Profit put before public health

Indian government is using the consensus procedures of the UN chemicals information treaty to hold the world to ransom becasue it is the world's largest producer of endosulfan unmindful of the disastrous health consequences known to citizens especially through the irriversible environmental health crisis in Kerela. Working at the behest of the Indian Chemical Council, a indutsry body, Indian government chose to remain consistent in its disregard for the adeverse health of hazardous chemicals by impeding the process of regulation and control of poisnous chemicals at the fifth meeting of Chemical Review Committee that happened in Rome during 23-27 March, 2009. Indian government's delegation was represented by G. K. Pandey, Adviser, Union Ministry of Environment and Forests. This Ministry is directly under the Prime Minister.

Government's pro-chemical industry approach is quite manifest in its positions taken at least two relevant UN chemicals management treaty. One, the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure (PIC) for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade and the other being Stockholm Convention on Peristent Organic Pollutants.

Endosulfan is a known endocrine disruptor, and low dose exposure while in the womb is linked to male reproductive harm, autism, and birth defects. High dose exposures are acutely toxic, resulting in headaches, nausea and vomiting, seizures, and in extreme cases, unconsciousness and death. Endosulfan and its main breakdown product are also persistent environmental contaminants. Waterways near application sites are particularly threatened-for example, the EPA has estimated that after a typical endosulfan application to tomatoes, concentrations of endosulfan downstream can be up to 28 times higher than the level that is fatal to the average freshwater fish. Once released into the environment these residues take years to degrade, traveling many miles in the meanwhile. The European Union and over 20 other countries have already banned endosulfan and the US EPA is reconsidering whether its use should be permitted here.

The Chemical Review Committee of the Rotterdam Convention has been considering information on the banning of endosulfan by 9 West African countries - Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Gambia, Mali, Mauritius, Niger and Senegal.

These countries banned endosulfan because of the terrible health effects - many cotton farmers have died after using the highly toxic chemical - and environmental contamination. All members of the committee, except one from India agreed that endosulfan should be listed under Annex 3 of the Rotterdam Convention, the UN treaty that helps countries to protect their borders and health of their people, through an internationally legally binding requirement for information exchange about import or export of hazardous chemicals.

Not surprisingly, the Indian government's delegation that has resorted to erecting procedural roadblocks and mounting unfounded legal objections comprised of representatives from the Indian Chemical Council. Indian government indulged did the same at the October 2008 meeting of the Rotterdam Convention to oppose listing of endosulfan in the PIC list of hazardous chemicals.

India has also opposed adding endosulfan to the Stockholm Convention where listing would trigger a global ban. Endosulfan is a dangerous and antiquated insecticide that communities around the world are working to eliminate.

USEPA data shows that all of us are routinely exposed to small amounts of endosulfan in the food we eat, with young children receiving the largest doses. Air monitoring studies has shown that people living, working, and going to school near fields where the chemical is used are also exposed by breathing contaminated air as it drifts from application sites.

The review committee of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants has agreed that endosulfan should be considered for addition to the list of chemicals banned globally under the treaty. Consideration of the chemical is expected to be a two-year scientific review process, with a final decision by government representatives in 2011. This UN treaty requires government-to-government notification when dangerous pesticides and other chemicals cross international borders.

Revealing its regressive and condemnable anti-public interest and pro-industry bias, in the case of silent killer, Chrysotile asbestos too Indian government did not let it be listed in annex III of the Rotterdam Convention "taking into account that the conference of the parties is not yet able to reach consensus on the whether to list chrysotile asbestos." The decision on chrysotile asbestos is being deferred to COP 5 of the Rotterdam Convention.

As in the case of Endosulfan, even in asbestos case Indian government is acting on behalf of the Chrysotile asbestos industry of India, Russia, Canada and Kazakhastan. Clearly, the position of Sonia Gandhi led UPA government is anti-people and is not based on science, but on blind commerce and immoral politics.

(Source: ToxicsWatch)

http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2009/04/20/news0844.htm

Asian Asbestos Conference 2009

Program for the Asian Asbestos Conference 2009
Hong Kong
Date – 26-27 April, 2009

25th April, 2009
Preparatory meeting for grass-roots delegates

Introduction for participants
Message from Japanese asbestos victims & families
Photographic exhibition: India’s Asbestos Time Bomb
Premiere of India's Asbestos Time Bomb Film
Presentation of Award by Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization
Welcome dinner for delegates
Indonesian Cultural Performance

26th April, 2009
Morning Session
Welcome Session
Special address
World Health Organization - Dr. Hisashi Ogawa
International Labour Organization - Dr. Tsuyoshi Kawakami
Victim Speaks out from Hong Kong
Plenary Session 1 - Asia’s Asbestos Time Bomb
Global Asbestos Panorama 2009
Asbestos Diseases - A Global Ecological Perspective
KEYNOTE PRESENTATION: Current Situation of Asbestos-Related
Problems in China
Discussion
Press Conference - This will take place simultaneously with Plenary
Plenary Session 2- Tackling the Hazardous Aftermath of Asia’s
Asbestos Consumption
ILO Campaign to End Asbestos-Related Disease
Towards Elimination of Asbestos-related Diseases: WHO Approach
Asbestos Victims’ Campaigns in Asia
Global Mobilization of Trade Union Action on Asbestos
A New Australia-Asia Asbestos Research Cooperative to Help Victims of
Asbestos Disease
Transnational Claims: How U.S. Developments Affect Asian Asbestos Victims

Discussion
Workshop 1 – The Basic Facts about Asbestos
Introduction to Asbestos
Dust Prevention for Carpenters: Grassroots Activity on a Construction Site in
CAW Asbestos Action
CFMEU Training on Asbestos Hazards, Agreements ,Campaigning
Challenges of Retired Asbestos Workers
Open Forum
Workshop 2 – Medical Session
Pathological Diagnosis of Asbestos-Related Diseases
Asbestosis among Ex-asbestos Workers of a Mumbai Asbestos Factory: A
Prevalence Study
Environmental Fallout from Asbestos Pollution in Korea - Asbestosis Epidemics
from Neighborhood Exposure in Chungnam Provinces, Korea
Asbestos-related lung cancer in Japanese construction workers
The Latest Data on Mesothelioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Case Study: Asbestosis in the Aftermath of Cyclone Tracy
Discussion
Break-Out Session 1 – Potential Asian Claims on U.S. Asbestos
Bankruptcy Trusts
Break-Out Session 2 – Building the Ban Asbestos Asian
Network
Workshop 3 – Practical Considerations for Minimizing the Asbestos Hazard
Case Study: Post-disaster Recovery and the Problem of Asbestos
Case Study: ESB Experience of Remediating Asbestos Contaminated Land
A Holistic Approach to Managing Asbestos Hazards
"The Art of Applying Science to Asbestos Abatement:" A Moral Obligation to
Minimize Exposure While Maintaining Costs
Asbestos Removal in a Subway Station During Operation
Development of Asbestos-free Roofing Materials in China
Technology and Equipment for Production of Non-asbestos Corrugated Cement
Sheets in Vietnam
Discussion

27th April, 2009
Morning Session
Plenary Session 3 – Country Reports
India
Bangladesh
Sri Lanka
Philippines
Pakistan
Indonesia
Hong Kong
Malaysia
Discussion
Plenary Session 4 – Meeting the Needs of Asbestos Victims
Compensation for Asbestos Disease in New South Wales, Australia
Japan Association of Mesothelioma, Asbestos-Related Disease
Victims and Their Families
Ban Asbestos Network Korea
Asbestos in Talc baby powder - social awakening experience of Korea
Discussion
Workshop 4 – International Transfer of Asbestos Industry to
Asian Locations
Case Report of the International Trade of the Asbestos Industry in Asia -
Joint Case Study: Exposure Survey of Nichias Textile Factories in Japan, Korea
and Indonesia
Asbestos Claims against an Australian Multinational – The James Hardie
Experience
Brazilian Asbestos Exports to Asia
Discussion

Workshop 5 – Shipyards, Ship Breaking Industry and Railways
Organizing Migrant Ship breaking workers in India - An unique experience -
Case Study Report of Malignant Mesothelioma Caused by Occupational
Exposure to Asbestos in Taiwan Shipyards
Shipbuilding-mesothelioma in Europe and in Asia
Asbestos in Rail Vehicles – A Case Study in How Not to Scrap Asbestos-
Contaminated Rail Vehicles
Discussion
Plenary Session 5 – Building the Global Ban Asbestos Network
Social Movements in South America
Mobilisation of European Action on Asbestos
Ban Asbestos Mobilisation in Korea
Building a Grassroots Asbestos Victims' Organization in North America
Grassroots Strengthening and Building of Grassroots Agencies in Asia
International Protocols, Rotterdam Convention, World Bank
Open Forum
Plenary Session 6 – Going Forward: Consolidation and Closing
Session
Hong Kong Declaration
Launch of Asian Ban Asbestos Network (A-BAN)
Awards Ceremony – Presentation of IBAS Grassroots Bursaries: by
Presentation of The Henri Pezerat Memorial Award 2009
Morning Session
International Workers’ Memorial Day, Chater Garden, Central, Hong
Kong Island

Government trying to protect asbestos industry, scientist alleges

(In the picture: Stephen Harper, Prime Minister, Canada)
Motive questioned in failure to disclose asbestos study
A British expert who oversaw a report on the dangers of the chrysotile variety of asbestos says he believes Ottawa tried to suppress his work to protect the Quebec industry that mines the cancer-causing mineral.

"I can only speculate, and my speculation is that there were interests in continuing Canadian production of chrysotile and they saw the report as a threat," Trevor Ogden, editor-in-chief of the Annals of Occupational Hygiene and a former top adviser to the British government on asbestos hazards, said in an interview.

Dr. Ogden headed an expert panel that Health Canada assembled in late 2007 to study the cancer risk of chrysotile. The report has been ready since March, 2008, but has been available only since last week
after Access to Information Act requests from the media, including The Globe and Mail.

Health Canada isn't publishing the report on its website, the usual practice for scientific studies that it funds, but says anyone who asks for a copy will be given one.

Although the link between asbestos and cancer is accepted internationally, the saga of the report indicates just how sensitive the issue is within the federal government.

Canada and other developed countries use little asbestos, and many nations ban it because of the health and liability risk. Most of Quebec's production is exported to the developing world for use as an inexpensive additive to strengthen cement building products.

Ottawa has spent nearly $20-million since 1984 promoting the mineral abroad. Health Canada said it delayed releasing the report because of the need to study it. "Health Canada took the time necessary to carefully
review the findings of the report, and to consult with other federal and provincial partners," it said in a statement to The Globe.

The introduction to the report, written by Dr. Ogden, concludes that chrysotile shows "a strong relationship of exposure with lung cancer, but a much less certain relationship with mesothelioma," a cancer in the lining of the chest wall.

The report also concludes that chrysotile generally contains trace amounts of a more harmful variety of asbestos known as tremolite.

As well, the panel noted but couldn't explain why the results of two studies suggest that it is far more of a health hazard for people to work with asbestos than to mine it.

The studies showed that lung cancer risk in South Carolina textile workers who use asbestos was about 70 times greater than that of Quebec's miners, according to the report. Asbestos causes cancer when its fibres are inhaled.

In an interview, Leslie Stayner, an epidemiology professor at the University of Illinois who was on Health Canada's asbestos panel, said researchers do not know why the textile workers were at greater risk. He said one theory is that the longer asbestos fibres used to make textiles are more deadly.

Dr. Stayner says he would be reluctant to work with Health Canada again because he feels the government "violated" an understanding that the work would be published in a timely fashion on a government website.

Health Canada said in its statement that it "sought the advice of leading international scientists on the risks posed by chrysotile asbestos so that it could better understand the scientific debate. No other country has encouraged such a debate amongst scientists with widely varying opinions."

Health Canada isn't alone in having trouble handling the issue of asbestos. Late last month, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff responded to a questioner at a town hall in Victoria about Canada's asbestos exports by saying the sales "of this dangerous product overseas has got to stop."

The remarks were recorded by the Tyee, the British Columbia-based online magazine.

"I'm probably walking right off the cliff into some unexpected public policy bog of which I'm unaware, but if asbestos is bad for parliamentarians in the Parliament of Canada, it just has to be bad for everybody else," he said.

But when he was later asked about the remark by reporters, he dropped the call for an end to exports.

MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT
ENVIRONMENT REPORTER
Globe and Mail

P.S.: In the pictures, Narayan and Suneetha Mehra in Ahmedabad. Mehra, who worked at a power plant and insulated steel poles with asbestos, has asbestosis, and so does his wife, from washing his clothes. Under the law the former can pursue the case for meager sum of money as compensation but fearing a protracted legal battle, he chose a out of court settlement. Few thousand of rupees that he got has already been spent in buying medicines which are nothing more than placebo. His wife does not have even this legal remedy or any other remedy.

Immoral exports

April 21, 2009

For too long the federal government, to its shame, has denied and avoided
evidence about the dangers of chrysotile asbestos, a product that Canada
mines and exports around the world.

The new release of a Health Canada report, documenting as it does a "strong
relationship" between lung cancer and exposure to chrysotile asbestos, means
the government can rationalize its irresponsible behaviour no longer, and
must finally ban these exports. Canada's reputation as a moral player on the
international stage is being jeopardized by its willingness to ship asbestos
to some of the poorest parts of the world.

As one of the largest exporters of chrysotile asbestos in the world, Canada
has fiercely protected this dying industry, which now supports only about
550 jobs in Quebec. Canada's official position has been that chrysolite
asbestos is safer than other asbestos products because it has shorter
fibres, and with proper handling and practices is acceptable for use.

A number of experts behind the Health Canada report criticized the
"safe-use" idea. One said that it's "misleading" for Canada to suggest that
a poor country like India, which receives the bulk of Canada's chrysolite
asbestos, will find a way to use it more safely than it has been used in the
wealthy West.

In 2006, Canada had a particular shameful moment when it led a group of
countries that blocked the naming of chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous
chemical in the Rotterdam Convention. The inclusion of this product would
not have banned sales but would have required exporting countries to provide
information to importing countries about the dangers of the stuff.

Moreover, not only has Canada taken a lead in blocking international efforts
to make the use of chrysotile asbestos safer but the government has stalled
on making public its own expert report on the subject.

The report, commissioned by Health Canada, was completed more than a year
ago yet was only made public this month by Canwest News Service, which had
waited 10 months -- yes, 10 months -- for a response to an Access to
Information request. Indeed, the British chair of the panel that wrote the
report had accused the Canadian government of "misusing science" and, in
failing to make the report public, of practicing "needless government
secrecy."

Ultimately, the debate about whether one form of asbestos is more likely to
cause certain types of cancer than others is not the point. It's sufficient
that the newly-released study shows that exposure to chrysotile asbestos is
not safe. As panellist Leslie Stayner, director of epidemiology and
biostatistics at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, put it:
"The fundamental question of whether it's hazardous or not is clear. I think
the answer to that is, yes, chrysotile is a hazardous substance."

Canada's willingness to peddle asbestos to the world's most vulnerable
populations, all for the sake of a few dollars in Quebec, is a long-standing
disgrace. The current federal government is notorious for its ability to
dismiss empirical data and the counsel of scientific experts, but perhaps
the Health Canada report will be one study that even this government will be
too embarrassed to ignore.

The Ottawa Citizen
Editorial

Asbestos everywhere

Supporting a toxic trade

While the federal government is busy cutting funding for real scientific research, it still spends money on the pseudo-scientific promotion of asbestos

By Kathleen Ruff and Colin L. Soskolne,
Ottawa Citizen, April 17, 2009

The Harper government has come under increased criticism for its lack of support for the scientific community, but it is still funding the pseudo-science of Canada's little-known asbestos lobby, which is pushing the carcinogen on developing countries around the world.

As reported in the Citizen on April 16 ("Health Canada sat on report tying asbestos to lung cancer,") it appears the government employs a variety of measures to suppress information on the threat to health posed by Canada's
asbestos.

Like in previous years, this year's budget committed $250,000 as a "Contribution to the Asbestos Institute to foster the international implementation of the safe and responsible use of chrysotile asbestos." Over the past 25 years, Liberal and Conservative governments have given the institute more than $19 million as part of what the Canadian Medical Association Journal calls "shameful, political manipulation of science."

The Asbestos Institute, now known as the Chrysotile Institute, promotes "scientific experts" to champion Canada's international trade in chrysotile asbestos. It's a toxic trade. According to the World Health Organization
(WHO) approximately 125 million workers worldwide are exposed to asbestos on the job, which results in at least 90,000 deaths every year.

Canada has the dubious distinction of being the second-largest exporter of asbestos (21 per cent of the market) even though we ourselves have virtually banned it. In fact, the federal government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to remove asbestos from the Parliament Buildings because it's too dangerous for MPs and their staffs.

Health leaders from across Canada recently asked Prime Minister Stephen Harper to stop funding the Chrysotile Institute, writing "it is a slur on the reputation of the scientific community and people of Canada for the government to be funding such perversion of scientific information." The institute, a registered lobbyist for the asbestos industry, changed its name to the Chrysotile Institute in 2004. Most people don't know what
chrysotile is. That's a plus for public relations. Chrysotile asbestos is the only form of asbestos sold commercially today; 95 per cent of all the asbestos ever used is chrysotile asbestos.

Over 90 per cent of Canada's asbestos is mixed with cement in developing countries to make roofing for schools and houses. The World Health Organization (WHO) highlights the particular danger of asbestos cement because it gets widely distributed and exposes large numbers of people to risk of asbestos-caused disease.

According to the health leaders, the Chrysotile Institute has put forward "the nonsensical, unsubstantiated claim," for example, that chrysotile asbestos essentially disappears when it is mixed with cement.

The theory of the magical disappearance of asbestos once mixed with asbestos cement is the brainchild of John Bridle, promoted by the Institute as "the foremost authority on asbestos sciences in the world."

This is surprising considering that Mr. Bridle has no apparent scientific qualifications. In 2005, he was convicted and fined by a United Kingdom court under the Trades Description Act for falsely claiming on his business
letterhead to have a basic minimum asbestos surveyor qualification, when he had failed the exam.

The institute ignores information from the WHO, the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the world scientific community that chrysotile asbestos is a deadly carcinogen that should be banned. The Chrysotile Institute claims that it can be safely used.

Taxpayers might be surprised to know they are funding a political campaign to overthrow the WHO's policy banning asbestos. In its February 2008 newsletter, the Institute promoted a plan to use "all means available ...
including repeated and consistent pressure from governments to the Director General (Dr. Margaret Chan) of the WHO," in order to overturn the WHO's policy to ban chrysotile asbestos.

Do we want our tax dollars used to sabotage the World Health Organization? Apart from the integrity question, it is fiscally irresponsible to give Economic Development Canada funds to the Chrysotile Institute to bolster a dying industry. Over 90 per cent of the workers in Canada's asbestos industry have been laid off; the remaining 550 workers in Quebec have had their wages slashed and work part-year; and in 2007, the remaining asbestos
mining company, LAB Chrysotile Inc., filed for bankruptcy protection.

The money would be better spent on viable economic development for the region and assisting the remaining miners and their families.

A recent review in the prestigious medical journal, The Lancet, refers to Canada's "singularly malevolent role in promoting asbestos use in the developing world." It's time for Prime Minister Harper to stop funding "malevolent" misinformation.

The NDP is presently the only party in Parliament to adopt a policy in support of banning asbestos.

At a Victoria town-hall meeting on March 28, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff acknowledged the double standard whereby the Canadian government is spending millions of dollars to remove asbestos from the Parliament
Buildings, while at the same time promoting the export of asbestos to the developing world. "If asbestos is bad for parliamentarians in the Parliament of Canada, it just has to be bad for everybody else," said Ignatieff. "Our
export of this dangerous product overseas has got to stop."

By April 1, after strong pressure from the asbestos lobby, Mr. Ignatieff did an about face, saying, "We have an obligation to international agreements to the countries that we export to, to make them aware of the risks. That is
all I said." Many of the 300 people in the audience may disagree with that re-interpretation.

It's time for Mr. Harper and Mr. Ignatieff to end this shameful double standard: Our export of this dangerous product overseas has indeed got to stop.

Kathleen Ruff is a former director of the Court Challenges Program and senior human rights adviser to the Rideau Institute on International Affairs. She is author of Exporting Harm: How Canada Markets Asbestos to the
Developing World.
Colin L. Soskolne is a professor of Epidemiology in the Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Alberta.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Asbestos, Asbestos Everywhere...

(Security check up under asbestos roof in Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi)
India continues to import the asbestos toxic mineral primarily from Canada and Russia although over 50 countries around the world have banned it. In 2008, Canada exported $77 million worth of asbestos; 43% of it went to India. Asbestos is is mixed with cement and used to create infrastructure like pipes, brakes, and rooftops etc.

At least since 1984, the Canadian asbestos industry created the Chrysotile Institute (previously known as Asbestos Institute) and Canadian government has contributed more than $19 million to the institute for the promotion of this killer fiber by legitimizing bad science manufactured at the behest of the industry.

Caught in a time warp, people with only philistine concerns like Clément Godbout, President, Chrysotile Institute, Laurent Lessard, a politician from Québec, Dr Jacques Dunnigan, a industry toxicologist, Dr David Bernstein, an industry consultant toxicology from Switzerland, Dr Suresh Moolgavkar, pro-industry Professor, Epidemiology from US, Dr. Michel Camus, a Canadian politician, Dr Sergey V. Kashansky, Ekaterinburg Medical Research Cente from Russia, Dr Hans Weill, Tulane University School of Medecine from US, Dr John Hoskins, industry toxicologist from UK, Dr Nikolai Izmerov, Head, Russian Occupational Health Institute, Russia, Luis Cejudo Alva, industry Consultant, Instotuto Mexicano de Fibro-Industrias, Mexico, Dr Vivek Chandra Rao, Hyderabad Industries, India, John Bridle from UK, Denis Hamel from Canada, Dr Dennis Paustenbach from US, Dr Matiana Ramirez Aguilar from Mexico, Dr Ericson Bagatin, - Occupational Health Area, Medical Sciences School State University of Campinas, Sao Paulo from Brazil and Gary Nash, a Canadian politician are involved in a consistent misinformation campaign and anti-public health propaganda to safeguard the blood tainted profit of the chrysotile asbestos industry across the developing world.

Pat Martin, Winnipeg Member of Parliament, attempted to make the House of Commons, Canada declare April Fools Day (April 1) an asbestos awareness day for asbestos-related diseases because Canadian government has misled the world for quite a while. “We’ve fooled the world with phony science for too long,” Martin said. As a youth Martin spent two years mining asbestos in the Yukon. At the time, he was completely unaware that the effects from working in such an environment could be fatal. Currently, Canada is exporting more than 200,000 tons of asbestos each year. In 2005, 61 percent of occupational fatalities in Canada were the result of asbestos exposure, totaling 340 people.

The Canadian Cancer Society fully supported Martin in his efforts in asking the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to set a timeline for phasing out the use and export of Canada’s chrysotile asbestos. The Canadian Cancer Society said, “We are stating factually that all forms of asbestos cause cancer.” The last remaining active asbestos mine in Canada is located in Quebec, which exports 90 percent of all the asbestos that it produces.