Ongoing downplaying of the carcinogenicity of chrysotile asbestos by vested interests

Abstract

Industries that mine, manufacture and sell asbestos or asbestos-containing products have a long tradition of promoting the use of asbestos, while placing the burden of economic and health costs on workers and society. This has been successfully done in recent years and decades in spite of the overwhelming evidence that all asbestos types are carcinogenic and cause asbestosis. In doing so, the asbestos industry has undermined the WHO campaign to reach a worldwide ban of asbestos and to eliminate asbestos-related diseases. Even worse, in recent years they succeeded in continuing asbestos mining and consuming in the range of about 1.3 million tons annually. Nowadays, production takes place predominantly in Russia, Kazakhstan and China. Chrysotile is the only asbestos type still sold and represents 95% of asbestos traded over the last century.The asbestos industry, especially its PR agency, the International Chrysotile Association, ICA, financed by asbestos mining companies in Russia, Kazakhstan and Zimbabwe and asbestos industrialists in India and Mexico, continues to be extremely active by using slogans such as chrysotile can be used safely.Another approach of the asbestos industry and of some of its insurance agencies is to broadly defeat liability claims of asbestos victims.In doing so they systematically use inappropriate science produced by their own and/or by industry-affiliated researchers. Some of the latter were also engaged in producing defense material for other industries including the tobacco industry. Frequent examples of distributing such disinformation include questioning or denying established scientific knowledge about adverse health effects of asbestos. False evidence continues to be published in scientific journals and books.The persisting strong influence of vested asbestos-related interests in workers and public health issues including regulations and compensation necessitate ongoing alertness, corrections and appropriate reactions in scientific as well as public media and policy advisory bodies.

Malignant mesothelioma: Ongoing controversies about its etiology in females

“…Roggli et al 36 are shown here, as well as in other work, 41–45 to have omitted critical reviews of data, and they draw conclusions based on heterogeneous data sets not adequately controlled for latency and/or intensity of exposure. The use of studies that fail to identify previous occupational and environmental exposures to asbestos leads to an overestimation of mesothelioma cases unrelated to asbestos, especially among females.…”

Toolkit for detecting misused epidemiological methods

“…Contrary to what many scholars might believe, this bias is not prevented by the peer review process [12]. Distortion and disinformation practices regarding scientific methods and evidence were intentionally employed by the lead industry in the early 1900s [13] and, since the 1950s, by the tobacco industry [14], and have since been honed by the asbestos industry [15][16][17][18]. The methods have become more sophisticated over time as played out from one industry to the next [19].…”

Ethical thinking in occupational and environmental medicine: Commentaries from the Selikoff Fund for Occupational and Environmental Cancer Research

“…Insurance companies, like many such entities, are loathe to pay out funds to injured workers, even after court judgments. Perhaps it is because of the principle of “academic freedom” that the most aggressive and socially responsible physicians in occupational medicine can generally be found in academic settings without the constraints of corporate masters or governmental structures, although some “academics” have become allies to industry in obfuscating hazards 108 . For‐profit companies have also done well in using corporate funds to hide corporate misdeeds.…”