Make India Asbestos Free

Make India Asbestos Free
For Asbestos Free India

Journal of Ban Asbestos Network of India(BANI) and India Asbestos Victims Association(IAVA). 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, researcher-activists besides trade unions, human rights, environmental, consumer and public health groups. BANI-IAVA demand criminal liability for companies and medico-legal remedy for victims. Editor: Dr. G. Krishna, Advocate

Tuesday, May 26, 2020

Doublespeak & Double Standards of Johnson & Johnson endangers life of Indians



To

Chairman
National Human Rights Commission
Manav Adhikar Bhawan
Block-C, GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi – 110023

Date: May 26, 2020

Subject- Doublespeak and Double Standards of Johnson & Johnson causeo f ongoing exposure of Indians to hazardous asbestos mineral fibers
contaminated Talcum Powder

Sir,

This is to draw your immediate attention towards the announcement
dated May 19, 2020 by Johnson & Johnson, a multinational company
headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA stating that it will
discontinue sale of its Talcum Powder products in North America. This
announcement is aimed at safeguarding the health and human rights ofr esidents and citizens of North America but not the residents andc itizens of India. Such doublespeak and double standard in matters ofp ublic health in general and children’s health in particular merits urgent intervention of the Commission. (Reference: Statement of
Johnson & Johnson, May 19, 2020,
https://www.jnj.com/our-company/johnson-johnson-consumer-health-announces-discontinuation-of-talc-based-johnsons-baby-powder-in-u-s-and-canada)

We wish to point out that “the Company will wind down the
commercialization of talc-based Johnson’s Baby Powder in the U.S. anda Canada in the coming months. Existing inventory will continue to be
sold through retailers until it runs out.” The news report titled
Johnson & Johnson to End Talc-Based Baby Powder Sales in North America
published in The New York Times merits attention as well. (Reference:
Tiffany Hsu and Roni Caryn Rabin, May 19, 2020,
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/19/business/johnson-baby-powder-sales-stopped.html).

We submit that Word Health Organisation (WHO)’s International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) has recognized presence of asbestos int alcum powder. IARC Monograph on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans on Carbon Black, Titanium Dioxide, and Talc (2010) refers to the presence of asbestos in talcum powder. It also refers to "Use of talc for feminine hygiene". The use of body powder for feminine
hygiene can be estimated from the prevalence reported for controls in
case–control studies that investigated the association between the use
of cosmetic talc for feminine hygiene and the risk for ovarian cancer.
It refers to exposure to respirable dust during the use of talcum
powders on the face, body and babies. 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. Besides
this 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.” Under the voluntary guidelines initiated in 1976, 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 of fibrous,
asbestos minerals. Meanwhile, some 67 countries have banned all kinds
of asbestos. World Health Organisation (WHO)’s recommendations have
established the infectious nature of Covid-19, the same WHO has
underlined that “All types of asbestos cause lung cancer,
mesothelioma, cancer of the larynx and ovary, and asbestosis (fibrosis
of the lungs).” (Reference:
https://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/public_health/asbestos/en/ and
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/asbestos-elimination-of-asbestos-related-diseases)

We submit that the Commission. must recommend the enviro-occupational
health audit of the workers who handle asbestos laden talcum powder in the manufacturing facilities of talcum powder products in general
besides the health audit of the communities who are in the vicinity of such factories and recommend adequate compensation for those who are exposed to the carcinogenic mineral fibers and are suffering from
asbestos related diseases. This will be also relevant for assessing
the harm which the unsuspecting consumers continue to face. These
consumers include all judges, legislators, officials, their children
and grandchildren and the residents of India.

Earlier, an investigative report titled “Johnson & Johnson knew for
decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder” was published on
December, 14, 2018 which too is relevant 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 asb ody powder, baby powder, face powder, eye shadow and powdered blush as well as pharmaceutical powders available in the market. Both thes exes of all age groups are using these powders. These are talc -based. Talc is a mineral product and often contaminated with asbestos
fibres.”

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%,4 8.2 – 55.1% and 17.1 – 22.1% in the range of <10 10="" 20="" and="" m="">20 µm, 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)

We reiterate 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/)

We wish to reiterate 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/)

We submit that the 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 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 withdraw
their product from market in South Korea due to high asbestos
contamination.

We submit that Commission’s intervention will be germane in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Consumer Education and Research Centre (CERC) Vs Union of India (1995 AIR 922, 1995 SCC (3) 42) that recognized right to health as part of right to life and had directed central and state governments to revise their law related asbestos in keeping with fresh resolutions of International Labour
Organisation (ILO). ILO’s asbestos related resolution of June 2006 is
relevant in this regard (Reference:
https://www.ilo.org/safework/info/standards-and-instruments/WCMS_108556/lang--en/index.htm. The ILO resolution was followed by a joint publication of WHO and ILO titled "Outline for the Development of National Programmes for Elimination of Asbestos-Related Diseases" published in December 2007.

It creates a logical compulsion for urgent remedial action.
(Reference: https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/safety-and-health-at-work/resources-library/publications/WCMS_108555/lang--en/index.htm)

In view of the above, we submit that instead of waiting for the coo
withdraw its asbestos-laden talcum powder products-both baby powder
and adult powder, the Commission must consider recommending to the
central government and state governments to prevent preventable
diseases and deaths by banning these products with immediate effect.

Thanking You

Yours faithfully

Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
Occupational Health India (OHI)
Mb: 9818089660
E-mail:krishnaruhani@gmail.com
Web:www.toxicswatch.org

Tuesday, January 7, 2020

Supreme Court Reaffirms Immunity to Google for Online Content w.r.t. killer asbestos mineral fiber in BANI defamation case

In its judgement in Google India Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s Visakha Industries in BANI defamation case dated December 10, 2019, the Supreme Court refused to quash defamation proceedings against Google for its failure to remove allegedly defamatory material from its ‘Google Group’ service. The 148 page long verdict is available here. The year 2019 ended with the verdict which reveals the ongoing struggle of Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI) since 2002. They who are vocal against injustice and unjust corporate practices have always faced such cases. BANI cannot forget that there is no household in India which is free of deadly asbestos mineral fiber. Its case against asbestos laden talcum powder filed through ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) in National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) captured national media's attention. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has responded to NHRC. The case remains with NHRC. 


1. India Top Court Reaffirms Immunity to Google for Online Content
Alphabet Inc.’s Google isn’t liable for defamatory content posted on its platforms after 2009, India’s top court ruled, reaffirming immunity for Internet companies in the world’s second-most populous nation.

However, the top court ruled that Google India Pvt. Ltd. will have to face defamation charges in cases lodged before 2009, when India’s information technology laws were amended to provide online and social media service providers immunity for content posted by a third party. They will have to take down content only after a court order.


India Says Google Not Liable for Defamatory Content on Its Platforms

Doug Isenberg  December 11, 2019

Alphabet Inc.’s Google isn’t liable for defamatory content posted on its platforms after 2009, India’s top court ruled, reaffirming immunity for Internet companies in the world’s second-most populous nation. The verdict, which reiterates a 2015 ruling, comes as a relief for social media companies, online retailers and service providers who are facing increasing pressure from the Indian government to regulate online 


2.  Google can't claim protection from defamation, says India's Supreme Court in BANI defamation case

A bench headed by Justice K.M. Joseph held that protection from defamation cannot be calimed 



3. Vishakha Defamation Case: SC Rejects Google India’s Appeal, Says It’s Matter For Trial


4. Google India to face trial in pre-2009 defamation case

Visaka Industries filed the complaint after the company said it issued legal notices asking Google India to take down the write-up. Google then moved the Andhra High Court for quashing the proceedings, but did not get any relief. On Google’s appeal, SC stayed the proceedings till it had applied its mind to the issues involved.


5. Google to face trial in India after SC says it can't claim protection from defamation


6. Google India to face criminal trial in alleged defamation case filed by Visaka Industries


7. No Protection For Intermediary Under Sec 79 IT Act From Criminal Defamation Before 2009 Amendment

8. 'Intermediaries can't claim protection from defamation'


Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI)

Friday, July 5, 2019

Kudos to Bihar Govt’s policy against carcinogenic asbestos factories

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


To 

Shri Nitish Kumar 
Hon’ble Chief Minister  
Government of Bihar  
Patna   

05 July, 2019

Subject-
Kudos to Bihar Govt’s policy against carcinogenic asbestos factories 

Dear Sir, 

Greetings from Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI)-ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)!

This is to express our deep sense of appreciation for declaring in the State Assembly that Bihar Government will not allow construction of carcinogenic asbestos factories in the state on 1st July, 2019. This announcement of yours is a vindication of the anti-asbestos struggle by villagers of Muzaffarpur, Vaishali and Bhojpur. BANI- TWA has been part of this struggle for safeguarding public health.

We submit that the death toll of children in Muzaffarpur has revealed that asbestos cement sheets are quite unhealthy building materials. The fact remains children did not die specifically because of it but this unsafe and hazardous roofing material surely contributed to deterioration of their health.  

We submit that your observation with regard to carcinogenic white chrysotile asbestos mineral fiber is consistent with what is published on National Health Portal (NHP)[1], Centre for Health Informatics (CHI), National Institute of Health and Family Welfare (NIHFW), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), Government of India. The National Health Portal 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.”[2] 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 wish to draw your urgent attention towards the order of Kerala Human Rights Commission (KHRC) that has ruled that exposing Indians to asbestos is a human rights violation. This paves the way for the eventual complete ban on asbestos and its products. On January 31, 2009, the KHRC ruled that the government should take steps to phase out asbestos roofing from all schools in the state. Bihar government can act of this recommendation as well.
Given the ubiquitous presence of the fiber, there is no alternative to getting it banned in right earnest.

We submit that 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.”
We submit that 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”[3] (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”[4] (Supreme Court, 2005). It noted that these materials are highly dangerous to human health, if inhaled or if contacted with skin surface.
We wish to also draw your attention towards what 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)”[5]. 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”[6] (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”[7] (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….” 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. This reply corroborates your observation in the State Assembly.

We commend the fact that you have factored in the lessons from the bitter protests of villagers led to the cancellation of asbestos based factories in Bhojpur, Muzaffarpur, Vaishali, West Champaran and Madhubani in Bihar. But the factories in Bhojpur’s Bihiya have managed to get relief from Hon’ble Patna High Court on a grossly procedural ground of violation of natural justice. This procedural error ought to be rectified and the operation of the two units of an asbestos company must be stopped. Its operation is a case of environmental health lawlessness. It has dumped hazardous asbestos waste in the agricultural fields and has been spewing toxic asbestos dust at night. It has violated every specific and general condition which has been stipulated in the environmental clearance and the No Objection Certificate. It may also be noted that when a worker died in this factory, his family was given a compensation of Rs 5, 000. The factory seemed to have own the patronage of Bhojpur administration by donating asbestos roofs to it for its parking. This situation creates a compelling logic for medical investigation of the health status of the village and temple communities living in the vicinity of these units and the workers of these two factories owned by the same company. The probe can reveal the extent of asbestos related diseases in this area.    

Given the fact that all asbestos based products have a life-span, it is natural that all asbestos based products are potential asbestos wastes. This state of sad affairs is crying for attention. At present Indian railways is removing asbestos cement roofs from all the railway stations and platforms in Bihar and in other parts of the country but it is not being disposed of in a scientific and safe manner. It is currently lying on railway platforms including at Patna Junction. This is endangering the health of all unsuspecting passengers.

In view of the above, we submit that Bihar government must consider putting an end to the use of the of all kinds of asbestos products that is being used and encountered daily, because none of the schools, offices, legislatures, courts, hospitals, automobiles, private and public buildings in our state are asbestos free. It must impose ban on procurement of asbestos based products, create a register of asbestos laden buildings and victims of asbestos related diseases besides setting up a compensation fund for them. It also creates a need to create a Master Plan for decontaminating all asbestos laden buildings including legislative and judicial buildings.    

Therefore, it is necessary to initiate preventive action in order to protect present and future generations from the silent killer which is akin to a time bomb. It is also necessary to withdraw fake cases against anti-asbestos villagers and activists in Muzaffarpur and Vaishali. We will be glad to share more relevant information against asbestos of all forms including white asbestos (chrysotile) as well. 

Thanking you in anticipation.                   

Yours faithfully

Dr Gopal Krishna, LL.B., Ph.D
Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI)*
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)**
Mb: 9818089660

*Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI) has been working for freedom from asbestos related diseases since 2000. **ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) has been documenting environmental and occupational health hazards of industrial and urban activity since 2005.


[1] Asbestos-related diseases, National Health Portal, Centre for Health Informatics (CHI), National Institute of Health and Family Welfare (NIHFW), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), Government of India, https://www.nhp.gov.in/disease/non-communicable-disease/asbestos-related-diseases, accessed on May 4, 2019
[2] Asbestos-related diseases, National Health Portal, Centre for Health Informatics (CHI), National Institute of Health and Family Welfare (NIHFW), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), Government of India, https://www.nhp.gov.in/disease/non-communicable-disease/asbestos-related-diseases, accessed on May 4, 2019
[3] (1995), Order of Supreme Court, Writ Petition (Civil) N. 206 of 1986, 27 January
[4] (2005), Order of Supreme Court, Writ Petition (Civil) No.79 of 2005
[5] Asbestos-related diseases, National Health Portal, Centre for Health Informatics (CHI), National Institute of Health and Family Welfare (NIHFW), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), Government of India, https://www.nhp.gov.in/disease/non-communicable-disease/asbestos-related-diseases, accessed on May 4, 2019
[6] Asbestos-related diseases, National Health Portal, Centre for Health Informatics (CHI), National Institute of Health and Family Welfare (NIHFW), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), Government of India, https://www.nhp.gov.in/disease/non-communicable-disease/asbestos-related-diseases, accessed on May 4, 2019
[7] Asbestos Related Diseases, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Press Information Bureau
Government of India, 21 February, 2014, http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=104105 accessed on May 4, 2019

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

Blog Archive