ToxicsWatch
Alliance (TWA)
To
Shri
Ashok Lavasa
Secretary
Ministry
of Environment, Forests and Climate
Change
Paryavaran
Bhawan, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road
New
Delhi 110003
Email:
hempande@nic.in;
sujata@nic.in
Shri
A.J.V. Prasad
Joint
Secretary (Chemicals)
Department
of Chemicals and Petrochemicals
Ministry
of Chemicals and Fertilizers
Postal
address: Room No. 340-C, 'A' Wing, Shastri Bhawan
New
Delhi 110001
Email:
ajv.prasad@nic.in
Permanent
Mission
Government
of India
E-mail:
mission.india@ties.itu.int
Subject-Statement of scientists on
the ‘scientific’ study by National Institute of Occupational Health (India)
titled ‘Study of Health Hazards / Environmental hazards resulting from use of
Chrysotile variety of Asbestos in the country
Sir,
This is to draw your urgent
attention towards a Statement calling on the Government of India
dated March 21, 2015 to withdraw a discredited scientific study on chrysotile
(white) asbestos and to stop blocking the listing of chrysotile asbestos as a
hazardous substance at an upcoming UN meeting.
I submit that the ‘Study of Health Hazards / Environmental hazards resulting from
use of Chrysotile variety of Asbestos in the country’, carried out
by the National Institute of Occupational Health (India), states that it found
no evidence that chrysotile asbestos is causing harm to health of workers in
India. The Government is using the study as the reason why it will oppose the
listing of chrysotile asbestos under the Rotterdam Convention at a UN
conference in Geneva in May. The Convention sets safety standards to promote
responsible trade in hazardous substances.
It may be noted that “The study has
no scientific credibility,” stated Dr. Philip Landrigan, President of the
Collegium Ramazzini and Dean for Global Health, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount
Sinai, New York. “It is flawed in the design, methodology and interpretation of
the results,” he added.
I submit that photos in the study
show some workers wearing a cotton scarf tied around their face as their only
“safety equipment”. The study also shows workers weaving asbestos cloth.
This is one of the most hazardous uses of asbestos.
Statement of scientists on the
‘scientific’ study by National Institute of Occupational Health (India) titled
‘Study of Health Hazards / Environmental hazards resulting from use of
Chrysotile variety of Asbestos in the country reads: “We would like to strongly
state that the ‘claim’ being made by the government of India regarding the
‘safety’ of Chrysotile asbestos is unacceptable to any credible scientists
or scientific community. The world scientific community has overwhelmingly
concluded that Chrysotile asbestos causes deadly diseases, such as asbestosis,
mesothelioma and lung and other cancers, and that it cannot be safely used.”
It concludes saying, “We therefore
request the Government of India to withdraw the NIOH study, which does
not hold up to any credible scientific scrutiny and do the right thing by
supporting the listing of Chrysotile asbestos at the upcoming UN conference.”
In view of the attached statement of
scientists on the ‘scientific’ study by NIOH and my previous letter dated
February 25th, 2015, I wish to request you to take action consistent
with Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order and resolutions of ILO and WHO on chrysotile
asbestos.
Yours faithfully
Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
Mb: 08227816731, 09818089660
E-mail:gopalkrishna1715@gmail.com
Web: www.toxicswatch.org
Cc
Mb: 08227816731, 09818089660
E-mail:gopalkrishna1715@gmail.com
Web: www.toxicswatch.org
Cc
Smt. Sushma Swaraj, Union Minister
of External Affairs
Shri Ananth Kumar, Union Ministry of
Chemicals & Fertilizers
Shri Prakash Javadekar, Union
Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change
Dr. S. Jaishankar, Foreign
Secretary, Union Ministry of External Affairs
Shri Surjit Kumar Chaudhary,
Secretary, Union Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers
On 25 February 2015 at 21:23,
krishna <gopalkrishna1715@gmail.com> wrote:
ToxicsWatch
Alliance (TWA)
To
Shri
Ashok Lavasa
Secretary
Ministry
of Environment, Forests and Climate
Change
Paryavaran
Bhawan, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road
New
Delhi 110003
Email:
hempande@nic.in;
sujata@nic.in
Shri
A.J.V. Prasad
Joint
Secretary (Chemicals)
Department
of Chemicals and Petrochemicals
Ministry
of Chemicals and Fertilizers
Postal
address: Room No. 340-C, 'A' Wing, Shastri Bhawan
New
Delhi 110001
Email:
ajv.prasad@nic.in
Permanent
Mission
Government
of India
E-mail:
mission.india@ties.itu.int
Subject- Unethical & immoral act
of inclusion of of Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers’ Association (ACPMA)
in Indian delegation for UN workshop on white chrysotile asbestos
Sir,
This is to draw your urgent and
immediate attention towards the upcoming technical workshop of UN's Rotterdam
Convention (RC) on white chrysotile asbestos scheduled during March 30-31, 2015
and 7th Conference of the Parties (COP7) of the UN's Rotterdam Convention (RC)
in Geneva during May 12-15, 2015 which will consider inclusion of white chrysotile
asbestos in a list of hazardous chemicals yet again.
I wish to strongly object and
express my outrage at the unethical and immoral act of inclusion of Mr. Vivek
Chandra Rao Sripalle of Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers’ Association
(ACPMA), India in the Provisional list of participants at the Technical
workshop on chrysotile asbestos in Geneva, Switzerland in March 2015.
I
was informed by an official on condition of anonymity that officials feel humiliated
when they have to take orders from likes of ACPMA.
I submit that in a letter to Union
Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF), on behalf of ToxicsWatch Alliance
(TWA), I had exposed how Indian delegation’s position at the sixth meeting on
UN's Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain
Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade which concluded on
May 10, 2013 with regard to asbestos was/is contrary to Indian laws in
practice. My submissions to the Ministry were responded and clarifications
provided, which revealed that the MoEF was misled by Union Ministry of
Chemicals which in turn was misled by Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers’
Association (ACPMA). TWA is an applicant in the National Human Rights
Commission (NHRC), New Delhi.
I
submit that ACPMA had overwhelmed and misled the Indian delegation making the
Indian delegation ignore the fact that Asbestos is listed as a hazardous
substance under Part II of Schedule-I of the Manufacture, Storage and import of
Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
provides the List of Hazardous and Toxic Chemicals. This list has 429
chemicals. Asbestos is at the serial no. 28 in the list. This Rule and the list
is available on the website of Union Ministry of Environment & Forests.
I
submit that even then the Indian delegation included asbestos industry
lobbyists like Mr. Vivek Chandra Rao Sripalle, ACPMA.
I
submit that ACPMA’s influence on the delegation’s stance is quite manifest. It
also merits attention as to whether the industry representatives went to this
UN conference on their own expense or government sponsored their visit.
I
submit that ACPMA consists of 20 big firms and 68 manufacturing units, of which
top six players holding 87 per cent of the market share.
I
submit that had ACPMA not overwhelmed the Indian delegation, the Indian position
would have been in keeping with its Inventory of Hazardous Chemicals Import
in India that lists ‘asbestos’ at serial no. 26 as one of the 180 hazardous
chemicals in international trade which is imported in India. This inventory was
prepared by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), under Union Ministry of
Environment & Forests, Govt. of India prepared in September, 2008 with a
foreword September 24, 2008 by Shri J. M. Mauskar, the then Chairman, CPCB and
Additional Secretary, Union Ministry of Environment & Forests This was done
pursue of Government of India’s “Manufacture, Storage, and Import of Hazardous
Chemicals (MSIHC) Rules, 1989” under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
According to these Rules, any person responsible for importing hazardous chemicals
in India is to provide the data of import to the concerned authorities, as
identified in Column 2 of Schedule 5 to the Rules. The CPCB “has been
identified as one of such Authorities. In order to study the inventory of
Hazardous Chemicals being imported by various categories of industrial units in
India, the data provided by these industrial units to the Central Pollution
Control Board (CPCB) have been compiled.” It is scandalous as to why did the
Indian delegation took a position inconsistent with the Manufacture, Storage,
and Import of Hazardous Chemicals (MSIHC) Rules, 1989.
I
submit that even under Factories Act, 1948, the List of 29 industries involving
hazardous processes is given under Section 2 (cb), Schedule First, asbestos is
mentioned at serial no. 24. The Act defines "hazardous process"
as “any process or activity in relation to an industry specified in the First
Schedule where, unless special care is taken, raw materials used therein or the
intermediate or finished products, bye-products, wastes or effluents thereof
would--(i) cause material impairment to the health of the persons engaged in or
connected therewith, or (ii) result in the pollution of the general
environment”. This leaves no doubt that asbestos is a hazardous substance.
The Act is available at:
I
submit that promoters of white chrysotile asbestos like ACPMA who were planted
in the Indian delegation made the government representatives take a position
against human health and the environment and to put profit of the asbestos
industry before gnawing public health concerns.
I
submit that on June 22, 2011 Indian delegation led by Ms. Mira Mehrishi,
Additional Secretary, had supported the listing of Chrysotile asbestos as a
hazardous chemical substance at the fifth meeting on Rotterdam Convention
amidst standing ovation. TWA had taken the opportunity of congratulating the
government but the about turn in May 2013 was a sad let down.
It
is reliably learnt that officials and scientists who go to such UN meetings
feel humiliated when the industry representatives give them directions instead
of the senior government officials or ministers. The UN meet on hazardous
chemicals creates a rationale for insulating government officials from undue
and motivated industry influence else they will be obliged to act like parrots.
The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) must factor in the far
reaching implications for public health before defending the indefensible
hazardous asbestos industry. The day is not far when members of CCEA too will
be held liable for their acts of omission and commission as is happening in
more than 50 countries that have banned all kinds of asbestos.
In
keeping with Indian laws when the UN’s Chemical Review Committee of Rotterdam Convention
recommended listing of white chrysotile asbestos as hazardous substance it is
incomprehensible as why Indian delegation opposed its inclusion in the UN list.
The only explanation appears to be the fact that the Indian government
delegation did not have a position independent of the asbestos industry’s
position which has covered up and denied the scientific evidence that all
asbestos can cause disease and death.
I
submit that there is a case going on against the white asbestos in the National
Human Rights Commission (NHRC), New Delhi wherein the applicant has demanded
inclusion of white asbestos in the UN list. On behalf of the Union Ministry of
Environment & Forests, Shri R B Lal, Deputy Director has submitted its
reply to the NHRC. The reply did not disclose that the delegation of Government
of India led by Ms. Mira Mehrishi, Additional Secretary had announced its
agreement to the inclusion of chrysotile asbestos in the list of hazardous
chemicals paving the way for its “phase out” as envisioned in Union Environment
Ministry’s Vision Statement amidst standing ovation. This reply to NHRC chose
to maintain deafening silence about its own Vision Statement that says,
“Alternatives to asbestos may be used to the extent possible and use ofasbestos
may be phased out”.
I
submit that meanwhile, an Advisory Committee of Union Ministry of Labour has
been set up to implement Hon’ble Supreme Court order issued 15 years ago on
January 27, 1995 and repeated on January 23, 2012. Although more than 1 year
and four months have passed but the Advisory Committee headed by Shri A C
Pandey, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Labour is yet to submit its report to
incorporate specific directions of the Court with regard to fresh ILO’s
Resolution of June 14, 2006 introducing a ban on all mining, manufacture,
recycling and use of all forms of asbestos. NHRC has served a notice to the
Ministry of Labour after considering the matter on 24 December 2014, asking it
provide details about steps taken to ban white chrysotile asbestos.
I
submit that even early industry-funded studies showed a causal relationship
between asbestos exposure and cancer. Had this been made known to the public it
could have prevented countless deaths but the asbestos industry made the
conscious decision to protect their profits instead and choose to keep this
information hidden from the public. India’s asbestos industry is following the
same path.
As
a consequence, although millions of Indian lives are being lost and millions
are being exposed to the killer fibers of white chrysotile asbestos, no
government agency or company is being held liable due to political patronage
which becomes quite glaringly visible when ACPMA is included as part of the
delegation.
While
on a visit to New Delhi, Dr Alec Farquhar, the then Managing Director,
Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers, Canada said, “We now have
around 500 asbestos cancer cases every year in Ontario from a population of 13
million. If you (India) continue on your current path, you will multiply our
death count by 100 times. That would be 50, 000 Indian workers dying every year
from asbestos. In Ontario, we learned that safe use of asbestos is impossible.
I urge you from the bottom of my heart, please do not make the same mistake as
we made in Canada. Stop using asbestos and use a safe alternative.” It is clear
that lack of documentation and lack of environmental and occupational health
infrastructure does not mean lack of victims of asbestos related diseases.
It has been estimated that one
person dies from mesothelioma for every 170 tons of asbestos consumed. WHO
estimates we have107,000 deaths worldwide per year from occupational exposure
to asbestos.If non occupational exposure is added it reaches a figure of about
120,000deaths. Average world consumption/year 30-60 years ago was -- looks
like3/2 of what it is now (2 million metric tons/year). Give India its share
ofthat based on its share of global consumption. At 300,000 tons in 2013,
that's about 18,000 deaths (15% of 120,000). Asbestos diseases have a
very long incubation period. So if you are exposed today to an asbestos fibre,
you are likely to get the disease in next 10-35 years. Asbestos is like a time
bomb to the lungs and Indians will suffer the most. If it is banned today that
does not mean people will not suffer. Because of past usage people will
continue to suffer from these diseases.
I submit that the very existence of
ACPMA is highly problematic and very dubious. ACPMA which faced charges of
cartelization by the Competition Commission of India is registered under The
Societies Registration Act, 1860 and it claims to be a non-profit organization.
Is the asbestos industry a non-profit organization? They make completely
dubious and baseless claims. They have put profit ahead of public health. These
associations appear inhuman, cruel and have a deviant behavior. The members of
ACPMA all await the fate of Kubota Corporation.
I wish to draw your attention
towards the verdict of five judges of Japan’s Supreme Court of February 17,
2015 that has upheld a ruling that found asbestos used at a plant of Kubota
Corporation caused fatal mesothelioma in a man who lived near the plant and
ordered the company to pay ¥31.9 million in damages to his relatives. The
petitioners were relatives of Kojiro Yamauchi, who died at age 80 after working
for two decades about 200 meters from the Kubota plant in Amagasaki, Hyogo
Prefecture. His relatives and those of Ayako Yasui, who died at age 85 having
lived about 1 km from the plant, sought damages from both Kubota and the
government. In October, 2014 the Supreme Court ruled that the government was
responsible for failing to protect workers from exposure at asbestos factories
in Sennan, Osaka Prefecture.
It is noteworthy that Japan has
banned asbestos of all kinds including white chrysotile asbestos.
I also wish to draw your attention
towards the fact that our neighbor Nepal has become the first country in South
Asia which going in the direction of banning asbestos
I submit that in January 1995, while
passing the judgment for the asbestos case file by the Consumer Education &
Research Centre (CERC) (case details: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1657323/),
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India directed all asbestos factories to keep the
health records of their workers for 40 years and/or 15 years after their
retirement. I challenge the entire ACPMA member to simply upload their
employee’s heath records on their websites.
I submit that the second significant
direction was the GoI and the state governments have to mend their rules and
regulation as per the ILO resolution (International Labour Organisation). The
ILO says eliminate asbestos of all kinds for elimination of asbestos
related-diseases. Controlled use is not possible. It has not been possible for
all the countries which have banned it and this is impossible in India too.
I submit that in August 2003, during
the previous NDA led government regime, the health minister had informed the
parliament that asbestos causes incurable lung diseases (such as asbestosis,
lung cancer, etc).
I submit that Navy officials
have rightly objected to presence of asbestos in aircraft carrier Admiral
Gorshkov which was inducted into the Indian Navy as INS Vikramaditya after
asbestos decontamination.
I submit that Union of India’s
Budget 2011-12 had made reference to asbestos related diseases by including it
under the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana to cover ‘unorganized sector workers
in hazardous mining and associated industries like asbestos etc”. During
Emergency, the ruling party and its acolytes had proposed to put opposition
leaders in jails which had asbestos roofs.
I submit that there are fibre
substitutes that have been evaluated by WHO are listed in the Summary Consensus
Report of WHO Workshop on Mechanisms of Fibre Carcinogenesis and Assessment of
Chrysotile Asbestos Substitutes.
I submit that sooner or later, the
asbestos industry will go bankrupt because they will have to pay huge amount of
money in compensation. For every injury in the law there is a remedy. The
present and the future generation will make sure they get remedy.
I submit that the rate of
consumption of growth which they are enjoying today does not mean it will
continue. In western countries, the rate picked at one time and today it is
zero. This is the peak of Asbestos industry in India and now, the downfall will
start.
I submit that the industry must be
persuaded to phase out in two phases. In the first phase the goal is to
eliminate use of chrysotile asbestos and the number of exposed workers and
consumers in the country. In the second phase, the goal is to create incentives
for the use of safer materials, ensure, create a registry of asbestos laden
buildings and victims of asbestos-related diseases and ensure
decontamination of the former and compensation for the latter. There is
an immediate need to conduct an audit of the current status of the victims of
asbestos related diseases from the government hospital records in the country
and make it mandatory for medical colleges to provide training for doctors so
that they can diagnose diseases caused by occupational, non-occupational and
environmental exposures to killer fibers and substances.
I submit that in the 30th year of
Bhopal disaster, asbestos industry should pay heed to the way asbestos
companies have gone bankrupt in the western countries. They should join hands
and create a compensation fund for victims. Dow Chemicals Company which refuses
to own the liability for Bhopal disaster caused by Union Carbide Corporation
(UCC) in India has owned the UCC’s asbestos related liabilities and announced a
compensation fund of 2.2 billion dollars for the victims. In Europe, tycoons
and ministers are facing criminal charges and imprisonment for their act of
knowing subjecting unsuspecting people to killer fibers of asbestos. The future
is no different for Indian culprits.
I submit that it is eminently
consistent with the principle of prior informed consent for India which imports
white chrysotile asbestos from countries like Russia, Brazil, Zimbabwe,
Kazakhstan and others to receive the information to assess whether it has the
ability to safely use this substance or products containing it. The fact
remains that the Convention is about prior informed consent about trade in
hazardous chemicals and not about banning any hazardous substance.
I submit that India should not allow
itself to be misled by asbestos producers like Russia in this regard now that
Canada has rightly stopped mining of white chrysotile asbestos almost like
India due its “deleterious” impact on health.
In view of the above, I demand that
vested interests like ACPMA should not be included in the Indian delegation and
it must support its inclusion in the Annexure III of the Rotterdam Convention
at the UN meetings in March and in May, 2015 in Geneva.
Thanking You
Yours faithfully
Gopal Krishna
Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
Mb: 08227816731, 09818089660
E-mail:1715krishna@gmail.com
Web: www.toxicswatch.org
Cc
Mb: 08227816731, 09818089660
E-mail:1715krishna@gmail.com
Web: www.toxicswatch.org
Cc
Smt.
Sushma Swaraj, Union Minister of External Affairs
Shri
Ananth Kumar, Union Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers
Shri
Prakash Javadekar, Union Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change
Dr.
S. Jaishankar, Foreign Secretary, Union Ministry of External Affairs
Shri
Surjit Kumar Chaudhary, Secretary, Union Ministry of Chemicals &
Fertilizers
--
"We may admire what he does,
but we despise what he is."-referring to humans who act mechanically on
instructions
-------Wilhelm von Humboldt, 1792
-------Wilhelm von Humboldt, 1792
