Implementation of National Policies for a Total Asbestos Ban: A Global Comparison

Background Two international Conventions from the International Labor Organization (ILO; C162 Asbestos Convention) and the UN (Basel Convention) offer governments guidelines for achieving a total asbestos ban policy, but the long-term effect of these Conventions on policy implementation, and the role of government effectiveness, remains unknown. We aimed to investigate associations between government ratification of the ILO and UN international Conventions, government effectiveness, and implementation of a national total asbestos ban. Methods We obtained data for year of a national asbestos ban, year of ratification of one or both international Conventions, and World Bank government effectiveness scores for 108 countries that ever used asbestos. We did a survival analysis for countries with data in the follow-up period (March 22, 1989, to Feb 2, 2018) to assess whether ratification of the international Conventions and greater government effectiveness were associated with time of implementation of a national total asbestos ban. Findings Of 108 countries with data for asbestos consumption, nine were excluded because they implemented an asbestos ban before 1989. Therefore, 99 countries were included in the survival analysis. 26 countries ratified both international Conventions and 73 ratified either one or no Convention. Countries that ratified both Conventions had a shorter time to adoption of a total asbestos ban (mean 8·9 [SD 6·4] years) than did countries that ratified one or no Conventions (16·9 [6·1] years). After controlling for government effectiveness, countries that ratified both Conventions had a significantly higher conditional probability of banning asbestos than did those ratifying one or no Convention (hazard ratio [HR] 41·8, 95% CI 4·5–383·3; p=0·0010). For every 1 point increment in government effectiveness, the percentage change in HR for persistent asbestos consumption significantly increased by 127% (95% CI 13–354; p=0·021). Interpretation This study confirms that adoption of both the C162 Asbestos Convention and the Basel Convention facilitates countries in moving towards a total asbestos ban. The effect was reinforced by government effectiveness. Both international programmes and new agreements towards total asbestos bans and government commitments are needed

Recent Mortality from Pleural Mesothelioma, Historical Patterns of Asbestos Use, and Adoption of Bans: A Global Assessment

[[abstract]]BACKGROUND: In response to the health risks posed by asbestos exposure, some countries have imposed strict regulations and adopted bans, whereas other countries have intervened less and continue to use varying quantities of asbestos. OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to assess, on a global scale, national experiences of recent mortality from pleural mesotheliomal historical trends in asbestos use, adoption of bans, and their possible interrelationships. METHODS: For 31 countries with available data, we analyzed recent pleural mesothelioma (International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision) mortality rates (MRs) using age-adjusted period MRs (deaths/million/year) from 1996 to 2005. We calculated annual percent changes (APCs) in age-adjusted MRs to characterize trends during the period. We characterized historical patterns of asbestos use by per capita asbestos use (kilograms per capita/year) and the status of national bans. RESULTS: Period MRs increased with statistical significance in five countries, with marginal significance in two countries, and were equivocal in 24 countries (five countries in Northern and Western Europe recorded negative APC values). Countries adopting asbestos bans reduced use rates about twice as fast as those not adopting bans. Turning points in use preceded bans. Change in asbestos use during 1970-1985 was a significant predictor of APC in mortality for pleural mesothelioma, with an adjusted R-2 value of 0.47 (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The observed disparities in global mesothelioma trends likely relate to country-to-country disparities in asbestos use trends

Global Asbestos Disaster

Introduction: Asbestos has been used for thousands of years but only at a large industrial scale for about 100&ndash;150 years. The first identified disease was asbestosis, a type of incurable pneumoconiosis caused by asbestos dust and fibres. The latest estimate of global number of asbestosis deaths from the Global Burden of Disease estimate 2016 is 3495. Asbestos-caused cancer was identified in the late 1930&rsquo;s but despite today&rsquo;s overwhelming evidence of the strong carcinogenicity of all asbestos types, including chrysotile, it is still widely used globally. Various estimates have been made over time including those of World Health Organization and International Labour Organization: 107,000&ndash;112,000 deaths. Present estimates are much higher. Objective: This article summarizes the special edition of this Journal related to asbestos and key aspects of the past and present of the asbestos problem globally. The objective is to collect and provide the latest evidence of the magnitude of asbestos-related diseases and to provide the present best data for revitalizing the International Labor Organization/World Health Organization Joint Program on Asbestos-related Diseases. Methods: Documentation on asbestos-related diseases, their recognition, reporting, compensation and prevention efforts were examined, in particular from the regulatory and prevention point of view. Estimated global numbers of incidence and mortality of asbestos-related diseases were examined. Results: Asbestos causes an estimated 255,000 deaths (243,223&ndash;260,029) annually according to latest knowledge, of which work-related exposures are responsible for 233,000 deaths (222,322&ndash;242,802). In the European Union, United States of America and in other high income economies (World Health Organization regional classification) the direct costs for sickness, early retirement and death, including production losses, have been estimated to be very high; in the Western European countries and European Union, and equivalent of 0.70% of the Gross Domestic Product or 114 &times; 109 United States Dollars. Intangible costs could be much higher. When applying the Value of Statistical Life of 4 million EUR per cancer death used by the European Commission, we arrived at 410 &times; 109 United States Dollars loss related to occupational cancer and 340 &times; 109 related to asbestos exposure at work, while the human suffering and loss of life is impossible to quantify. The numbers and costs are increasing practically in every country and region in the world. Asbestos has been banned in 55 countries but is used widely today; some 2,030,000 tons consumed annually according to the latest available consumption data. Every 20 tons of asbestos produced and consumed kills a person somewhere in the world. Buying 1 kg of asbestos powder, e.g., in Asia, costs 0.38 United States Dollars, and 20 tons would cost in such retail market 7600 United States Dollars. Conclusions: Present efforts to eliminate this man-made problem, in fact an epidemiological disaster, and preventing exposures leading to it are insufficient in most countries in the world. Applying programs and policies, such as those for the elimination of all kind of asbestos use&mdash;that is banning of new asbestos use and tight control and management of existing structures containing asbestos&mdash;need revision and resources. The International Labor Organization/World Health Organization Joint Program for the Elimination of Asbestos-Related Diseases needs to be revitalized. Exposure limits do not protect properly against cancer but for asbestos removal and equivalent exposure elimination work, we propose a limit value of 1000 fibres/m3

Experience of Japan in Achieving a Total Ban on Asbestos

This paper aims to examine the process through which a total ban on asbestos was achieved in Japan. We reconstructed the process, analyzed the roles of involved parties/events, and drew lessons from the Japanese experience of achieving the ban. In Japan, a bill to phase out asbestos was proposed in 1992 but rejected without deliberation. Wide support for such a ban subsequently grew, however, largely due to the actions of trade unions and civil societies in establishing a coalition, raising awareness, organizing asbestos victims and their families, and propagating information on international developments. A governmental decision towards a ban was made in 2002 based on several national and international factors. A huge asbestos scandal in 2005 preponed the achievement of a total ban and led to the establishment of comprehensive measures to tackle asbestos issues. However, challenges remain for the elimination of asbestos-related diseases

Experience of Japan in Achieving a Total Ban on Asbestos

This paper aims to examine the process through which a total ban on asbestos was achieved in Japan. We reconstructed the process, analyzed the roles of involved parties/events, and drew lessons from the Japanese experience of achieving the ban. In Japan, a bill to phase out asbestos was proposed in 1992 but rejected without deliberation. Wide support for such a ban subsequently grew, however, largely due to the actions of trade unions and civil societies in establishing a coalition, raising awareness, organizing asbestos victims and their families, and propagating information on international developments. A governmental decision towards a ban was made in 2002 based on several national and international factors. A huge asbestos scandal in 2005 preponed the achievement of a total ban and led to the establishment of comprehensive measures to tackle asbestos issues. However, challenges remain for the elimination of asbestos-related diseases

Environmental asbestos exposure from nephrite jade mining and lung cancer

Background: Nephrite is an asbestos mineral composed of tremolite and actinolite. Fengtian is a community where nephrite was mined between 1970 and 1980 and asbestos was mined between 1960 and 1985. The lung cancer risk to the surrounding community is unknown. Aims: To analyse the trend of lung cancer caused by environmental contamination from nephrite mining. Methods: We conducted a field survey of nephrite mines and tracked new cases of lung cancer from 1980 to 2019. We calculated the age-standardized incidence rates (ASIRs) and applied join-point regression to examine the lung cancer trend. We assessed the age effect, period effect, and birth cohort effect on lung cancer risk. Results: The nephrite mines were contaminated with chrysotile and tremolite/actinolite asbestos. A total of 278 new cases of lung cancer were reported during the study period. There was an apparent age effect and a slight period effect for lung cancer. After adjustment for the age and period effects, the birth cohort born between 1970 and 1980 during the period of nephrite mass production had the highest relative risk compared with other birth cohorts. The ASIR of lung cancer increased significantly from 1980 to 2010 (the annual percentage change = 6.8 %, 95 % CI: 4.0–9.7 %, P < 0.01) and then decreased 30 years after the cessation of nephrite jade mining. Conclusion: Nephrite mining increases the risk of lung cancer in nearby communities

Global Asbestos Disaster

Introduction: Asbestos has been used for thousands of years but only at a large industrial scale for about 100&ndash;150 years. The first identified disease was asbestosis, a type of incurable pneumoconiosis caused by asbestos dust and fibres. The latest estimate of global number of asbestosis deaths from the Global Burden of Disease estimate 2016 is 3495. Asbestos-caused cancer was identified in the late 1930&rsquo;s but despite today&rsquo;s overwhelming evidence of the strong carcinogenicity of all asbestos types, including chrysotile, it is still widely used globally. Various estimates have been made over time including those of World Health Organization and International Labour Organization: 107,000&ndash;112,000 deaths. Present estimates are much higher. Objective: This article summarizes the special edition of this Journal related to asbestos and key aspects of the past and present of the asbestos problem globally. The objective is to collect and provide the latest evidence of the magnitude of asbestos-related diseases and to provide the present best data for revitalizing the International Labor Organization/World Health Organization Joint Program on Asbestos-related Diseases. Methods: Documentation on asbestos-related diseases, their recognition, reporting, compensation and prevention efforts were examined, in particular from the regulatory and prevention point of view. Estimated global numbers of incidence and mortality of asbestos-related diseases were examined. Results: Asbestos causes an estimated 255,000 deaths (243,223&ndash;260,029) annually according to latest knowledge, of which work-related exposures are responsible for 233,000 deaths (222,322&ndash;242,802). In the European Union, United States of America and in other high income economies (World Health Organization regional classification) the direct costs for sickness, early retirement and death, including production losses, have been estimated to be very high; in the Western European countries and European Union, and equivalent of 0.70% of the Gross Domestic Product or 114 &times; 109 United States Dollars. Intangible costs could be much higher. When applying the Value of Statistical Life of 4 million EUR per cancer death used by the European Commission, we arrived at 410 &times; 109 United States Dollars loss related to occupational cancer and 340 &times; 109 related to asbestos exposure at work, while the human suffering and loss of life is impossible to quantify. The numbers and costs are increasing practically in every country and region in the world. Asbestos has been banned in 55 countries but is used widely today; some 2,030,000 tons consumed annually according to the latest available consumption data. Every 20 tons of asbestos produced and consumed kills a person somewhere in the world. Buying 1 kg of asbestos powder, e.g., in Asia, costs 0.38 United States Dollars, and 20 tons would cost in such retail market 7600 United States Dollars. Conclusions: Present efforts to eliminate this man-made problem, in fact an epidemiological disaster, and preventing exposures leading to it are insufficient in most countries in the world. Applying programs and policies, such as those for the elimination of all kind of asbestos use&mdash;that is banning of new asbestos use and tight control and management of existing structures containing asbestos&mdash;need revision and resources. The International Labor Organization/World Health Organization Joint Program for the Elimination of Asbestos-Related Diseases needs to be revitalized. Exposure limits do not protect properly against cancer but for asbestos removal and equivalent exposure elimination work, we propose a limit value of 1000 fibres/m3

Comparison of Asbestos Victim Relief Available Outside of Conventional Occupational Compensation Schemes

The asbestos victim relief schemes were introduced to resolve the issue of victims of asbestos-related diseases not receiving compensation through conventional legal orders. This article seeks to derive the differences and commonalities of various asbestos victim relief schemes available outside of the conventional occupational compensation system along with a systematic understanding and to propose plans for improvement through a comparative study. After the degree of asbestos exposure, the population, and the period of implementation were corrected, the recognized claims of the total of conventional occupational compensation schemes and the asbestos victim relief schemes could be ranked in the order of South Korea (KOR) (1867, total), France (FRA) (1571), Japan (JPN) (966), KOR (847, asbestosis grade 2,3 excluded), the United Kingdom (GBR) (670), and the Netherlands (NLD) (95). The average amount of compensation per person, in the case of mesothelioma, was higher in the order of FRA (4.60 times), KOR (1.46 times), GBR (1.03 times), and NLD (0.73 times) of the median income per year. The differences between countries were largely caused by the purpose of institutional design and influenced by the level of qualification, the existence of an expiration date, type of disease, type of benefit, level of judgment criteria, the existence of a procedure for appeals, and recognition rate (GBR: 102%, FRA: 84%, NLD: 81%, JPN: 76%, KOR: 73%, and BEL: 54%). Based on this analysis, suggestions could be made regarding the expansion of disease types, benefit types, and the overall review of judgment criteria