Building and Woodworkers International News Release

13 June 2006 IMMEDIATE USE

Building and Woodworkers International issues “conscience” call as asbestos ban moves closer
Employers must end their “courtship with a known killer” says BWI

A global ban on asbestos, the world’s biggest ever industrial killer, has come a step closer thanks to high level union campaigning. Anita Normark, general secretary of the Building and Woodworkers International (BWI) – the global union federation at the forefront of the campaign – is now challenging employers’ organisations not to frustrate the asbestos ban call at a crucial vote on 14 June and to end their “courtship with a known killer”.

The BWI call comes after a groundbreaking decision of a top International Labour Organisation tripartite committee on 12 June, which voted to support a workers’ group resolution* calling for a worldwide asbestos ban. At that meeting, the employers’ lobby, headed by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), attempted to block the resolution on legal grounds and refused to discuss the issue. When that manoeuvre failed, with ILO lawyers dismissing the IOE legal challenge, the employers’ representatives refused to vote. The ban asbestos call was nonetheless carried, with heavy support from unions and many government delegates. .

Addressing the safety and health committee meeting after the vote, ILO Director General Juan Somavia expressed disappointment with the employers’ organisation IOE for absenting itself from the debate, calling the resolution an important step towards a global asbestos ban.

BWI is now challenging IOE and employers’ representatives to end their “courtship with a known killer” when the asbestos ban resolution is raised at the full ILO conference on 14 June.

Anita Normark said: "Today's exposures guarantee an epidemic lasting at least another generation, with the asbestos graveyards shifting from the developed to the developing world. The employers’ organisations here at the ILO conference should put conscience before concern for a dying industry. The time for employers to end their courtship with a known killer is long overdue.”

According to BWI’s Normark: “Employers’ organisations can support the resolution, a move guaranteed to save hundreds of thousands of lives, or can block it and earn a shameful footnote in history as an organisation that turned a blind eye to industrial genocide. This isn’t a technical debate, it is a life or death issue. Support the asbestos industry and people die, support the ban and save lives.

“Worldwide, asbestos causes at least one death every 5 minutes. Some jobs are effectively a death sentence. There is no safe level of exposure, so there is no acceptable level of exposure. This is the preventable industrial health calamity of the modern era.”

BWI and unions worldwide believe the employers’ representatives at ILO intend to abstain from voting at the crucial ILO session on 14 June, rather than vote against the resolution. Normark says this “shameful tactic could see the resolution fall on a technicality, placing the blame for the next generation of asbestos deaths firmly at the IOE’s door.”

This year BWI launched a campaign to convince the Canadian Government, which has spearheaded the pro-asbestos campaign worldwide, to recognise that asbestos is the world’s biggest industrial killer and that it should be banned in all countries.

Canada is one of the largest exporters of asbestos said Normark, adding “we aim to show its Government that workers in a large number of countries are concerned about Canada’s disdain for the occupational and public health of citizens and workers throughout the world. Russia, China and Brazil are also big producers and exporters of asbestos, and we need to convince them to use alternative materials. However, their governments, unlike the Canadian Government, do not finance massive advertising campaigns in developing countries to convince them that asbestos is perfectly safe.

“This behaviour is immoral, and is social dumping of the most cynical kind. Whilst forty industrialized countries have banned asbestos, and are using alternative materials, developing countries are targeted by the asbestos salesmen who will deny the health hazards in order to make profits”.

Notes to editors

Further information contact Fiona Murie, BWI (Geneva): 00 41 (0)79 44 61 29 0. fiona.murie@bwint.org

* 1. The resolution in full
Resolution concerning Asbestos at the International Labour Conference 2006
The General Conference of the International labour Organisation,

Considering that all forms of asbestos, including chrysotile, are classified as known human carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a classification restated by the International Programme for Chemical Safety,

Alarmed that an estimated 100, 000 workers die every year from diseases caused by exposure to asbestos,

Deeply concerned that workers continue to face serious risks from asbestos exposure, particularly in asbestos removal, demolition, building maintenance, ship breaking and waste handling activities,

Noting that it has taken three decades of efforts and the emergence of suitable alternatives for a comprehensive ban on the manufacture and use of asbestos and asbestos-containing products to be adopted in a number of countries.

Further noting that the objective of the Promotional Framework for Occupational safety and health Convention 2006 is to prevent occupational injuries, diseases and deaths.

1. Resolves that:

(a) the elimination of the future use of asbestos and the identification and proper management of asbestos currently in place are the most effective means to protect workers from asbestos exposure and to prevent future asbestos-related diseases and deaths; and
(b) the Asbestos Convention 1986 (no 162) should not be used to provide a justification for, or endorsement of, the continued use of asbestos.

2. Requests the Governing Body to direct the International Labour Office to:

(a) Continue to encourage Member States to ratify and give effect to the provisions of the Asbestos Convention 1986 (No. 162) and the Occupational Cancer Convention 1974 (No.139);

(b) to promote the elimination of future use of all forms of asbestos and asbestos-containing materials in all Member States

(c) promote the identification and proper management of all forms of asbestos currently in place;

(d) encourage and assist member States to include measures in their national programmes on occupational safety and health to protect workers from exposure to asbestos, and

(e) transmit this resolution to all member States

• Assist Member States by drawing up national action programmes for the management, control and elimination of asbestos from the working environment.


2. ILO Director General Juan Somavia supports the resolution call

ILO Director GeneralJuan Somavía addressed the tripartite conference committee on safety and health after their historic decision on 12 June to adopt the trade union proposal on banning asbestos. The DG spoke on the importance of eliminating asbestos and particularly on halting the transfer of risk from industrialised to the developing countries. He expressed regret that the International Organisation of Employers, and the employers group as a whole, feel unable to participate in any way in the discussion of the asbestos resolution. He described the move to adopt the asbestos resolution as an important first step towards acheiving a global ban.


3. Voting procedure

IOE could opt to abstain from the 14 June vote. This could result in the session being inquorate, so the vote could not be taken – despite a likely majority being in favour of the resolution.


4. Canada’s shameful role

Canada peddles deadly asbestos to the third world
On May 23 – 26, 2006, the Canadian government, the Quebec government, the Chrysotile Institute and the International Chrysotile Association are hosting an International Conference on Chrysotile in Montreal, Quebec. (see attachment for programme)

As a beacon of civilization, is it not immoral that Canadians are pushing a product no longer considered safe in Canada to countries less advanced in protecting occupational and public health?

The Federal government is deliberately concealing the harm caused by this known human carcinogen so that they can profit from exporting it. The government of Canada is mining, marketing (through deception) and exporting chrysotile to countries which have no expertise or regulatory framework to deal with the health hazards.

The Province of Quebec, rich in asbestos reserves, has considerable political influence with the Federal government, and this is exploited by the asbestos stakeholders in order to promote their product. They are aided and abetted by academics and pet scientists who are paid to lie about the health hazards all over the world. Notably Dr. David Bernstein PHD, who is trying to bolster markets in South East Asia.

Canada in Indonesia
On March 2-3, 2006, an “International Scientific Symposium” was held in Jakarta, sponsored by the asbestos industry and the government of Canada. Canada’s involvement was featured in brochures announcing the event and a cocktail party invitation at the end of the conference hosted by the Canadian Embassy. (see attachment)

Dr. Zulmiar Yanri, Head of the Indonesian Occupational Safety and Health Centre, Department of Manpower and Transmigration, sought to invite a leading independent authority on asbestos to the meeting, Dr. Douglas Henderson of Australia. Dr. Henderson was on the 4-person scientific expert panel appointed by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in adjudicating the WTO asbestos case brought by Canada to challenge the French ban on asbestos. He is the author of numerous scientific papers and books on the pathology and other medical aspects of asbestos. Dr. Henderson was ready to attend to bring some objectivity to the otherwise strictly industry affair. When Dr. Yanri’s suggestion to invite Dr. Henderson was rejected by the sponsors, Dr. Yanri expressed her solidarity to the cause of public health by not attending.

Speakers at the event included: Clement Godbout, Chairman of the International Chrysotile Institute (the new name of the Asbestos Institute, based in Quebec); a Canadian mines official; a representative of the Russian asbestos industry; Ericson Bagatin, a doctor who works for asbestos mining interests in Brazil; and asbestos industry consultants Drs. David Bernstein and John Hoskins. An Indonesian asbestos industry spokesperson from FICMA gave a presentation on “best practice,” and several governmental officials and a doctor from Indonesia completed the program.

This conference in Jakarta demonstrates how asbestos mining and manufacturing interests, coordinated by the government of Canada, continue to defend and expand markets for asbestos in countries where a lot of asbestos is still used.

There are many more recent examples of “Scientific Symposiums” and media campaigns from India, Brazil, Zimbabwe, Chile, Peru and elsewhere. ( see attachment for brazil campaign, funded by Canada).

The Asbestos Industry Lies
The Industry arguments for continuing to market chrysotile asbestos are entirely without foundation. They have three basic points which they continue to reiterate, and a fourth justification for promoting the use of asbestos cement products world wide.

1. Chrysotile is fundamentally different from, and far safer than, other kinds of asbestos.
Chrysotile is classified by the WHO- IARC as a known human carcinogen (group 1). The cause and effect relationship of chrysotile asbestos and mesotheliomas is thoroughly established, despite the long latency period between exposure and symptoms. There are no confounders, in particular smoking, which can be used as an argument as is there is in the case of lung cancers.

2. Respect for the Threshold Limit Values and industrial hygiene will guarantee the absolute safety of chrysotile. "Controlled use"

In the first place, there is no safe threshold of exposure to chrysotile fibres. That is to say that some people will still die as a result of lower levels of exposure. Secondly, the idea of "controlled use" is pure fantasy, particularly in developing countries. It is extremely difficult to achieve "controlled use" according to TLVs in the asbestos cement industry. But then what happens when the roofing products or pipes leave the factory and are being placed into the built environment. In the building trades there is no such thing as controlled use. There is widespread lack of compliance with even the most basic safety standards on scaffolding and fall protection - the most obvious hazard in the construction sector.

3. Substitutes for chrysotile are more harmful to health.

We have lived with many substitutes for many years without their having generated the occupational and public health epidemic caused by chrysotile.

It is quite true that some man made mineral fibres so closely mimicked the properties of asbestos that they were causing fibrosis, and were suspected of causing lung cancers. Since then, fibre dimensions have been adjusted to reduce respirability, thereby reducing the hazards from glass wool, rock wool and ceramic fibres. Furthermore, many other alternatives have been developed, which are highly compatible with cement, have good tensile strength and can be easily replaced using the same Hatscheck plant as is used for the manufacture of asbestos cement products. Notably these alternatives include cellulose, Poly Vinyl Alcohol and ploypropylene. These are the principal products used in reconversion of the industry in the 40 countries which have banned asbestos.

4. The International Labour Organisation endorses the "controlled use" of asbestos. This is crucial to the asbestos industry as their alibi.

This a manipulation of the true situation. In fact, Convention 162 does call for the prohibition of asbestos. However, this Convention refers principally to the measures required for the prevention of exposure to asbestos which is already installed. This standard is vital for the protection of those involved in renovations and demolition, for example, carpenters, plumbers and other trades.

ILO Convention 139 on Cancer causing substances calls for the substitution of known cancer causing substances, and this is the only logical, health based approach to the use of chrysotile asbestos.


5. The ILO Position

The failure of the ILO to refute these assertions made by the pro-asbestos salesmen is shameful. It is imperative that we have a clear position from the ILO on this matter.

Article 10 of ILO Asbestos Convention No. 162, 1986 states:
“Where necessary to protect the health of workers and technically practicable, national laws or regulations shall provide for one or more of the following measures-

(a) replacement of asbestos or of certain types of asbestos or products containing asbestos by other materials or products of the use of alternative technology, scientifically evaluated by the competent authority as harmless or less harmful, whenever this is possible’

(b) total or partial prohibition of the use of asbestos or of certain types of asbestos or products containing asbestos in certain work processes.”

Occupational Cancer Convention 139, 1974

Article 1

1. Each Member which ratifies this Convention shall periodically determine the carcinogenic substances and agents to which occupational exposure shall be prohibited or made subject to authorisation or control, and those to which other provisions of this Convention shall apply.

2. Exemptions from prohibition may only be granted by issue of a certificate specifying in each case the conditions to be met.

Article 2

1. Each Member which ratifies this Convention shall make every effort to have carcinogenic substances and agents to which workers may be exposed in the course of their work replaced by non-carcinogenic substances or agents or by less harmful substances or agents; in the choice of substitute substances or agents account shall be taken of their carcinogenic, toxic and other properties.

The position of the World Health Organisation is as follows:
"Exposure to chrysotile asbestos poses risks for asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma in a dose-dependent manner. No threshold has been identified for carcinogenic risks" (EHC 203)

The WHO recommendation is to:

“Prohibit and enforce the prohibition of the production and use of chrysotile fibres and products containing them or restrict chrysotile to essential uses in which no safer alternatives are available."


6. Moving forward

Time for the ILO to adopt a health based position on asbestos
Much has changed in the twenty years since the ILO’s asbestos guidelines were introduced. By the mid-1980s when Convention 162 was drafted, only the Scandinavian countries had banned asbestos.

In 2006, 40 countries in Europe, the Americas, the Middle East, the Antipodes and Asia have imposed national asbestos bans. Major international bodies including the International Programme on Chemical Safety, the European Union, the Collegium Ramazzini, the Senior Labour Inspectors Committee, the International Social Security Association, the World Trade Organization, the Building and Woodworkers International, the International Metalworkers’ Federation and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions support the pro-ban position. So do the Governments of: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and Uruguay and scores of independent scientists.