Preventable asbestos related diseases and deaths must be prevented, regulators and manufacturers held criminally liable

Preventable asbestos related diseases and deaths must be prevented, regulators and manufacturers held criminally liable 

National Labour Institute journal publishes paper seeks “elimination of use of all kinds of asbestos as per the recommendations of the Court, ILO and WHO”

“If preventable diseases and deaths are not prevented, the regulators and manufacturers of asbestos based products must face criminal liability”, said Dr Gopal Krishna, Editor, ToxicsWatch and convener, Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI) while delivering a speech at the 3^rd International Conference on Occupational and Environmental Health (ICOEH 2016) in at National Institute of Health & Family Welfare (NIHFW), Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of India, New Delhi. Drawing lessons from the ongoing industrial disaster of Bhopal caused by Union Carbide Corporation, he argued that the public health disaster being caused by asbestos based industries shows that no lessons have been learnt from the industrial disaster which happened 32 years ago and which continues to be an ongoing disaster. Like hazardous chemicals, asbestos is a threat to life throughout its life cycle. 

He was speaking at the Scientific Session III “Elimination of Asbestos Related Diseases in India” which was chaired by Dr. U Datta, Dean, NIHFW.

The abstract of Krishna’s paper titled “Status of enviro-occupational  health of workers in hazardous industries: An inquiry into asbestos industry” has been published in the Souvenir of the ICOEH.

“This paper examines the hazards which workers face in the in the asbestos based industries. The paper examines the implications of routine admission by the industry that asbestos fibers which are used in their plants as a raw material is hazardous in nature and the “industry will give information to the workers on hazards associated with asbestos" given the fact that asbestos factory's "Construction site has a potential hazardous environment." The paper will evaluate the regulatory mechanisms in place to deal with the deleterious effect of exposure to asbestos fibers and the role of the asbestos products manufacturers. The paper reviews the submission to National Human Rights Commission by Maharashtra government and inconsistencies that get revealed from the documents of state’s Directorate of Industrial Safety & Health (DISH) in the matter of death and diseases of workers who worked in asbestos based factories and on plots of ship breakers.”

“It examines the studies conducted by National Institute of Occupational Health, Ahmedabad on health hazards resulting from asbestos industry and shipbreaking industry.”

“The paper examines the status of asbestos factories in Bhojpur, Bihar. The occupational health status of 78 workers currently working in the asbestos based factrory in Bihiya, Bhojpur is dealt with reference to the death of a worker in the factory. The paper documents the reaction of the government and the company to the death of the worker in question. It reviews the role of State Government, Patna High Court, Bihar State Assembly, Bihar Human Rights Commission, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Central Pollution Control Board and National Human Rights Commission in the matter of asbestos based factories in the state. The paper reviews the decision of the Government of India to stop “grant any new mining lease for asbestos (including Chrysotile variety) in the country" keeping in mind the ‘deleterious effect of asbestos mining on health of the workers’. It examines its rationale of promoting trade, manufacturing and use of asbestos fibers in India.” 

“The paper draws on lessons from the industrial disaster of 1984. This disaster demonstrated that what happens to workers happens to communities and environment. The life cycle assessment of hazardous industries and products has unequivocally established the adverse health impact on workers and consumers. Workers and the communities in the vicinity are a community of fate.  The link between occupational exposures and non-exposures isn’t quite distant. The paper underlines how lack of documentation and lack of occupational health infrastructure does not mean lack of victims of asbestos related diseases.”

“It infers that there is a need for adopting measures consistent with global scientific and medical findings to safeguard workers from asbestos related incurable diseases caused due to occupational exposures and non-occupational exposures of their families. It builds a case for intervention aimed at saving workers’ health and life from dirty, degrading and dangerous working and living conditions.”  The abstract of the paper is available at page no, 74 of the Souvenir published by ICOEH. ICOEH was co-organised by Department of Community Medicine, Vardhaman Mahavir Mdical College & Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, National Institute of Health and Family Welfare (NIHFW), New Delhi in partnership with Occupational Health and Safety Management Consultancy Services (OHS-MC) and in collaboration with Indian Public Health Association, St. Stephen's Hospital, Delhi, Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences & Research (HIMSR), New Delhi, Indian Association of Preventive and Social Medicine, Community Medicine Department, PDU Govt. Medical College, Rajkot Gujarat, Indian Association for Adolescent Health, Dept of Community Medicine, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, Advanced Research Publications, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and Center for Inquiry, Washington, DC, USA.         

The Souvenir was released by Dr. Jagdish Prasad, Director General of Health Services, Government of India along with Dr Barry Kistnasamy, Occupational Health/Compensation Commissioner, South Africa, Dr. Jugal Kishore Chairman, Scientific Committee, ICOEH, Prof Dr J K Das and Dr Ashish Mittal.    

Speaking at the conference, it was argued that there is a logical compulsion for Union of India to support inclusion of white chrysotile asbestos in the UN list of hazardous chemicals under UN’s Rotterdam Convention.

In a related development, an academic paper “Status of occupational health of workers in hazardous industries: An inquiry into asbestos and ship breaking industry”published in Labour & Development journal by V. V. Giri National Labour Institute, the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government India concludes. “Given incontrovertible evidence, the government ought to consider recommendations to take preventive steps by ensure elimination of use of all kinds of asbestos as per the recommendations of the Court, ILO and WHO.  The continued use of white chrysotile asbestos is a legacy of the Soviet era. There are established substitutes of these killer fibers of asbestos which need to be adopted to prevent incurable diseases but preventable deaths. In view of the ongoing environmental exposures, emergence of the epidemic of asbestos related diseases and diseases due to exposure to other hazardous substances there is an immediate need to create a register of these workers and their health records as per Court's decision and to undertake an audit of the current status of the victims of asbestos related diseases from the government hospital records in the country and make it mandatory for medical colleges to provide training for doctors. This is required so that they can diagnose diseases caused by occupational, non-occupational and environmental exposures to killer fibers and substances.”    

http://www.vvgnli.org/sites/default/files/publication_files/labour-development-december-2015.pdf

This paper “reveals that the relationship between the employer and the employee in asbestos industry is deeply exploitative. The latter suffers the fate of dehumanization. They have become the most vulnerable workforce in the world. Their condition is admittedly worse than the workforce in the worst industrial sector-the mining industry. This dehumanization linked to the externalization of human cost by global and national companies. The workers of the hazardous industries constitute part of the community of fate to which all wretched of the earth belong with no remedy from occupational health crisis in sight.”

Drawing on Central Government’s Draft National Health Policy, 2015 which mentions “industrial and occupational safety” as part of multiple determinants of health, it concludes that “So far “existing knowledge” has failed to inspire institutional action to safeguard the health of even the most vulnerable working class. It is apparent that there has been a policy bias against them since inception. If this policy can facilitate preventive structural measures with regard to preventable but incurable diseases “that are more prevalent in certain occupational groups” it can pave the way for occupational health justice for the workers. 

For Details: Gopal Krishna, BANI/ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Mb: 09818089660, 08227816731, Email: 1715krishna@gmail.com, Web: http://www.asbestosfreeindia.org, www.toxicswatch.org

Bihar Government yet to submit comments in Asbestos case to NHRC

In spite of reminders, the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar has not furnished his comments on the comments of the Toxics Watch Alliance dated 1.3.2015. Hence, the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar may be reminded to furnish his comments as sought for by the National Human Rights Commission within four weeks. 

This is the status of the asbestos in the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) as of April 6, 2016. 

NHRC Vide proceedings dated 22.12.2014, notice was issued to the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India requiring him to report whether any steps had been taken pursuant to the proposal to ban the use of Chrysotile Asbestos in India to protect the workers and the general population against primary and secondary exposure of Chrysotile form of Asbestos.

 Though the notice dated 29.1.2015 was sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India for submitting report by 20.3.2015, no report has been received so far. Hence, a reminder may be issued to the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India to submit a report in the matter within four weeks. Vide proceedings dated 22.12.2014, the Government of Bihar was directed to file a report within six weeks regarding the question whether the directions contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court in W.P. (C ) No.206 of 1986 are being followed by the manufacturers of asbestos in the State of Bihar including M/s Ramco Industries Ltd., District Bhojpur. However, no response has been received from the Government of Bihar despite the communication dated 29.1.2015 sent by the Commission. Hence, the Secretary, Labour Department, Government of Bihar may be reminded to submit the required report within four weeks, failing which the Commission will be constrained to take action u/s 13 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

Pursuant to the proceedings dated 20.3.2015, a copy of the comments of the Toxics Watch Alliance dated 1.3.2015 was sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar for his comments within a period of eight weeks. But the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar has not furnished his comments so far. Hence, the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar may be directed to submit within four weeks his comments in respect of the comments dated 1.3.2015 of Toxics Watch Alliance, which had been sent to him by the Commission. The report received from the Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai regarding the hazardous effect of asbestos was considered by the Commission on 30.3.2015 and it was directed to give a copy of the report to the representatives of the Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers' Association seeking their comments.

Accordingly, the report was forwarded to Ms. Rashmi Virmani, Advocate vide Commission letter dated 1.5.2015. Ms. Rashmi Virmani, Advocate has submitted the comments of the Association through communication dated 29.6.2015. As Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers' Association has requested to ignore the report submitted by the Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai for the reasons stated in their comments. The comments of the Association may be forwarded to the Tata Memorial Centre (TMC), Mumbai requesting for their response to the criticism made by the Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers' Association.

The Director, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai may be requested to sent a response within four weeks. From a report submitted by the State of Tamil Nadu pursuant to the notice issued by the Commission, it is seen that the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Govt. of India had constituted an Advisory Committee on asbestos and the first meeting of the Committee was held on 19.4.2012. It is also seen that the Directorate General, Factory Advice Service & Labour Institutes (DGFASLI) has modified the existing Schedule on Asbestos in line with ILO Convention No.162 on the direction s of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is also seen that the revised model rules were yet to be approved by the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Govt. of India. In the above circumstances, the Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Govt. of India is requested to inform the Commission within four weeks whether the revised model rules have been approved by the Government of India. 

Earlier, NHRC took cognizance of a complaint alleging that about fifty thousand people die every year in the country due to Asbestos related cancer. The complainant has sought Commission's intervention for a ban on the use of Chrysotile Asbestos (White Asbestos), which is hazardous for the health of people and causes various incurable diseases. The white Asbestos is a fibrous material used for building roofs and walls and various in other forms.

Citing contradictory position of the Government on the issue the complainant Toxics Watch Alliance has alleged that though the mining of Asbestos has been technically banned by the government, but it allows its import and that too from the countries which do not prefer its domestic use.

It is also alleged that white Asbestos is considered a hazardous chemical substance for environment by a number of countries in the world. However, it is being used in a number of industries in India affecting the workers employed their in.

The complainant has also requested for grant of a compensation package for present and future victims of Asbestos diseases.

The Commission had issued notices to the Secretaries of Ministries of Chemical Fertilizers, Environment and Forest, Health and Family Welfare, Industry and Commerce, Labour and Chief Secretaries of all the States/Union Territories calling for status reports within four weeks on the issues raised in the complaint. Almost all these agencies have filed their replies in the Commission. The case is at its penultimate stage.  

The Chief Administrative Officer, TMC, Mumbai has also not submitted his response on the communication dated 29.6.2015 submitted by Ms. Rashmi Virmani, Advocate which contained the objections of the Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers' Assocition. The Chief Administrative Officer, TMC, Mumbai may be reminded to submit the required response within four weeks.

For Details: Gopal Krishna, Ban Asbestos Network of India-ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Mb: 08227816731, 09818089660, E-mail-1715krishna@gmail.com, Web: www.asbestosfreeindia.org,  www.toxicswatch.org

Govt must Make India Asbestos Free by rectifying irrationality of banning mining of asbestos but continuing its trade

Inclusion of White Chrysotile Asbestos in the UN List of hazardous substances postponed, to be considered again at Rotterdam Convention’s COP 8

Govt must Make India Asbestos Free by rectifying irrationality of banning mining of asbestos but continuing its trade

INDIA’S INVENTORY OF HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS IMPORT INCLUDES “ASBESTOS”, LIST OF BANNED HAZARDOUS WASTES INCLUDES WASTE ASBESTOS (DUST AND FIBERS)

Documents on hazardous substances like White Chrysotile Asbestos and incurable diseases must be made available in Indian languages

May 15, 2015: Following opposition by Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Zimbabwe to the listing of White Chrysotile Asbestos in the UN list of hazardous substances, UN Rotterdam Convention’s Seventh Conference of Parties (COP7) agreed to postpone the issue of its inclusion for consideration by COP8. Unlike these countries, Inventory of Hazardous Chemicals Import in India prepared by Union Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India lists 'Asbestos' at serial no. 26 as one of the 180 hazardous chemicals imported in India.

In a bizarre act while Government of India has technically banned asbestos mining, it continues to allow import and export of asbestos. "In view of the deleterious effect of asbestos mining on health of the workers, the government has ordered the State governments in 1986 not to grant any new mining lease for asbestos (including Chrysotile variety) in the country" as per Government of India’s letter with reference no. 7/23/84-AM-III/AM-VI dated 09.07.1986, Government must make India asbestos free by rectifying the irrationality of banning mining of asbestos but continuing its trade.

Incidentally, 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.

Notably, all the forms of asbestos including Actinolite asbestos, Anthophyllite, Amosite asbestos, Crocidolite and Tremolite are already in the PIC list except White Chrysotile Asbestos. While there is a genral prohibition on production, importation, commercialization and use of Asbestos fibres Amphiboles forms (Crocidolites, Amosite, Actinolite, Tremolite, Anthophyllite) and products formulated on its basis but India gives "Consent to import only subject to specified conditions" for Anthophyllite. Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI) has been struggling to ensure its inclusion of all kinds of asbestos in the Convention’s hazardous substances list.

The inclusion of Chrysotile Asbestos in Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade was on the agenda of its CoP 7. It was part of matters related to the implementation of the Convention through consideration of chemicals for inclusion in Annex III to the Convention through UN document no. UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.7/11. The chemicals in the PIC list are clearly divided into two groups: industrial chemicals and pesticides. Parties make import responses for each chemical and the responses are published in the PIC Circular. The criteria for listing a chemical in Annex III are contained in Annex II of the Convention.

In accordance with articles 5 and 7 of the Convention, the Chemical Review Committee (CRC) at its second meeting recommended the listing of chrysotile asbestos in Annex III to the Convention, approved the text of a draft decision guidance document on chrysotile asbestos (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.7/11/Add.1, annex) and decided to forward the recommendation and the draft decision guidance document to the Conference of the Parties for consideration.

At its third meeting, the Conference of the Parties deliberated on the inclusion of chrysotile asbestos in Annex III to the Convention and, by paragraph 2 of decision RC-3/3, decided that the requirements set out in article 5, including the criteria set out in Annex II to the Convention as referenced in paragraph 6 of article 5 of the Convention, the requirements set out in paragraph 1 of article 7 of the Convention and the requirements set out in the first sentence of paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Convention on the process for listing in Annex III to the Convention, had been met. The Conference of the Parties, however, did not reach consensus on whether to list chrysotile asbestos and, by paragraph 1 of decision RC-3/3, decided to further consider the amendment of Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention to include chrysotile asbestos at its fourth meeting.

At its fourth and fifth meetings, the Conference of the Parties deliberated on the inclusion of chrysotile asbestos in Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention, but was not able to reach consensus. At the fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties, the contact group on candidate chemicals prepared a draft decision on follow-up action by the Chemical Review Committee on the listing of chrysotile asbestos. As the chemical was not listed, the Conference of the Parties agreed to annex the draft decision to the report of the Conference on the work of its fifth meeting for possible consideration at a future meeting (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.5/26, annex IV).

Following discussions at its sixth meeting, the Conference of the Parties decided, given the lack of consensus, to include further consideration of the listing of chrysotile asbestos in Annex III to the Convention on the agenda of its seventh meeting (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.6/20, para.79).

At CoP 7, the proposed action included parties to satisfy themselves that all the requirements for listing in Annex III have been met after considering the recommendation of the CRC to make chrysotile asbestos subject to the prior informed consent procedure and accordingly to list the chemical in Annex III to the Convention. Following which they were supposed to decide to amend Annex III to the Convention to list Chrysotile Asbestos, the industrial chemical. It was also supposed to decide that this amendment to enter into force for all parties on 15^th September 2015 after approving the draft decision guidance document on chrysotile asbestos. But the proceedings did not proceed as proposed.  

On 14^th May, 2015, COP7 considered the inclusion of chrysotile asbestos in Annex III of the Convention (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.7/11) but owing to opposition from interested parties like the Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Zimbabwe, the issue of listing of chrysotile asbestos has been deferred yet again for consideration by CoP8.

The obligations of the Convention on responsible trade fall on those exporting countries that are Parties to the Convention. The Convention requires countries to strengthen their own chemicals management infrastructures and enforcement mechanisms. The Convention includes final regulatory actions (bans or severe restrictions) where the action was taken for the purposes of human health OR environmental reasons but mere listing does not lead to ban. The inclusion of chemicals in Annex III is not an invitation for Parties to ban their use. The purpose of the prior informed consent procedure is to allow countries to make their own informed decisions on future imports of the chemical depending on their own needs, circumstances and uses of the chemical. However, if a Party decides not to allow any future import of a PIC chemical, then they must also ensure that any domestic manufacture and use of the chemical is banned. Imports of the chemical from non-Parties to the Convention should also not be allowed.

As at 31 October 2014, there were 154 parties to the Convention. During the reporting period (June 2013 to December 2014), four States- Afghanistan, Cambodia, Sao Tome and Principe and Indonesia acceded to or ratified the Convention.

The substances listed in the Annex III include Alachlor, Aldicarb, Aldrin, Azinphos-methyl, Binapacryl, Captafol, Chlordane, Chlordimeform, Chlorobenzilate, DDT, Dieldrin, Dinitro-ortho-cresol (DNOC) and its salts (such as ammonium salt, potassium salt and sodium salt),  Dinoseb and its salts and esters, EDB (1,2-dibromoethane), Endosulfan, Ethylene dichloride, Ethylene oxide, Fluoroacetamide, HCH (mixed isomers), Heptachlor, Hexachlorobenzene, Lindane (gamma-HCH), Mercury compounds, including inorganic mercury compounds, alkyl mercury compounds and alkyloxyalkyl and aryl mercury compounds, Monocrotophos, Parathion, Pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters, Toxaphene (Camphechlor), Tributyl tin compounds, Dustable powder formulations containing a combination of benomyl at or above 7%, carbofuran at or above 10% and thiram at or above 15%, Methamidophos (Soluble liquid formulations of the substance that exceed 600 g active ingredient/l), Methyl-parathion (Emulsifiable concentrates (EC) at or above 19.5% active ingredient and dusts at or above 1.5% active ingredient), Phosphamidon (Soluble liquid formulations of the substance that exceed 1000 g active ingredient/l), Actinolite asbestos, Anthophyllite, Amosite asbestos, Crocidolite, Tremolite, Commercial octabromodiphenyl ether (including Hexabromodiphenyl ether and Heptabromodiphenyl ether), Commercial pentabromodiphenyl ether (including tetrabromodiphenyl ether and pentabromodiphenyl ether), Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, perfluorooctane sulfonates, perfluorooctane sulfonamides and perfluorooctane sulfonyls, Polybrominated Biphenyls (PBBs), Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Polychlorinated Terphenyls (PCTs), Tetraethyl lead, Tetramethyl lead and Tris (2,3 dibromopropyl) phosphate.

The seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention (RC COP-7) was held from 4^th to 15^th May, 2015 simultaneously with the twelfth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention (BC COP-12) and the seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention (SC COP-7). The meetings included joint sessions among two or three of the conferences of the parties on joint issues. The theme for the meetings of the conferences of the parties to the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions was ‘From science to action, working for a safer tomorrow’.

In many countries, there are general provisions that do not allow the use or importation of any chemical that is not registered or approved. India should adopt such provisions and consider applying them to white chrysotile asbestos.  

As usual the working language for the UN conference was Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish. BANI demands that documents related to hazardous substances, whose exposure entails matters of life and death must be made available in Indian languages as well for greater public awareness, participation and action.

Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI) is a collective of researchers and social workers working for environmental and occupational health justice in general and for elimination of asbestos of all kinds from trade and use. It is struggling for just compensation for victims of primary and secondary exposure, decontamination of asbestos laden buildings and products and advocating adoption of non-hazardous alternatives to killer fibers of asbestos. It isn’t structurally associated with the transnational alliances working for asbestos free world. It is involved in struggling for a safe working and living conditions for workers in the asbestos based industries, ship breaking industry, construction industry, defence industry and other businesses. BANI’s work is independent public interest research and advocacy work with grass root organizations for safeguarding health of present and future generations.

BANI demands strict implementation of occupational health surveillance scheme through pre employment health examination and periodic health examination in industries where is possibility of exposure to airborne asbestos. Such scheme for health surveillance must include exposure data at each pertinent work place, periodical examination of workers, X-ray examination for radiological changes, lung function test for restrictive disorder and clinical examination for early detection of signs of asbestosis. These tests must be recorded for pre-employment, periodic surveillance and at cessation of employment. Occupational health surveillance must be carried out by occupational physician or chest physician trained in occupational medicine. The occupational health surveillance program must be drawn for all the employees potentially exposed to asbestos dust and it is to be provided free of cost.

BANI demands maintenance and storage of medical records for period of 15 years following the termination of employment or for 40 years after first day of employment, whichever is later by employers, government agencies and workers organizations. The medical records must be maintained covering the details of pre-employment examination, the periodical medical examinations, medical examination done at other times, if any and the medical examinations conducted at cessation of employment and further follow-up examinations, where done.

BANI demands that individual employees’ occupational exposure profile to asbestos, specific work practices, and preventive measures including plan for management of asbestos related diseases prescribed must be recorded.

BANI will continue to work for the inclusion of white chrysotile asbestos in the UN list. Its efforts have led to inclusion of asbestos in the Inventory of Hazardous Chemicals Import in India and inclusion of Waste Asbestos (Dust and Fibers) in the list of Hazardous Wastes Prohibited for Import and Export under Schedule VI of Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Its efforts led to the finding that 16 % workers in the shipbreaking industry occupationally exposed to asbestos.

Notably, “Buying asbestos is buying akin to buying cancer. I will get asbestos removed from my residence. The ache of asbestos hazards is worse than the ache of unemployment” said Awadesh Narain Singh, Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council, in a speech available on www.youtube.com

The Report of Working Group on Occupational Safety and Health, Xth Five Year Plan, Planning Commission observed that the workers are also exposed to a host of hazardous substances, which have a potential to cause serious occupational diseases such as asbestosis. It revealed substantial prevalence of occupational health disorders amongst the workers such as Asbestosis. The prevalence rate for Asbestosis was reported to be 7.25%.

The Vision Statement of Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change recommends phase out of chrysotile asbestos saying, "Alternatives to asbestos may be used to the extent possible and use of asbestos may be phased out."

http://moef.nic.in/divisions/cpoll/envhealth/visenvhealth.pdf

The Concept Paper of Union Ministry of Labour presented at Fifth India-EU Seminar states, “The Government of India is considering the ban the mining and use of chrysotile asbestos in India to protect the workers and the general population against primary and secondary exposure to Chrysotile form of Asbestos.”

http://www.labour.nic.in/lc/Background%20note.pdf

Under Indian 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.

Irrespective of the outcome of the CoP 7 given the fact that domestic laws are intact, it is high time Prime Minister intervened to ensure that Union Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers and Union Ministry of Commerce and Industry are not overwhelmed by Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers Association, a so-called not for profit organization, involved in persuading government representatives to give priority to the profit of the indefensible asbestos industry and to undermine public health concerns of present and future generations.

For Details: Gopal Krishna, Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI)-ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Mb: 08227816731, 09818089660, E-mail-1715krishna@gmail.com, Blog:banasbestosindia.blogspot.in Web: www.toxicswatch.org

Opposition to listing of white chrysotile asbestos in UN hazardous substances list untenable, unscientific, unsound, unsustainable, unacceptable and unpardonable

Prime Minister should ensure that Indian government officials do not get subordinated by asbestos industry at UN meet underway in Geneva

UN Meet on hazardous substances concludes on May 15 

Making India rife with asbestos related diseases, a sad legacy for Make in India slogan

Indian opposition to listing of white chrysotile asbestos in UN hazardous substances list would be contrary to its domestic laws and regulations 

May 14, 2015: ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) appeals to the Prime Minister Narendra Modi to ensure that Indian government officials do not get subordinated by representatives of Asbestos Cement Product Manufacturers Association (ACPMA), a cartel of some 18 companies and its international allies for the fifth time at the Seventh Conference of UN’s Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (CoP-7) in deciding to get white chrysotile asbestos listed under UN list of hazardous substances. Contrary to the misinformation campaign and propaganda war unleashed by asbestos producing countries like Russia and Kazakhstan, mere listing of white asbestos chrysotile does not constitute a trade ban. Indian delegation should be directed to act with the knowledge that listing it under the Convention does not constitute a trade ban on white chrysotile asbestos.

Under the influence of white chrysotile asbestos producing countries like Russia, if India opposes listing of white chrysotile asbestos in UN list would be in blatant violation of its domestic laws and regulations like Factories Act, 1948. In short, if Government of India takes such position, it will be deemed untenable, unscientific, unsound, unsustainable, unacceptable and unpardonable for all times to come among the comity of nations and amidst own people. Indian delegation should pay heed to the resolutions and recommendations of World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) instead of allowing itself to be hijacked by accompanying members of ACPMA. It will be a shame if the Indian delegation betrays the cause of public health and national interest to safeguard the interest of the ACPMA.

Indian delegation should re-adopt its 2011 position on white chrysotile asbestos when Mira Mehrshi led the Indian delegation and resisted the influence and presence of asbestos industry lobby amidst standing ovation. It is hoped that Shashi Shekhar, the head of Hazardous Substances Management Division, MoEF, Government of India will restore India's prestige by re-adopting a scientifically and legally defensible position.  Shashi Shekhar who also heads the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)’s INVENTORY OF HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS IMPORT IN INDIA prepared by CPCB, under Union Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India that lists 'asbestos' at serial no. 26 as one of the 180 hazardous chemicals in international trade which is imported in India.

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.

The Act is available at:

http://labour.nic.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/ActsandRules/Service_and_Employment/The%20Factories%20Act,%201948.pdf

A letter of B N Mehta, the then Chief Inspector of Factories, Gujarat State dated December 24th, 2002 submitted in the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically reveals that two workers of Gujarat Composites Ltd were confirmed for Asbestosis, an incurable lung disease by National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH), Ahmedabad. The workers were (1) Shri Hazarilal Manraj and (2) Shri Sahejram B Yadav. The letter recommended compensation of Rs 1 lakh as per the Hon'ble Court's order but till date the same has not been given. This establishes the hazardous nature of asbestos. The letter is available at https://twitter.com/krishna1715/status/503824823747751936

It must be recalled that on June 22, 2011 Indian delegation led by Ms. Mira Mehrishi, Additional Secretary, had supported the listing ofChrysotile asbestos as a hazardous chemical substance at the fifth conference on Rotterdam Convention (COP-5) amidst standing ovation. Not surprisingly, Mira Mehrishi’s reputation remains impeccable with unblemished track record.

For a government which has adopted the slogan of “Make in India”, endorsement of asbestos like products would be a glaring taint because it ends up making India with the blood money of white chrysotile asbestos manufacturers. It will tarnish its image by end up making India rife with asbestos related diseases, a sad legacy for slogan Make in India.    

It tantamounts to sacrificing public health in order to support the ideology of naked lust for profit espoused by unscrupulous white chrysotile asbestos companies at any human cost. In effect, India would be seen taking an irrational position arguing that it does not wish to be informed about the hazardous nature of substances it imports and does not wish to inform about it to the countries which export asbestos based goods from India. This also means that India is becoming complicit in the violation of human rights by knowingly doing business in hazardous substances like white chrysotile asbestos as per its own law. 

It is hoped even at this late stage that India will disassociate itself from the influence of white chrysotile asbestos producing companies and countries after examining the finding of the Contact Group set up by the President of the Conference of the Parties to achieve a consensus to list while chrysotile asbestos in the UN’s Prior Informed Consent (PIC) list-Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention. Chemical Review Committee (CRC) of the Convention has recommended its listing in view of compelling scientific and medical evidence.

It is noteworthy that when the attached joint letter dated May 3, 2015 was sent to Prakash Javdekar, Union Minister of Environment, Forests & Climate Change and Ananth Kumar, Union Minister of Chemicals and Fertilizers, the former responded with alacrity and put his acknowledgement of reasons for disassociating with asbestos producing countries like Russia on record. The fact remains Union Minister of Chemicals and Fertilizers did not respond although Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers is the Focal Point for Rotterdam Convention. It is also a fact that Indian delegation was misled in 2013 by an irrelevant and conflict of interest ridden note of this very Ministry. Notably, Indian delegation was joined by supporters of asbestos industry in 2013. It is quite apparent that the industry representatives overwhelmed the government representatives who were made to take position against human health and the environment and to put profit of the asbestos industry before gnawing public health concerns.

When ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) had confronted MoEF with domestic laws in 2013, the officials from MoEF expressed helplessness as they were bound by the attached note of the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers. Hopefully, the structural compulsions of inter-ministerial coordination will be overcome this time to outwit the designs of ACPMA to subjugate the Indian delegation to its whims in fancies.

Notably, India's National Human Rights Commission is deeply concerned about the issue and is seized with case dealing with deaths and diseases caused by exposure asbestos fibers.

Indian history remembers such examples of notorious, timid, weak, pliable, gullible and docile individuals with unfailing memory.  It’s a conflict between truth and profit.  A poison is a poison. A hazardous substance will remain a hazardous substance irrespective the outcome of the UN meeting that concludes on May 15, 2015 but the Indian delegation will stand exposed for compromising India’s stature and its scientific reputation.

White chrysotile asbestos is banned in over 50 countries because it’s safe and controlled use is impossible. In countries like India there is almost no health infrastructure to even diagnose the incurable diseases caused by exposure to its fibers. There is lack of lab facilities which can detect its presence in buildings and products in a situation where there is not a single building India which can claim to be asbestos free. It’s listing in the UN list merely a preliminary preventive step.

For Details: Gopal Krishna, Ban Asbestos Network of India-ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Mb: 08227816731, 09818089660, E-mail-1715krishna@gmail.com, Web: www.toxicswatch.org

UN Special Rapporteur troubled by "obstacles to the listing of asbestos and paraquat under the Rotterdam Convention"

India should support listing of both the chemicals in UN list  

May 6, 2015: In a statement addressed to the Conferences of the Parties to the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, UN Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, Baskut Tuncak expressed his dismay at "the erection of obstacles to the listing of asbestos and paraquat under the Rotterdam Convention during previous Conferences of the Parties."

Asbestos producers like Russia & Kazakhstan are opposing listing of white chrysotile asbestos under UN list of hazardous substances (Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention). World Health Organization (WHO) and International Labour Organization (ILO) have underlined the hazardous nature of this substance. White chrysotile asbestos is banned in over 50 countries because its safe and controlled use is impossible.

In countries like India there is almost no health infrastructure to even diagnose the incurable diseases caused by exposure to its fibers. There is lack of lab facilities which can detect its presence in buildings and products in a situation where there is not a single building India which can claim to be asbestos free. Its listing in the UN list merely a preliminary preventive step. India should re-adopt its 2011 position on white chrysotile asbestos when Mira Mehrshi led the Indian delegation and resisted the influence and presence of asbestos industry lobby amidst standing ovation. It is hoped that Shashi Shekhar, the head of Hazardous Substances Management Division, Government of India will restore India's prestige by re-adopting a scientifically and legally defensible position.       

Notably, India's National Human Rights Commission is deeply concerned about the issue and is seized with case dealing with deaths and diseases caused by exposure asbestos fibers.    

As to the listing of of Paraquat, as a severely hazardous pesticide formulation in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention, Guatemala and India blocked its listing at the last Conference of Parties in 2013. This substance herbicide is prohibited in more than 40 countries including the home country of Syngenta, the main manufacturer. A teaspoon of paraquat is enough to kill a person and there is no antidote. Farmers suffer from skin burns, blindness, and respiratory damage as a result of using paraquat. India should resist lobbying by business interests to protect public health.

Tuncak concluded saying, "It is both legally and morally unjustifiable for countries to continue to obstruct the listing of asbestos and paraquat under the Rotterdam Convention and derogates from their obligation to realize the right to access information.

I encourage all Parties to protect and respect human rights by listing asbestos, paraquat and other chemicals proposed for listing under the Rotterdam Convention."  

Chemical Review Committee (CRC) of the Rotterdam Convention has recommended their listing in the UN list.There is compelling scientific and medical evidence for India to support the listing of both these substances in the list of hazardous substances.

For Details: Gopal Krishna, Ban Asbestos Network of India-ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Mb: 08227816731, 09818089660, E-mail-1715krishna@gmail.com, Web: www.toxicswatch.orgFor Details: Gopal Krishna, Ban Asbestos Network of India-ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Mb: 08227816731, 09818089660, E-mail-1715krishna@gmail.com, Web: www.toxicswatch.org

Asbestos producers unleash propaganda war against WHO, ILO and Rotterdam Convention Secretariat

Russia & Kazakhstan opposing listing of white chrysotile asbestos under UN list of hazardous substances as if it constitutes ban

Joint session of three UN Conference of Parties (COP) of Basel Convention’s 12^th COP, 

 Rotterdam Convention’s 7^th COP and Stockholm Convention’s 7^th COP is underway in Geneva

India should ratify Ban Amendment to stop hazardous waste & end-of-life ships dumping

May 5, 2015: While white chrysotile asbestos is on the agenda of UN’s Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade for the fifth time, Russia & Kazakhstan are behaving as if mere listing of white asbestos chrysotile under UN list of hazardous substances constitute a trade ban. They are disregarding the fact that listing a chemical under the Convention does not constitute a trade ban on white chrysotile asbestos.

In an unprecedented tactical move, both these countries attacked World Health Organization (WHO) and International Labour Organization (ILO) which has passed resolutions seeking elimination of all kinds of asbestos is manifestly irrelevant. They also attacked the Secretariat of Rotterdam Convention. It is evidently an exercise by asbestos producers to create an impression that listing of white chrysotile asbestos is the same as banning it. It is clearly a part their deliberate propaganda war to get the decision on its listing postponed once again.

In this conflict between naked lust for profit which asbestos producers represent and the truth about public health concerns of the present and future generations, it remains to be seen which one will succeed. The position paper on Rotterdam Convention Alliance is attached.         

Earlier, the joint session of the three Conference of Parties (COP) of Basel Convention’s 12^th COP, Rotterdam Convention’s 7^th COP and Stockholm Convention’s 7^th COP (BRS) adopted agendas and discussed work related to waste containing persistent organic pollutants (POPs) at its commencement on, 4^th May 2015. The theme of COPs is “from science to action, working for a safer tomorrow.”

The issue of ratification of the Ban Amendment which was adopted at the Second Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention (COP2), 25^th March, 1994 in Geneva, remains on the horizon. The Basel Ban decision effectively banned as of 1^st January, 1998, all forms of hazardous waste exports from the 29 wealthiest most industrialized countries of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to all non-OECD countries like India. Since 2013 countries which have ratified include Côte d’Ivoire, Benin, Colombia, Guatemala, Republic of Congo and Peru. It was stated that 12 more instruments of ratification are required for the Ban Amendment to enter into force. India is a signatory to Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal but it is yet to ratify Ban Amendment. ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) urges the government to ratify it at the earliest to deal with the menace of dumping of hazardous wastes and end-of-life ships in Indian waters. In order for the amendment to enter the force of law it will need to be ratified by 62 of the Basel Parties. India should resist the influence of USA, Australia, Canada and such industrial lobby groups as the United States Chamber of Commerce, and the International Chamber of Commerce who are against the Amendment.

A contact group has been established and convened for technical guidelines, to begin consideration of POPs waste guidelines. It deliberated on the low-POPs content values for several POPs, guidance for Environmentally Sound Management and the precautionary principle.

Jagusiewicz, Basel Convention President, Khashashneh, Rotterdam Convention President and Lissinger Peitz, Stockholm Convention President declared their respective meetings open and introduced their respective agendas which were all adopted without amendment. Jagusiewicz is also the President of joint session who will speak on behalf of all the Presidents of the three Conventions.

The listing chemicals under the Rotterdam Convention, adoption of Basel Convention Technical Guidelines on electrical and electronic waste and agreement on compliance mechanisms for the Conventions are expected to be significant results at the end of the joint session on 15^th May.

The current chemical consumption pattern has already crossed the carrying capacity of natural capital but adopting Ostrich policy, it was opined that it is yet to cross the limit of its carrying capacity.

For Details: Gopal Krishna, Ban Asbestos Network of India-ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Mb: 08227816731, 09818089660, E-mail-1715krishna@gmail.com, Web: www.toxicswatch.org