Canadians demand total ban on asbestos

Canadians demand total ban on asbestos

13 September 2003

Canada is the world's second biggest miner and exporter of white asbestos; a scandal the government defends despite overwhelming evidence that it can be as dangerous as other types of the deadly substance. But Canadians are waking up! The following resolution was adopted on September 13th 2003 at a conference in Ottawa, sponsored by MiningWatch Canada , the Sierra Club of Canada , a number of Canadian unions and the International Ban Asbestos Secretariat.

Resolution

Canadian Asbestos: A Global Concern

Preamble:

The international epidemic of ill-health and death caused by exposure to asbestos has been raging for decades. As Western countries have sought to control harmful exposures by implementing national prohibitions on the use of asbestos (including amosite, crocidolite and chrysotile), global asbestos producers have targeted consumers in developing countries.

Canada is currently the world’s second biggest chrysotile (white asbestos) exporter, sending this class 1 carcinogen to countries with few, if any, safeguards, where it is used by poorly trained and uninformed workers with little access to medical care or sickness benefits. Although Canadian asbestos stakeholders maintain that chrysotile can be used safely under “controlled conditions,” Canada exports more than 95% of all the asbestos it produces; critics suggest that the Canadian principle of “controlled use” is a hypocritical ploy to profit from the export of a substance too hazardous to be used at home. By advocating this double standard, Canadian interests are promoting occupational and environmental racism in consuming countries.

Resolved:

In view of the rising asbestos death toll, delegates to the conference: Canadian Asbestos: A Global Concern urge Canadian Federal and Regional Governments to renounce their backing of the asbestos industry and withdraw financial and political support from the Asbestos Institute, the Montreal-based body which has been orchestrating global pro-chrysotile support since the mid-1980s. Further be it resolved that the Canadian government immediately join in the global ban on the use and importation of asbestos. Be it further resolved that since the Canadian government has played a direct role in maintaining the asbestos industry globally that it must assume responsibility for harm done to workers, their families and their communities where Canadian asbestos has been used. This liability includes providing the necessary financial resources for the health and compensation of asbestos victims and for assisting in the just transition for workers who are employed in industries that utilize Canadian asbestos. Be it further resolved the conference start the process of negotiating for a United Nations agreement for the worldwide ban of asbestos. This agreement would be negotiated in the framework of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP).

Recommendations:

We wish to make the following recommendations to the International Labour Organisation, the World Health Organisation, the United Nations, the European Union and all national governments: · ASBESTOS BAN: The use of all forms of asbestos should be banned in developed and developing countries; objective information about safer alternatives is needed to counter industry propaganda such as that being spread in India about the “virtues of chrysotile” by the Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers’ Association. No “virtues of chrysotile” can excuse the continuing use of such a hazardous substance. The influence of Canada has been applied to oppose efforts in other countries to ban asbestos. Some authorities in Canada are encouraging the use of asbestos in asphalt mixtures for road repairs to generate sales for the ailing local asbestos industry. In the name of occupational health and public safety, these practices must cease. · MINIMISATION OF RISK: Labelling of asbestos products contained throughout national infrastructures should be mandatory. · National groups of experts and workers with expertise in minimizing exposure to asbestos during maintenance, reconstruction and demolition work should be convened in order to identify approved protocols; these protocols must be enforced. · Research into procedures for disposing of asbestos-contaminated waste is needed. All nations should ratify the Basel Convention which classifies asbestos as dangerous waste. · The ILO and WHO must adopt the recommendations of “Chrysotile” (International Programme on Chemical Safety - Environmental Health Criteria Document 203: Chrysotile Asbestos, 1998) in line with the decision by many countries to ban asbestos. · The ILO and WHO must be encouraged to update asbestos-related measures such as ILO convention 162 (adopted 1986!) and Chrysotile Criteria 203 in line with the adoption by many countries of asbestos prohibitions. · RAISING AWARENESS: Campaigns for raising awareness of the hazards of asbestos must be carried out amongst the public and exposed sectors of the workforce. Trade unions and NGOs have a pivotal part to play in the education process; medical professionals have an ethical obligation to spread knowledge about these problems.

· INFORMATION: Information on safer alternatives and national experiences of implementing non-asbestos technologies should be shared. As asbestos-cement products account for 90% of all the asbestos used, it is of paramount importance to disseminate accurate and independent information on substitute materials. The ILO and WHO should produce and distribute literature on these subjects.

· RESEARCH: Funding is urgently needed for the development and implementation of diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to asbestos-related diseases. · Commitments to monitor the current burden of asbestos-related diseases, update epidemiological predictions and conduct medical surveillance of exposed populations are urgently needed; the establishment of national mesothelioma registers should be a priority. · COMPENSATION: Laws or procedures for compensating victims, including bystander victims, of asbestos-related diseases must be approved. Governments must take a positive role in providing medical surveillance if this is not done by employers. · JUST TRANSITION: Where the implementation of an asbestos ban displaces workers, a policy of “Just Transition” (in line with the Canadian Labour Congress policy on just transition) should be adopted to safeguard the income, employment and welfare of affected workers and their communities. Plans should be put in place to guarantee a pension to all workers displaced from the Canadian asbestos industry; health care should be provided for them and their families. Former asbestos workers should be permitted to work, should they choose to, while receiving their pensions; their expertise could be put to good effect in decontaminating affected buildings and areas.

· CORPORATE RESPONSIBILTY/OPERATIONS OF ASBESTOS MULTINATIONALS: Corporations that engage in the use of asbestos should be liable under both civil and criminal law. The application by multinational companies of double standards in the treatment of workers, consumers and the public in developed and developing countries must be exposed and terminated; multinationals involved in the mining of asbestos and the marketing and use of asbestos products should accept responsibility for compensating asbestos victims and cleaning up contaminated areas. · In many developing countries, multinationals are selling off asbestos interests to ruthless and powerful local entrepreneurs; the ILO and WHO should take up asbestos problems directly with national governments.

Adopted on September 13, 2003 in Ottawa, Canada