Reconsidering Asbestos
August 01, 2011
The Canadian government has been criticized recently for its stance on asbestos, having opposed listing chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous chemical under the Rotterdam Convention.A great deal of confusion arises from the common use of the generic commercial term “asbestos” to describe two different and distinct classes of mineral fibres found naturally in rock formations around the world: amphibole and serpentine.
Chrysotile, the only “asbestos” fibre produced in and exported from Canada, belongs to the serpentine class. The risk posed by using chrysotile fibres can be managed if adequate controls, such as those established in Canada, are implemented and completely observed.
For more than 30 years, the Government of Canada has promoted the safe and controlled use of chrysotile, both domestically and internationally. Scientific reviews show the fibres can be used safely under controlled conditions.
Canada’s controlled use approach to chrysotile asbestos enforces appropriate regulations, programs and practices to rigorously control exposure. Where exposures and subsequent risks cannot be properly managed, the specific uses are discontinued or prohibited. The concern is that some of our exports markets do not use rigid safety and handling controls, putting people’s health at risk.
Before the hazards of handling asbestos were well known, it was not uncommon for Canadians to become ill due to their exposure to it, including one of my relatives and my colleague, former MP Chuck Strahl.
The illnesses we see in Canada are linked to past high-level exposures and to inappropriate uses that have been discontinued since the late 1970s.
But do we have a duty as a nation to ensure that our products are used safely when we export them? Given the concerns, perhaps it’s time to re-think our position on asbestos.
What do you think?