurs through inhalation of fibers in air in the working environment, ambient air in the vicinity of point sources such as factories handling asbestos, or indoor air in housing and buildings containing friable asbestos materials.”

We submit that the last meetings of the Conferences of the Parties (COP) to the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm (BRS) Conventions happened during April 24-May 5, 2017 in Geneva. The final official brief for the Indian delegation to the meeting of COP-8 of Rotterdam Convention stated that “The implication of listing of chemicals is rise in trade cost” and delay in import/export of hazardous chemicals. This is far from the truth. In its myopia, the brief does not factor in the health cost incurred due unrestricted trade in hazardous chemicals.

We submit that “The burden of asbestos-related diseases is still rising, even in countries that banned the use of asbestos in the early 1990s. Because of the long latency periods attached to the asbestos related diseases, stopping the use of asbestos now will result in a decrease in the number of asbestos-related deaths only after a number of decades. There is no safe use of asbestos and no safe limits set by WHO, ILO (International labour organization)”  (ibid). It discloses that “The prevalence of asbestosis in four cement factories (Ahmadabad, Hyderabad, Coimbatore and Mumbai) varied from 3% to 5%” and “In asbestos textile industry prevalence of asbestosis was 9% in workers having less than 10 years exposure, in contrast to the reported average duration of over 20 years”  (National Health Portal, Government of India).

We submit that in a reply to the Parliament, Union Minister of Health and Family welfare stated that “The Ministry of Mines has informed that the Grant of fresh mining leases and renewal of existing mining leases for Asbestos are presently banned in the country on Health Grounds”  (Union Ministry of Health and Family welfare, 2014). He also shared the findings of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), Union Ministry of Health and Family welfare which has “informed that major health hazards of asbestos include cancer of lung, mesothelioma of pleura and peritoneum and specific fibrous disease of lung known as asbestosis. All types of asbestos fibers are responsible for human mortality and morbidity….Directorate General Factory Advice Service and Labour Institutes, (DGFASLI) under Ministry of Labour & Employment has intimated data of workers suffering from Asbestosis in factories registered under the Factories Act, 1948.As per the information provided by DGFASLI, it is informed that 21 no. of Asbestosis cases were reported in Gujarat in 2010 and 2 cases in Maharashtra in the year 2012”. This has been shared by the Union Minister for Health and Family Welfare in a written reply to the Parliament.

We submit that a 29 page long “Draft decision guidance document” on Rotterdam Convention – Operation of the Prior Informed Consent procedure for banned or severely restricted chemicals” for “Inclusion of chrysotile asbestos in Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention” is on the agenda. (Item 5 (b) of the provisional agenda, Matters related to the implementation of the Convention: listing of chemicals in Annex III to the Convention). As per the Draft decision guidance document, “Chrysotile (serpentine forms of asbestos) is included in the PIC procedure as an industrial chemical. It is listed on the basis of the final regulatory actions to ban or severely restrict its use as notified by Australia, Chile and the European Community (EC).” Chrysotile is by far the predominant asbestos fibre consumed today (94% of the world’s production) and is processed into products such as friction materials, asbestos-cement, cement pipe and sheet, gaskets and seals, paper and textiles. The asbestos-cement industry is by far the largest user of chrysotile fibres, accounting for about 85% of all use. If the Draft decision guidance document is approved, the amendment shall enter into force for all Parties on 16 September 2019. 

We submit that your ministry has ignored the fact that at the very first meeting, the Chemical Review Committee (CRC) under the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, the committee agreed to recommend to the Conference of the Parties that Chrysotile Asbestos should be listed in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention. The CRC is a group of government designated experts established in line with Article 18 of the Convention that evaluates candidate chemicals for possible inclusion in the Convention. Chrysotile (serpentine forms of asbestos) is included in the PIC procedure as an industrial chemical.

We submit that so far your ministry has ignored Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order of 27 January, 1995 in Writ Petition (Civil) N0. 206 of 1986. Hon’ble Court observed: “The development of the carcinogenic risk due to asbestos or any other carcinogenic agent, does not require a continuous exposure. The cancer risk does not cease when the exposure to the carcinogenic agent ceases, but rather the individual carries the increased risk for the remaining years of life. The exposure to asbestos and the resultant long tragic chain of adverse medical, legal and societal consequences, remains the legal and social responsibility of the employer or the producer not to endanger the workmen or the community of the society. He or it is not absolved of the inherent responsibility to the exposed workmen or the society at large. They have the responsibility legal, moral and social to provide protective measures to the workmen and to the public or all those who are exposed to the harmful consequences of their products. Mere adoption of regulations for the enforcement has no real meaning and efficacy without die professional, industrial and governmental resources and legal and moral determination to implement such regulations.” Rotterdam Convention’s PIC procedure is consistent with Hon’ble Supreme Court’s verdict.

We submit that given the fact that mining of asbestos is rightly banned in India because of its hazardous nature, a member of Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers Association (ACPMA) has revealed to the government and the public that the chrysotile type asbestos fiber “will be imported from Brazil , Canada and Russia.” It is the only kind that remains to be totally banned in India. Now the fact is that Brazil and Canada have banned asbestos but India has emerged as the biggest consumer of Russian white asbestos although India has technically banned mining of all kinds of asbestos and trade of asbestos waste (dust and fibers).

All the central ministries and state governments were supposed to incorporate specific directions of the Hon’ble Court given in its verdict of 27 January 1995 and reiterated on 21 January 2011 with regard to fresh ILO Resolution of June 14, 2006 introducing a ban on all mining, manufacture, recycling and use of all forms of asbestos besides WHO‟s resolution of 2005 seeking elimination of future use of asbestos but it has been ignored so far. Hon’ble Court referred to the In the "Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety", Vol-1, published by International Labour Office, Geneva, the latest 4th Edition, 1991 that provides definition of asbestos-“Its Pathology has been stated at page 188 in Vol-1, which is as follows:- "The retained fibres in the alveolar region are 3 um or less in diameter but may be up to 200 um long. Animal experiments strongly point to the longer fibres, 5 um and over, as being much more fibrogenic than shorter fibres. A proportion of the longer fibres, especially amphiboles, become coated with an iron Protein complex producing the drumstick appearance of asbestos bodies. All types of asbestos cause similar fibrosis”  (Supreme Court, 1995). Drawing on the Encyclopedia, it recorded that “The signs and symptoms of asbestosis are similar to those caused by other diffuse interstitial fibroses of the lung. Increased breathlessness on exertion is usually the first symptom, sometimes associated with aching or transient sharp pains in the chest.” Hon’ble Supreme Court has recorded that “whenever asbestos fibres are used for insulation and other purposes, the possibility of asbestosis among workers due to inhalation of asbestos fibres cannot be ruled out”  (Supreme Court, 2005). It noted that these materials are highly dangerous to human health, if inhaled or if contacted with skin surface.

We submit that Schedule I of Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 provided the List of Processes Generating Hazardous Wastes. The list has 36 processes generating hazardous wastes. It must be also noted that Production of Asbestos or Asbestos containing materials which generates Asbestos-containing residues, Discarded Asbestos, Dust/particulates from exhaust gas treatment is at the serial no. 15 in the list. So far your ministry has ignored that Schedule VI of Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 that provides List of Hazardous Wastes Prohibited for Import and Export. The list had 30 such hazardous wastes which are also covered under UN‟s Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. The list mentions Waste Asbestos (Dust and Fibers) at serial no. 16 with its Basel No. A2050. It is noteworthy that given the fact that all asbestos based products have a life span, it is natural that all asbestos based products are potential asbestos wastes.

It may be recalled that on June 22, 2011 Indian delegation led by Ms. Mira Mehrishi, Additional Secretary, Government of India and the head of the Indian delegation had supported the listing of Chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous chemical substance at the fifth Conference of Parties to the Rotterdam Convention amidst standing ovation.

We submit that even under Factories Act, 1948, the List of 29 industries involving hazardous processes is given under Section 2 (cb), Schedule First, asbestos is mentioned at serial no. 24. The Act defines "hazardous process" as “any process or activity in relation to an industry specified in the First Schedule where, unless special care is taken, raw materials used therein or the intermediate or finished products, bye-products, wastes or effluents thereof would--(i) cause material impairment to the health of the persons engaged in or connected therewith, or (ii) result in the pollution of the general environment” . This leaves no doubt that asbestos is a hazardous substance. 

We submit that your ministry has ignored the fact that the United Nations Committee of Experts on the Transportation of Dangerous Goods classifies Chrysotile Asbestos in Hazard Class and Packing Group, UN number 2590, Class 9 – Miscellaneous dangerous goods and articles. Its International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code is UN No: 2590: Class or division 9.

We submit that so far your ministry has ignored the fact that Indian railways is currently phasing out of asbestos roofs from some 8000 railway stations across the country. Taking note of hazards from asbestos of all kinds, new rules have been framed in Maharashtra as a step to make the state free of asbestos. It is significant that bitter protests of villagers led to the cancellation of asbestos based factories in Bhojpur, Muzaffarpur, Vaishali, West Champaran and Madhubani in Bihar.

Given the fact that Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals is the Designated National Authority (DNA) for industrial chemicals under the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent Procedures (PIC) that entered into force on 24th February, 2004, which is a legally binding instrument. The parties to the Convention are required to communicate their import policy for these chemicals to the PIC Secretariat. The exporting Party has to provide the export notification to the importing Party in respect of banned or severely restricted chemicals in the importing country. The export notifications received from other Parties for industrial chemicals are examined by Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals, being the DNA for industrial chemicals, and acknowledgment/ reply is sent to the DNA of the exporting country.

In such a backdrop, we urge you to support listing of white chrysotile asbestos in the UN list of hazardous chemicals to ensure that India’s position at the meeting of Rotterdam Convention is not inconsistent with its submissions made in Parliament, Hon’ble Supreme Court’s verdict domestic law and medical findings.

Thanking you

Warm Regards
Gopal Krishna, LL.B., Ph.D
Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI)
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
New Delhi
E-mail: krishnaruhani@gmail.com 
Mb: 9818089660
Web: www.asbestosfreeindia.org
www.toxicswatch.org

Cc
Dr Harshvardhan, Union Minister (Environment, Forests and Climate Change)
Dr J P Nadda, Union Minister (Health & Family Welfare)
Shri Anand Sharma, Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests
Shri Rao Inderjit Singh, Union Minister of State (Chemicals & Fertilizers)
Shri Mansukh Mandaviya, Union Minister of State (Chemicals & Fertilizers)
Dr. Mahesh Sharma, Union Minister of State (Environment, Forest and Climate Change)
Shri Chandra Kishore Mishra, Secretary, Union Ministry (Environment, Forests and Climate Change)
Shri P. Raghavendra Rao, Secretary, Union Ministry (Chemicals & Petrochemicals)
Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Additional Secretary, Hazardous Substances Management Division, Union Ministry (Environment, Forests and Climate Change) 
Shri Samir Kumar Biswas, Joint Secretary (Chemicals)
Shri S.P. Singh Parihar, Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board

Monday, April 29, 2019

Indian govt's immoral policy on asbestos indefensible

Indian govt's immoral policy on enviro-occupational diseases like incurable but preventable asbestos related diseases causes 50,000 deaths/yr. India's purchase of asbestos from Russia, Brazil & Kazakhstan despite banning asbestos mining is indefensible. 

Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI) which is a people's alliance working for asbestos free India since 2000 was represented by its co-founder Dr Gopal Krishna at the 15th Annual Conference of Asbestos Disease Awareness Organisation (ADAO). He briefed the delegates from some 10 countries about the unscientific stance of Government of India on continued trade, manufacture and use of white chrysotile asbestos. He spoke at George Washington University on the subject of deadly propaganda of the asbestos industry, Rotterdam Convention and the need for a mandatory UN treaty to hold corporate criminals like asbestos companies accountable for the ongoing worldwide public health disaster. 


Tuesday, April 2, 2019

BANI co-founder to speak at George Washington University during Annual International Asbestos Awareness and Prevention Conference

Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI) co-founder Gopal Krishna will be speaking at the Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University at the 15th Annual International Asbestos Awareness and Prevention Conference during April 5-7, 2019. He will speak during the conference on “Deadly Propaganda: Asbestos Imports, Use and Deaths”. BANI has been working for asbestos free India since 2000. 

ADAO's 15th Annual International Asbestos Awareness and Prevention Conference on April 5 - 7, 2019 in Washington, DC http://bit.ly/2Va0u2019AAPC 


Deadly Propaganda: Asbestos Imports, Use and Deaths || “Breathless” Documentary Screening and Panel Discussion at George Washington University on Thursday, April 4, 2019 http://bit.ly/2QvgZZs
Formed in 2002, BANI is working with concerned villagers, city folks, peoples movements, doctors, researchers and activists besides trade unions, human rights, environmental, consumer and public health groups. 
BANI seeks accountability from public institutions, criminal liability for companies besides preventive and medico-legal remedy for victims of asbestos related diseases. BANI’s struggle with Khet Bachao Jeewan Bachao Jansangharsh committeeand Paryawarn Bachao  Jeewan Bachao Sangharsh Samiti  in  the  remote villages  of Bihar led to the stoppage of the  asbestos based plants in Bihar:
Tamil Nadu based Nibhi Industries Pvt. Ltd’s Plant at GiddhaAraBhojpur
Telangana based Hyderabad Industries Ltd’s plant at Kumarbagh Industrial Area, West Champaran
West Bengal based Balmukund Cement & Roofings Ltd’s at Chainpur-Bishunpur, Marwan, Muzaffarpur
West Bengal based Utkal Asbestos Limited (UAL)’s Plant at GoraulVaishali
Rajasthan based A Infrastructure Ltd’s  Plant at Pandaul Industrial Area, Madhubani
BANI has been working for asbestos free shipping, ship breaking/recycling industry and seeking ban on asbestos laden talc powder.

Monday, February 18, 2019

Supreme Court to hear Criminal Appeal in Defamation case involving Google & website of Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI) on 12th March amidst asbestos ban in some 70 countries


Undue influence of asbestos industry lobby makes central and state Govts think adverse health impacts of carcinogenic Indian Asbestos and Russian Asbestos are different

Drugs Controller of India asked by NHRC to reply in the matter of ongoing exposure of Indians to carcinogenic asbestos fibers contaminated Talc powder in India by 8th March 2019

February 18, 2019: The criminal appeal in the defamation case against Google involving writings of Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI) on its website- www.asbestosfreeindia.org is scheduled for hearing on 12th March, 2019. The matter had come up for hearing before the Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph on 12th February, 2019. Prior to this, in the order dated 10th November, 2016, Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy had directed Attorney General to assist the Court in a case involving the liability of intermediaries like Google.
Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI) has been working for Asbestos Free India since 2000. The world’s biggest asbestos importing country, India is refusing to comply with Supreme Court’s 24 year old judgment in the face of ongoing deaths of some 30 Indians every day. Court had passed the order paving way for asbestos free India in Writ Petition (Civil) N. 206 of 1986, January 27, 1995. BANI is seeking compliance with the six directions of the Court. But donation from asbestos companies to ruling parties has ensured that Court’s verdict is not complied with. Such donation has compromised the autonomy of National Institute of Occupation Health (NIOH) which was entrusted by the Court to certify victims of asbestos - related diseases.  Since 2000,
Unlike NIOH which has admittedly conducted scientifically and ethically questionable study at the behest of the asbestos industry, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has “informed that major health hazards of asbestos include cancer of lung, mesothelioma of pleura and peritoneum and specific fibrous disease of lung known as asbestosis. All types of asbestos fibers are responsible for human mortality and morbidity….Directorate General Factory Advice Service and Labour Institutes, (DGFASLI) under Ministry of Labour & Employment has intimated data of workers suffering from Asbestosis in factories registered under the Factories Act, 1948.As per the information provided by DGFASLI, it is informed that 21 no. of Asbestosis cases were reported in Gujarat in 2010 and 2 cases in Maharashtra in the year 2012”. This has been shared by the Union Minister for Health and Family Welfare in a written reply in the Parliament.
BANI works with peoples movements, doctors, researchers and activists besides trade unions, human rights, environmental, consumer and public health groups. It has been demanding criminal liability for companies and medico-legal remedy for victims. BANI’s work is not driven by any corporate donor or any programme under Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).  
The case is related to the articles published on www.asbestosfreeindia.org, a Google supported site. The respondent in this case is Visakha Industries, which is engaged in business of manufacturing and selling of asbestos cement sheets and allied products. Asbestos is a carcinogenic mineral fiber banned in some 70 countries. Visakha is a member of Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers Association (ACPMA), which represents the interests of the Indian asbestos industry. ACPMA has been spreading the misinformation and falsehood about the possibility of safe and controlled use of chrysotile asbestos. The world’s scientific and medical community has overwhelmingly concluded that chrysotile asbestos causes deadly diseases, such as asbestosis, mesothelioma and lung and other cancers. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have called for an end to all use of chrysotile asbestos in order to prevent further tragic epidemics of asbestos-related diseases.
It is significant that the Ministry of Mines has informed that “the Grant of fresh mining leases and renewal of existing mining leases for Asbestos are presently banned in the country on Health Grounds”. Government had imposed this ban on mining of all kinds of asbestos in 1986. Since 2015, India has not produced any asbestos mineral. India has also banned trade in asbestos waste (dust and fibers) under Environment Protection Act, 1986 and UN’s Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. Unmindful of the fact that some 70 countries have banned all kinds of asbestos including white chrysotile asbestos, India is yet to impose ban on trade in raw asbestos, manufacturing of asbestos based products and its use. The core scientific question is: how can Indian asbestos be poisonous but Russian asbestos is not. India is the biggest importer of Russian asbestos. Can Indian Cyanide and Russian Cyanide have different health impacts? Russia is the biggest supplier of asbestos to India.
Meanwhile, Drugs Controller of India has been asked by National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to reply in the matter of ongoing exposure of Indians to carcinogenic asbestos fibers contaminated Talc powder in India by 8th March 2019. BANI is part of efforts to ban such asbestos laden products in order to safeguard lives of present and future generations.  
In a bizarre incident, suspicious packages with white powder were found at India's Consulate and other missions in Australia. Some of the packets were marked 'Asbestos' and sent to several Indian missions after which authorities evacuated the facilities and launched an investigation. Australian Federal Police informed Press Trust of India in January 2019. Notably, Australia is one of some 70 countries that have banned totally banned asbestos of all kinds.
Disregarding incontrovertible scientific evidence against asbestos, India has been importing asbestos from asbestos producers like Russia and Kazakhstan. On an average, India has been consuming 340,000 tons of asbestos annually. The major products imported by India from Kazakhstan during 2016-17 included asbestos, 6 per cent of India's total asbestos import.  India consumed 473,000 tons in 2012, 303,000 tons in 2013, 379,000 tons in 2014, 370,000 tons in 2015 and 308,000 tons in 2016. It is estimated that worldwide consumption of asbestos minerals decreased from approximately 2 million tons in 2010 to nearly 1.4 million tons in 2016. India has not undertaken any comprehensive evaluation of asbestos to identify its end uses, exposure pathways, and environmental and human health hazards. But lack of data does not mean absence of victims of asbestos related diseases.  
In a March 2018 paper titled “Trends and the Economic Effect of Asbestos Bans and Decline in Asbestos Consumption and Production Worldwide” published in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Lucy P. Allen, Jorge Baez, Mary Elizabeth C. Stern, Ken Takahashi, and Frank George have concluded that “….the shift away from asbestos has not had an observable persistent negative economic impact, continued use of asbestos is expected to result in substantial costs, including health costs as well as remediation/removal costs and potential litigation costs.”
In a significant development, Hyderabad Industries Limited (HIL), one of the key members of Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers Association (ACPMA) has launched asbestos-free roofing product- Charminar Fortune. The delay on the part of other members of ACPMA amounts to causing incurable diseases and deaths which were preventable.  

Thursday, December 20, 2018

Letter to CDSCO seeking ban on carcinogenic asbestos fibers contaminated Talc powder


ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
To
Drugs Controller General of India
Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO),
Directorate General of Health Services
Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India
FDA Bhavan, ITO, Kotla Road,
New Delhi -110002

Date: December 20, 2018

Subject- Seeking ban on carcinogenic asbestos fibers contaminated Talc powder of Johnson & Johnson and other companies in India

Sir,      
This is to draw your urgent attention towards the relevance of investigative report titled “Johnson & Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder” published on December, 14, 2018 for protecting the human rights of Indians. The investigation was conducted by Reuters, a 167 year old international news agency headquartered in London. This investigative report is consistent with the findings of a study by India’s Industrial Toxicology Research Centre (IITR), Lucknow, a constituent laboratory of Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR), Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India on “Exposure risk to contaminants in pharmaceutical and cosmetic powders” has found that “There are different types of cosmetic powders such as body powder, baby powder, face powder, eye shadow and powdered blush as well as pharmaceutical powders available in the market. Both the sexes of all age groups are using these powders. These are talc - based. Talc is a mineral product and often contaminated with asbestos fibres.” It is significant that CDSCO’s official function includes banning “Drugs and Cosmetics”.
In view of these scientific findings, I wish to draw your attention towards Schedule S of the Rules [read with Rule 150-A], Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (last amended in 1995). Referring to Standards for cosmetics in finished form fixed by Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) for “Skin Powders and Skin Powder for infants”, it is stated that these “cosmetics in finished form shall conform to the Indian Standards specifications laid down from time to time by the [Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS)]”. This standard covers two types of powder, namely, body powder and face powders. Body powders include products which are commonly known as talcum powders, dusting powders, toilet powders and deodorant powders. BIS issued has two separate revised Indian Standard (IS) notifications for Skin Powders and Skin Powder for Infants namely, IS 3959:2004 and IS 5339:2004. These standards were originally issued in 1966 and 1969 respectively. Both were first revised in 1978.  The composition of the BIS’s Cosmetics Section Committee and SkinCare Products Subcommittee which finalized both the standards is quite revealing. Both the committees have Dr Prashant Abhvankar on behalf of Johnson & Johnson. In such a backdrop, it is startling that the Indian standards for the powders make no mention of asbestos mineral fiber although it does provide for determination of Arsenic, tests for heavy metals etc.  
The notification on “Skin Powder for Infants-Specification”, it is stated that “In composition, skin powders for infants do not differ greatly from those intended for adults.”
Given the fact that it has been admitted in the notifications that “No stipulations have been made in this standard regarding composition of skin powders”, it emerges that the separateness of the composition of both the adult powders and infant powders is apparently a fiction for marketing purposes.  
It is important to note that both BIS notifications state that “it is necessary that the raw materials used are such that in the concentrations in which they would be present in the finished skin powder, after interaction with other raw materials used in the formulation, they are free from any harmful effects” but they confine themselves to dermatological safety. It underlines that “It shall be the responsibility of the manufacturers of skin powders to satisfy themselves of the dermatological safety of their formulation before releasing the product for sale.” They maintain a studied silence about harmful effects of the powder in question on lungs, ovary and other internal organs.
A careful perusal of the relevant legal provisions, Indians Standards and IITR study reveals the glaring loophole in the existing legal provisions, given the fact that it has been conclusively been established in scientific and medical literature that Talc and asbestos co-exist and safe and controlled use of all kinds of asbestos is impossible. Talc, like asbestos, is a silicate mineral fiber that has been studied in relation to cancer risk. Talc  refers  to  both  mineral  talc  and  industrial  mineral  products  that  are  marketed under the name talc and contain proportions of mineral talc that range from about 35% to almost 100%. As  it  is  soft  to  the  touch  and  inert,  talc has  been  valued  for  centuries  as  a  body powder.  Today,  it  also  plays  an  important  role  in  many  cosmetic  products,  including products  for  feminine  hygiene  and  baby  powders,  and  provides  the silkiness  in  blushes, powder  compacts  and  eye  shadows,  the  transparency  of  foundations  and  the  sheen  of beauty creams. In pharmaceutical products, talc is an important excipient that is used as a glidant,   lubricant   and   diluent.   Soap   manufacturers   also   use   talc   to   enhance   the performance of skin care products.
The use of body powder has been prevalent in infants and woman. The use of body powder for feminine hygiene has been studied. Body powder is applied perineally, on napkins or  on  underwear.  Dusting  of  the  perineum  after  bathing  appears  to  be  the  most frequent  single  type  of  application,  but simultaneous  uses  have  also  been  reported. The  exposure  may  occur  as  a  result of  storing  a  diaphram  in  body  powder  or contamination from the male partner who has used body powder. Talc is used as a surface lubricant on the majority of condoms manufactured; contact with condoms may also represent a direct means of exposure of the female genital tract to talc.
Exposure  to  talc  can  also  occur  during  surgical  procedures  when  using  powdered gloves. Talc particles were observed in the navels of small children, in the testes, on the vocal  cords,  in  the  urinary  bladder  tract  and  after  removal  of  varicous  veins.  During breast implantations, it is possible that talc from surgical gloves can lead to unwanted encapsulation. The  Food  Chemical  Codex  (2003)  provides specifications  for  food-grade  talc including  the  statement  that “talc  derived  from  deposits  that  are  known  to  contain associated  asbestos  is  not  food  grade.” 
(Reference: IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 93, Carbon Black, Titanium Dioxide, and Talc, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), World Health Organization, 2010, https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/mono93.pdf)
I submit that as per World Health Organisation (WHO), “All types of asbestos cause cancer in humans Asbestos (actinolite, amosite, anthophyllite, chrysotile, crocidolite and tremolite) has been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as being carcinogenic to humans. Exposure to chrysotile, amosite and anthophyllite and to mixtures containing crocidolite results in an increased risk of lung cancer. Mesotheliomas have been observed after occupational exposure to crocidolite, amosite, tremolite and chrysotile, as well as among the general population living in the neighbourhood of asbestos factories and mines and in people living with asbestos workers. The incidence of asbestos-related diseases is related to fibre type, size and dose and to industrial processing of the asbestos.” It categorically states that “No threshold has been identified for the carcinogenic risk of asbestos, including chrysotile. Cigarette smoking increases the risk of lung cancer from asbestos exposure.”
(Reference: Elimination of asbestos related diseases, Updated March 2014 https://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/public_health/Elimination_asbestos-related_diseases_EN.pdf)
Given conclusive evidence about impossibility of safe and controlled use of all kinds of asbestos, it is indefensible that the  Cosmetic,  Toiletry,  and  Fragrances  Association  stated  that all  cosmetic  talc  should contain at least 90% platy talc (hydrated magnesium silicate) that is free from detectable amounts  (<0 .5="" span="" style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  of  fibrous,  asbestos  minerals under the  voluntary  guidelines it had initiated  in  1976, Indian Standards remain so backward that it does not even make a mention of asbestos in its notification on Skin Powders. It has adopted Ostrich policy with regard to the grave health hazards from asbestos of all kinds.
It is apparent that Indians Standards and legal provisions have remained blind to numerous possibilities of exposure. It emerges from it that health hazards from Talc is confined to skin powder alone. Studies have found the harmful effects of asbestos laden Talc powder.
The aim of the IITR study “was to investigate the safety of such powders being sold in the market, initially by analyzing the asbestos content. Five branded samples of talcum powder were analysed and all were found contaminated with asbestos fibres. Asbestos fibre contamination in these powders ranged from 10.3 – 15.4%. Fibre length study on two samples revealed that asbestos fibres were 22.8 – 34.7%, 48.2 – 55.1% and 17.1 – 22.1% in the range of <10 10="" 20="" and="" m=""> 20┬Ám, respectively. The study indicates risk of human exposure to asbestos through the use of naturally contaminated talcum powder. It is noteworthy that asbestos takes many years to cause asbestosis and carcinogenic malignancies which are irreversible. It also necessitates a regular monitoring and surveillance on all the cosmetic and pharmaceutical powders being marketed for asbestos contamination.” This has been published in the Annual Report Annual Report 2005-2006 of IITR. IITR is accredited by National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) for chemical and biological testing and is recognized for GLP (Good Laboratory Practice) toxicity testing.
(Reference: http://www.itrcindia.org/ITRC_Annual_Report_2005-06.pdf)
The investigation by Reuters corroborates the findings of IITR. This recent investigation was undertaken in the wake of three verdicts in New Jersey, California and St. Louis awarding compensation to plaintiffs who blamed asbestos-tainted Johnson & Johnson talc products for their mesothelioma, a type of cancer that develops from the thin layer of tissue that covers many of the internal organs. The connection between asbestos exposure and mesothelioma was discovered in the 1970s. The third verdict was a watershed in in St. Louis: The 22 plaintiffs were the first to succeed with a claim that asbestos-tainted Baby Powder and Shower to Shower talc, a longtime brand the company sold in 2012 that caused ovarian cancer, which is much more common than mesothelioma. The jury awarded them $4.69 billion in damages. Most of the talc cases have been brought by women with ovarian cancer who say they regularly used Johnson and Johnson talc products as a perineal antiperspirant and deodorant. The inclusion of ovarian cancer besides mesothelioma has broadened the potential liability of Johnson & Johnson, a 132 year old multinational medical devices, pharmaceutical and consumer packaged goods manufacturing company headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Earlier, British Medical Journal (BMJ) published an article titled “Jury awards $4.7bn damages against Johnson & Johnson in talcum cancer case” published in the renowned British Medical Journal (BMJ). As per BMJ’s article, “More than 9000 former US talcum customers have lodged suits against the company. Most claim damages for ovarian cancer, but some allege that using the product led them to develop mesothelioma. The award is by far the biggest yet against Johnson and Johnson in litigation relating to talcum powder and the first case in which plaintiffs alleged that asbestos in talcum powder caused their disease. The verdict was handed down in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis.
((Reference: BMJ 2018; 362 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3135)
I submit that this investigative report is of deep relevance for the public health of present and future generation of Indians given the fact that Johnson & Johnson company has admittedly been in India for last 70 years. The company has brought many products in consumer healthcare, medical devices and pharmaceuticals. In 1947, Johnson & Johnson expanded into India, marketing Johnson’s Baby Powder. In September 1957, Johnson & Johnson incorporated as a legal entity in India. The production in its first manufacturing facility began in 1959 at the Johnson & Johnson India plant in Mulund, Mumbai, for Johnson’s Baby Powder and other specialized products. In 1968, the company introduces the Stayfree brand to India. A situation emerged wherein Johnson & Johnson reached almost every household in India.  
The Reuters investigative report refers to the findings of Dr. Irving J. Selikoff who had conclusively established a link between the inhalation of asbestos particles and lung-related ailments in the 1960s itself that paved the way for ban on asbestos of all kinds in some 60 countries. Dr. Selikoff was the director of the Environmental and Occupational Health Division of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. It is significant that Ms Lisa Girion of Reuters has shared the official documents on the basis of which she has made these startling claims in her investigative report.  
(Reference: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsonandjohnson-cancer/)
I wish to point out that in a Terms of Reference dated October 25, 2010 issued by Union Environment & Forests Ministry for a proposed Asbestos cement sheet and accessories manufacturing unit of 1,80,000 Tonnes Per Annum capacity at Narsimharaopalem Village, Veerulupadu Tehsil, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh by M/s Sahyadri Industries Limited made reference to "talc and chrysotile”.
Prior to the Reuters report, a 2014 paper published in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health titled "Asbestos in commercial cosmetic talcum powder as a cause of mesothelioma in women" by Ronald E Gordon et al concluded "we found that a specific brand of talcum powder contained identifiable asbestos fibers with the potential to be released into the air and inhaled during normal personal talcum powder application. We also found that asbestos fibers consistent with those found in the same cosmetic talc product were present in the lungs and lymph node tissues of a woman who used this brand of talc powder and developed and died from mesothelioma. This study was published in October 2014.
(Reference: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4164883/)
This investigation by Reuters reveals that “Johnson & Johnson developed a strategy in the 1970s to deal with a growing volume of research showing that talc miners had elevated rates of lung disease and cancer: Promote the positive, challenge the negative. That approach was summed up by a J&J applied research director in a “strictly confidential” March 3, 1975, memo to managers of the baby products division, which used the talc in J&J’s signature Baby Powder. Its approach reads: “Our current posture with respect to the sponsorship of talc safety studies has been to initiate studies only as dictated by confrontation,” the memo said. “This philosophy, so far, has allowed us to neutralize or hold in check data already generated by investigators who question the safety of talc.” It reveals that scientific ghostwriters have been hired for long to hide evidence of “cancer concern associated with exposure to talc.” Based on an Italian study, one such ghost authored article that appeared in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, in 1976 found no mesothelioma, the signature cancer of asbestos exposure. The Italian study in question has been updated three times – in 1979, 2003 and 2017 – “confirming the lack of association between exposure to asbestos-free talc, lung cancer and mesothelioma.” The investigative underlines that Johnson & Johnson got a lot of mileage out of the study. It was cited in a review article titled “The Biology of Talc,” published Nov. 1, 1976, in the British Journal of Industrial Medicine.
(Reference: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/77df/7030e57e91ee73c8e313d6b54e0ea0b7c498.pdf)
In addition to dozens of published studies, the review cited unpublished research, including one experiment that used a doll as a proxy for infants and that supported the company’s position on the safety of talc. It didn’t disclose that Johnson & Johnson had commissioned the unpublished research. The author of the review article concluded that the “concern that has been expressed about the possible health hazard from consumer exposure to cosmetic talc is unwarranted … There is no evidence that its normal use poses a hazard to health.” The author was Hildick-Smith, the Johnson & Johnson physician executive who had overseen the Italian study and played a key role in the company’s talc safety research. The article did not disclose his Johnson & Johnson connection, identifying him only as a Rutgers University Clinical Assistant Professor of Pediatrics.
In a related event I submit that I was a panelist at a Round Table Conference on Issues Related to Asbestos Use in India held at India International Centre, New Delhi on December 21, 2009, wherein Dr Iqbal Ahmad, a scientist from IITR, Lucknow said that there are many different sources of asbestos exposures which need to be looked at. He identified talc (powder) as a major source which has asbestos contamination and exposes a large section of population, especially children and women. Talc is used in several industries as raw material. He said that we do have numbers of talc based cosmetic powders in India. China is the largest producer of talc. Some 47 companies which used to procure Chinese talc powder had to recently withdraw their product from market in South Korea due to high asbestos contamination.
In view of the above, I seek your urgent intervention to ensure complete stoppage of ongoing exposure of Indians to carcinogenic asbestos fibers contaminated Talc powder of Johnson & Johnson and other companies in India.
Thanking You
Yours faithfully

(Dr Gopal Krishna, LLB, PhD)
Director, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
E-mail:krishnaruhani@gmail.com 
Web:www.toxicswatch.org

Blog Archive