Dear all
An International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) co-ordinated
criticism of WHO's Asbestos and Health report follows.
Unions express their "grave concern" about "serious errors" and about the
tone and content of the report in general, and are asking for the report to
be withdrawn, pending an expert review.
The ICFTU panel includes unions, union confederation and International Trade
Secretariats (industry-based international union federations) from across
the world.
AFL-CIO and CLC are prominent members of the ICFTU panel, as are top health
and safety figures from a number of US trades unions.
Any pressure you can bring to bear on WHO in support of this union position
would be helpful.
Thanks, Rory
****************************************
Rory O'Neill
International Federation of Journalists
UK Address: Hazards magazine, PO Box 199, Sheffield S1 4YL, England. Tel:
+44 114 276 5695. Fax: +44 114 276 7257
US Address: UCLA-Labor Center, PO Box 951478, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1478,
USA. Direct line: +1 310 794 5962. Switchboard: +1 310 794 5964. Fax: +1 310
794 6410.
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland
Director General
World Health Organization
20, Avenue Appla
CH-1211 Geneva 27
Switzerland
Fax: 41-22-791 0746
21 May 1999
Dear Dr. Brundtland,
New WHO Asbestos Report
We are writing to express grave concern about the release of a new report,
"Asbestos and Health", by the WHO-Europe office in Copenhagen. We are
surprised to find that the report contains a number of serious errors and
has not been revised to reflect criticisms of earlier drafts by experts.
The report is intended to help local authorities but in no way reaches the
standards of objectivity we have come to expect from the WHO. We would urge
you to withdraw the report pending further in depth expert review.
This report was first released for public comment in draft form in 1997,
with a companion draft report, "Asbestos in Buildings." They were met with
a storm of criticism, to the effect that the reports read like products of
the asbestos industry, not the World Health Organization. Criticisms of
these draft reports were included in an editorial entitled "Manipulation of
International Scientific Organizations" (Internat. J. Occ. Env. Health 4:
53-55, 1998). We understand that WHO Geneva headquarters representative
Dr. Peter Toft and WHO consultant Dr. Morris Greenberg then met with the
responsible officials at WHO-Europe to consider what improvements were
necessary. Dr Greenberg urged "a radical rethink of the project" and the
allocation of resources that WHO usually requires for major policy
documents. He pleaded for a longer timetable for the review process, "for
the reputation of the WHO."
One year later, another draft of the report surfaced, and this as
well was criticized for some of the same shortcomings by Dr. Greenberg and
others. Dr. Barry Castleman brought these criticisms directly to the
attention of Dr. Toft in a letter of September of last year. They were
also included in an editorial Dr. Castleman published in the same journal
as the one noted above (IJOEH 5:61-64, 1999). Notwithstanding that, the
"Asbestos and Health" report, for local health authorities, was released in
April, containing serious omissions and misleading statements. Some of
these are:-
� There is no mention that the leading European countries and Saudi Arabia
have banned asbestos, thereby demonstrating the availability of safer
substitute products. On 4 May an EU technical committee voted for an
EU-wide ban on chrysotile asbestos and full Commission approval is expected
shortly
.
� Current asbestos exposures are repeatedly described as "undoubtedly
considerably lower" than in past decades. This completely disregards the
geographic shift of the asbestos industry to the developing countries from
Europe and North America and the repeated documentation of terrible
conditions now existing in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe,
� ILO Convention 162 on asbestos, calling for substitution with safer
products and extensive controls where asbestos products are used, is
invoked as though ILO advocated "controlled use", a term the asbestos
industry uses to argue that there is no need to ban asbestos. The same
recommendation to local health authorities accepts without question that
there are "essential applications" of chrysotile asbestos,
� The WHO report cites a 1991 U.S. court decision as authority, saying,
"The Court cited credible evidence that non-asbestos brakes could
significantly increase the number of highway fatalities." However, no
scientific studies have ever been published that even suggest that highway
safety has been decreased by the conversion to non-asbestos brakes in the
countries of Europe that have made that conversion in the 1980s and 1990s.
Asbestos brakes in Europe were banned in 1998,
� The report recommends the prohibition of types of asbestos that are no
longer mined and asbestos products that are no longer manufactured. Though
it acknowledges that 85% of the asbestos today is used in asbestos-cement
(A-C) construction materials, the report sounds no alarm about the
frighteningly high levels of asbestos exposure that come from sawing these
products (up to over 250 f/cc, compared with the short-term US limit for
occupational exposure of 1 f/cc).
This could have been a very useful report if it gave a better idea
why so many countries have decided to ban asbestos instead of trying to
control its hazards to workers, consumers, building occupants, and the
general public. It could have at least recommended that interior walls and
ceilings in buildings not be made with asbestos-cement panels. It could
have stressed the need for the use of special power saws, equipped with
hoods and hoses for dust collection and fabric filter dust capture, for
sawing A-C products. And it could have given useful information about the
types of alternative products that can be used instead of A-C construction
materials for walls, conduits, roofing, and water storage tanks.
We are concerned that this report will not only misinform local
health authorities, but that in addition it may be used in the dispute over
asbestos currently before the World Trade Organization. In that case,
Canada is challenging the asbestos ban by France as an unfair trade
practice, and this WHO report may be used there to buttress Canada's effort
to halt the spread of national bans on asbestos.
We therefore appeal to you to withdraw this report from public
distribution pending review by asbestos experts including those used in the
past by WHO, such as Dr. Greenberg, Dr. William Nicholson, and the Task
Group members that finally authored Environmental Health Criteria Document
203, "Chrysotile Asbestos" (WHO, 1998). We believe that a WHO report to
local health authorities with the title, "Asbestos and Health" is needed,
but the information and emphasis need substantial revision. As many of
these concerns have been expressed in the past, we feel that this report
should now be revised by other authors and placed under direct control of
WHO headquarters.
Our concern about this asbestos report takes place within the
broader context of our 3 August, 1998 letter to you expressing the urgent
need for support by international organizations to increase their research
on the health hazards of all fibers, especially man made mineral fibers. I
attach a copy of this letter, along with a copy of the related report of a
special trade union meeting, held in 1997. I look forward to your reply to
this letter also.
Yours sincerely,
General Secretary
Encl: attached as above
Lucien Royer
ICFTU/TUAC
26 Av De La Grande Armee
75015 Paris, France
(331) 4763 4263 tel
(331) 4754 9828 fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
