Almost all forms of asbestos are banned from use and are listed in Annex III of the United Nations (UN) convention. This means that exporters are required to obtain consent from importing states to ensure that the risk associated with asbestos are minimized. The one exception to this is chrysotile asbestos.
The listing of chrysotile asbestos was first addressed in a 2006 UN conference, following a cohesive report on the detrimental ramifications of chrysotile asbestos use. This report was presented by the Rotterdam Convention’s Chemical Review Committee. Canada, being the largest producer and exporter of chrysotile asbestos in the world at the time, opposed the listing of chrysotile in Annex III. Its decision was supported by five other countries, and subsequently, chrysotile asbestos became the first and only substance to be recommended and rejected by parties to be listed in Annex III.
In 2011, the majority of countries overturned their initial opposition to the listing of chrysotile asbestos. This left Canada as the sole dissenting nation to veto its listing; no justification to their decision was presented, despite the fact that they did not deny the scientific research regarding the dangers of asbestos use.
In late 2012, the incoming Premier of Quebec, Pauline Marois, reversed the government’s decision to spend money on the reopening of an asbestos mine; subsequently, Canada withdrew their initial opposition, and no longer opposed the listing of chrysotile asbestos in Annex III.
In 2013, when the issue of listing chrysotile asbestos came up once again in the UN conference, Russia, for the first time, had enough influence and power to veto its listing. It had been suggested that a recent Kiev conference, and Russia’s controversial collaboration with the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), were the driving impetus for Russia’s sudden influence.
Prior to the UN conference in 2013, an invitation was extended to IARC by the Russian Scientific Research Institute of Occupation Health (SRIOH) to attend a conference in Kiev (‘Chrysotile Asbestos: Risk Assessment and Management’). A multitude of emails and letters were sent in by various sources to the Director-General of IARC, encouraging them to avoid the conference, and alleging that the organizers of the event were closely tied to the Russian asbestos industry. However, IARC publicly defended their decision to send one of their scientists to attend the conference, by stating that the conference was an “opportunity to emphasise the dangers related to the use of asbestos.”
The conference focused on research from the paper ‘Estimating the asbestos-related lung cancer burden from mesothelioma mortality’. However, research from this paper has been deemed extremely inaccurate and outdated. The paper focuses particularly on data obtained from studies which were funded by the Canadian asbestos industry, and fails to take into consideration updated statistics regarding mesothelioma risk posed by chrysotile asbestos.
