By David R. Boyd
Globe and Mail
October 9, 2006

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061009.wcomment10/BNStory/Front/home

What does Canada have in common with Kazakhstan, Russia and China? These nations are the world's largest producers of asbestos. Canada is the only western industrialized nation that exports asbestos.

Because of concerns about adverse health effects, asbestos exports are in jeopardy. Parties to the Rotterdam Convention, an international treaty restricting trade in toxic substances, are meeting in Geneva this week. There is a widely supported proposal to add chrysotile asbestos (the only type exported by Canada) to the list of restricted substances requiring the prior informed consent of all importing nations. Will Canada be wearing the black hat, lobbying to prevent restrictions on asbestos exports?

Asbestos used to be described as a "miracle mineral" for its ability to withstand heat. It was used in thousands of products, including fireproofing and insulating material in ships, buildings and consumer products, and in wallboard, flooring, automobiles, clothing, home appliances and children's toys.

However, it is hardly breaking news that exposure to chrysotile asbestos causes cancer. The global authority on carcinogenic substances, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, identified chrysotile asbestos as a known human carcinogen in 1977. The World Health Organization agrees that exposure to chrysotile asbestos causes lung cancer, another form of cancer ­ mesothelioma ­ caused only by asbestos, and asbestosis, a degenerative lung disease.

The government of Canada is well aware of the health hazards posed by asbestos. Mesothelioma kills hundreds of Canadians every year. Quebec is home to Canada's only remaining asbestos mines and suffers one of the highest rates of mesothelioma in the world. The Parliament buildings in Ottawa are undergoing extensive renovations in an effort to remove the threat posed by asbestos. At least two members of Parliament, Conservative Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl and the NDP's Pat Martin, suffer from asbestos-induced diseases.

Although widely perceived as an occupationa-health problem, exposure to asbestos could affect hundreds of thousands of Canadians. The spouses and children of men who worked with asbestos ­ in mining, manufacturing or construction ­ are at risk because of exposure to asbestos fibres unwittingly brought home from the workplace. As well, between 200,000 and 300,000 Canadian homes contain vermiculite insulation that is contaminated by asbestos.

There are now strict restrictions on the use of asbestos in Canada.

Under the Hazardous Products Act, the use of asbestos in some consumer products is prohibited. Under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, asbestos is on the list of toxic substances, and a regulation places limits on releases of asbestos from mines and mills.

Conclusive evidence that every type of asbestos is carcinogenic has led many industrialized nations (including Australia and all 25 members of the European Union) to ban the import, sale and use of asbestos. The International Labour Organization also supports a global ban on the use of asbestos.

However, more than 90 per cent of the asbestos mined in Canada is exported to developing countries such as India and the Philippines, where adequate health and safety regulations either don't exist or aren't enforced. As a result, Canada is knowingly exporting a product that will result in thousands of deaths from mesothelioma, asbestosis and lung cancer in Asia, Africa, and South America.

Despite the well-established health hazards, Canada vigorously opposes international efforts to restrict global trade in asbestos. In 2004, Canada blocked an earlier effort to restrict international trade in chrysotile asbestos pursuant to the Rotterdam Convention.

Several years ago, France banned all uses of asbestos. Canada challenged the French decision, taking the case to the World Trade Organization. At the time, the WTO had a virtually unblemished record in disputes involving environmental issues and trade, consistently finding environmental laws to be in violation of global trade rules.

In its precedent-setting ruling against Canada, however, the WTO upheld the French ban on asbestos as a legitimate mechanism for protecting human health.

The WTO consulted some of the world's leading experts on asbestos and concluded that "no minimum threshold of level of exposure or duration of exposure has been identified with regard to the risk of pathologies associated with chrysotile." In other words, there is no such thing as safe exposure to any amount of chrysotile asbestos, contrary to the arguments advanced by Canada.

The Canadian government also subsidizes an industry lobby group called the Chrysotile Institute, pouring in roughly $20-million in taxpayers' money over the past 20 years. The Chrysotile Institute plays down the health risks of chrysotile asbestos and promotes its use in developing countries.

It is ironic that at the same time Canada is sponsoring programs on environmental health in developing countries, such as the Health and Environment Linkages Initiative, we are exporting an extremely hazardous substance to developing countries.

The continued export of Canadian asbestos, with its inevitable byproducts of death and disease, tarnishes our good name with the stain of hypocrisy.

To avoid becoming an international pariah, Canada needs to support the listing of chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous substance subject to the Rotterdam Convention, to stop subsidizing the Chrysotile Institute, and to work with the government of Quebec to rapidly phase out the production and export of asbestos.

David Richard Boyd is an environmental lawyer and a Trudeau Scholar at the University of British Columbia.

© Copyright 2006 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc.

*** POSTED OCTOBER 17, 2006 ***