Before the 8th Conference of the Parties
to the UN’s Rotterdam Convention on the prior
informed consent procedure for certain hazardous chemicals
and pesticides in international trade,
ends tomorrow (May 5) in
Geneva, ToxicsWatch
Alliance (TWA) appeals to the Prime Minister to intervene and advice the Environment Minister
Anil Madhav Dave and Environment Secretary, Ajay Narayan Jha to ensure that
India distances itself from countries like Russia, Kazakhstan,
Zimbabwe, Kyrgyzstan, and Syria who are opposed to the listing of white
chrysotile asbestos in the UN list of hazardous substances. This list helps in
better protection of public health and environment.
Union environment
minister Anil Madhav Dave has already taken a position which is consistent with
public health concerns saying, “Since the use of asbestos is affecting human
health, its use should gradually be minimised and eventually end. As far as I
know, its use is declining. But it must end.” Indian delegation led by
Environment Secretary should not be allowed to take any inconsistent position.
Notably, Indian Navy
officials have rightly objected to presence of asbestos in Russian aircraft
carrier Admiral Gorshkov which was inducted into the Indian Navy as INS
Vikramaditya after asbestos decontamination.
In this regard it is
important for India to support the proposal by African countries to amend the Convention merits India support
becasue it allows decisions to list hazardous substances to be taken by a 75%
majority vote as a last resort, if consensus proves impossible, which will be
on the agenda this proposal.
For more than a decade the white chrysotile asbestos
industry has refused to allow white chrysotile asbestos to be put on the
Rotterdam Convention’s list of hazardous substances although it meets all the
Convention’s criteria for listing. Thirty-two scientists from every region of
the world, who make up the Convention’s expert scientific committee, have
repeatedly recommended that white chrysotile asbestos be put on the
Convention’s list of hazardous substances. The right to Prior Informed Consent
that the Convention provides has been rendered null and void by a tiny group
who profit from asbestos export and the Convention is in crisis.
India should not allow
itself to be overwhelmed by the influence of the four asbetsos producers of the
world who produced 1,799,700 metric tons of chrysotile asbestos in 2015 (Russia
- 1,100,000 tons, Brazil- 310,000 tons, China-210,000 tons and Kazakhstan
179,700 tons) who seem to have given themselves the power to determine whether
or not Indians have the right of Prior Informed Consent. In a bizzare
situation, it is being implied by them this right exists only if the hazardous
white chrysotile asbestos industry allows it to be exercised.
White Chrysotile
Asbestos has been approved by Convention’s Chemical Review Committee
(CRC) for listing in the UN List of hazardous substance.
Indian delegation must be made to realize what
is stated in the 105 page long Indian Government’s Environmental Impact Assessment
Guidance Manual for Asbestos Based Industries.
The relevant part of the Manual reads: “All workplaces where asbestos
dust may cause a hazard is to be clearly indicated as an asbestos dust exposure
area through the use of a well-displayed sign, which identifies the hazard and
the associated health effects” for workers’s education. It also states,
“Pictorial warning signs and precautionary notices for asbestos and products
containing asbestos are to be made” for the protection of consumers from
“hazard and the associated health effects.” During the UN meeting underway from
24 April till 5
May, 2017, these admitted “hazard and the associated health effects” of asbestos manufacturing and asbestos
containing products is the subject of deliberations.
In a written reply
Union Minister of Health and Family Welfare informed the Parliament on the
subject of Asbestos Related Diseases on February 21, 2014. This reply is most
relevant in this regard in the present context as far as Central Government’s
position is concerned.
The reply of the Union
Minister of Health and Family Welfare reads: “The Indian Council of Medical
Research (ICMR) has informed that major health hazards of asbestos include
cancer of lung, mesothelioma of pleura and peritoneum and specific fibrous
disease of lung known as asbestosis. All types of asbestos fibers are
responsible for human mortality and morbidity. Studies have been carried out at
National Institute of Occupational Research, an Institute of ICMR, Ahmedabad which
show that workers when exposed to higher workplace concentration of asbestos
fiber have higher incidence of interstitial lung disease and pulmonary function
impairment. Directorate General Factory Advice Service and Labour Institutes,
(DGFASLI) under Ministry of Labour & Employment has intimated data of
workers suffering from Asbestosis in factories registered under the Factories
Act, 1948.As per the information provided by DGFASLI, it is informed that 21
no. of Asbestosis cases were reported in Gujarat in 2010 and 2 cases in
Maharashtra in the year 2012.” It
noteworthy that reply is from the year 2014.
This clearly indicates
that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has revisited, reviewed and
revised its position. It is evdient this very ministry which has jurisdiction
over the subject of health.
The reply of the Union
Minister of Health and Family Welfare reads: “As per the provisions of the
Factories Act, 1948 and rules framed thereunder, manufacture, handling and
processing of Asbestos and its products is declared as Hazardous Process.
Further, Govt. of India has prepared Schedule XIV- ‘’Handling and Processing of
Asbestos, Manufacture of any Article or Substance of Asbestos and any other
Process of Manufacture or otherwise in which Asbestos is used in any Form’’ as
a Dangerous Operation under section 87 of the Factories Act,1948. The Ministry
of Mines has informed that the Grant of fresh mining leases and renewal of
existing mining leases for Asbestos are presently banned in the country on Health
Grounds.” This was stated by the Union Minister for Health and Family Welfare
in a reply to the Lok Sabha.
This reply is
consistent with the observation of World Health Organisation (WHO) saying,
" All types of asbestos cause lung cancer, mesothelioma, cancer of the
larynx and ovary, and asbestosis (fibrosis of the lungs). Exposure to asbestos
occurs through inhalation of fibres in air in the working environment, ambient
air in the vicinity of point sources such as factories handling asbestos, or
indoor air in housing and buildings containing friable (crumbly) asbestos
materials." It underlines that several thousands of deaths can be
attributed to other asbestos-related diseases, as well as to non-occupational
exposures to asbestos.
Indian delegation must
be informed that Union Ministry of Mines banned the Grant of fresh mining
leases and renewal of existing mining leases for Asbestos (including white
chrysotile asbetsos) in the country “on Health Grounds”. It is should be
adviced that the admitted “health grounds” are relevant for trade in raw white
chrysotile asbestos mineral fibers. Indian delegation should refer to the
provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 and rules framed thereunder, according to
which manufacture, handling and processing of Asbestos and its products is
declared as Hazardous Process. Further, it should be told that Governmenty of
India has prepared Schedule XIV- ‘’Handling and Processing of Asbestos,
Manufacture of any Article or Substance of Asbestos and any other Process of
Manufacture or otherwise in which Asbestos is used in any Form’’ which admits
that it is a Hazardous and Dangerous Operation under section 87 of the
Factories Act,1948.
The most recent paper
titled, Pleuroperitoneal Mesothelioma: A Rare Entity on 18F-FDG PET/CT published
in Indian Journal of Nuclear Medicine, authored by researchers from Department
of Nuclear Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi
and Department of Radiodiagnosis, AIIMS. This paper authored by Dr Shamim Ahmed
Shamim et al provides credible information about an asbestos related disease of
a 40-year-old-female without any history of occupational asbestos exposure
presented with histologically proven malignant pleural mesothelioma. Malignant
mesothelioma is a rare tumor that originates from the cells lining the
mesothelial surfaces, including the pleura, peritoneum, pericardium, and tunica
vaginalis.
An earlier 2009 paper
titled Pleural mesothelioma: An unusual case diagnosed on pleural fluid
cytology and immunocytochemistry states, “Mesothelioma is a rare neoplasm with
relationship to occupational and environmental exposure to asbestos. Its
accurate and early diagnosis is often difficult. We present an unusual clinical
presentation and diagnostic dilemma in a 30-year-male, who presented with neck
pain and diffuse edema of left upper limb. The color Doppler ultrasound
revealed venous thrombosis. The right supraclavicular lymph node biopsy
revealed a poorly differentiated carcinoma. The patient had mild bilateral
pleural effusion, the characteristic cytomorphological features of mesothelioma
on fluid cytology were helpful in establishing the diagnosis.” This paper was co-authored by Dr V K Arora et
al from the Department of Pathology, AlIMS.
Indian delegation
shoould be protected from the unhealthly influence of Asbestos Cement Products
Manufacturers Association (ACPMA) which has misled the Indian delegation in the
past. Indian delegation should note that Asbestos is listed as a hazardous
substance under Part II of Schedule-I of the Manufacture, Storage and import of
Hazardous Chemical Rules 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 are available on the website of Union Ministry of
Environment & Forests.
If ACPMA does not
overwhelm the Indian delegation, the Indian position would be in keeping with
governmement’s “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. It would be scandalous if
Indian delegation took a position inconsistent with the Manufacture, Storage,
and Import of Hazardous Chemicals (MSIHC) Rules.
Notably, 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.
It has been observed
that promoters of white chrysotile asbestos like ACPMA manage to get themselves
planted in the Indian delegation and seem to prevail on 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.
It must be recalled
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 on later occasions under the corrupting influence ACPMA 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.
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 to why Indian delegation opposed its inclusion in the UN
list on earlier occasions. 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.
Global experience underlines 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.
in a related
development, on April 2, 2013 in a precedent-setting decision, the Israel's High Court of Justice rejected a petition on against a law placing substantial
financial responsibility on a company to clean up asbestos waste. The order
observed, “In recent years, countries throughout the world have been required
to deal with different dilemmas related to protecting the quality of the
environmental. A substantial portion of
these dilemmas involve, among other things, legal, economic and ethical
considerations. Amongst these dilemmas, the removal of hazardous waste – the
matter at the heart of the present appeal – is a subject that demands
significant attention. Asbestos, in
particular, has proved itself to be efficient and strong, suitable for many
uses. However, it has become clear with
time that its ability to cause damage immeasurably outweighs its potential
benefits. Since the 20th century,
different states have dealt with this matter of how to clean up the environment
from asbestos, and onthe questions of who to impose the responsibility and who
to require to pay for the implementation.
Consequently, I have found it appropriate to first turn our perspective
on the relevant legal regimes in a few key countries beyond our borders.” It ruled that "To conclude, the survey
presented (of various international legal perspectives) indicates various and
complimentary components. In all
instances it appears a consensus has been established, certainly so with
regards to materials hazardous by their very nature such as asbestos, that
substantial responsibility is to be imposed on the pollutant."
Also relevant is 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 this Supreme Court ruled that the government was responsible for failing
to protect workers from exposure at asbestos factories in Sennan, Osaka
Prefecture.
It is matter of
official record that three cases of asbestos related diseases i.e. Mesothelioma
have been reported from among the workers of employed in the factory of
Hyderabad Industries Limited, Sanathnagara, Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh. These
workers have died due to the disease. These workers were: 1) N Chandra Mouli,
2) Sher Khan and 3) ama Chandraiah. This was revealed in an affidavit filed by
T Narayana Reddy, Special Officer Office of Advocate-on-record, Andhra Pradesh
Legal Cell, New Delhi in the Supreme Court. This company in question may be
asked to file a report on total number of workers employed by it and their
health status including a report about the three above mentioned workers.
It is also a matter of
official record that National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH),
Ahmedabad, Gujarat recommended compensation for two workers employed in Gujarat
Composites Limited who were certified to be suffering from asbestosis. This has
been revealed in a reply given by Government of Gujarat. A letter of Chief
Inspector of Factories, Gujarat State dated December 24, 2002 in the matter of
execution of the order of Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 206 of
1986 categorically reveals that two workers of Gujarat Composites Ltd were
confirmed for Asbestosis, an incurable lung disease by NIOH. The workers were
(1) Hazarilal Manraj and (2) Sahejram B Yadav. The letter recommended
compensation of Rs 1 lakh as per the Court order but till date the same has not
been given. This and many such cases conclusively establish the hazards from
asbestos. Influence of the asbestos industry becomes quite obvious when
Government turns a blind eye to such glaring official facts. This is also a clear case of contempt of
court by the asbestos based company. It may be noted that Gujarat Composite Ltd
(formerly named Digvijay Cement Company) appears to be attempting to hide
behind myriad corporate veils by changing names and by outsourcing its work.
The official letter demonstrates that white chrysotile asbestos is a hazardous
substance which causes asbestos related incurable diseases.
It is noteworthy that
Secretary, Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh Administration which
has categorically informed National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) that “a.
White Asbestos (Chrysotile Asbestos) is implicated in so many studies with the
following diseases:-Mesothelioma (Cancer of Pleura), Lung Cancer, Peritoneal
Cancer, Asbestosis, And also consider as cause of following cancers:- Ovarian
Cancer, Laryngeal Cancer, Other Cancer b. Diseases are produced in the person
involved in Asbestos Industry.” It states that “No. of cancer deaths due to
asbestos requires further large scale study from India”. It informs, “It is
definitely harmful material, causing cancer and other related diseases.”
It quotes from
Pulmonary Medicine journal saying, “Asbestos is a set of six naturally
occurring silicate minerals exploited commercially for their desirable physical
properties. However, it has been proved beyond doubt that Asbestos is hazardous
to humans. White asbestos has been found to have causal relationship with
various diseases like pulmonary asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma
leading to deaths of thousands of people every year.”
The communication of
Chandigarh Administration concludes saying, “Hence, use of white asbestos
should be completely banned in India also and the same may be replaced by some
safe alternative material.” Chandigarh Administration has realized the public
health consequences of exposure to fibers of asbestos.
The Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh has referred to para 16 of the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated January 21, 2011 passed in Writ
Petition (Civil) No.260 of 2004 wherein directions of January 27, 1995 in the
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 206 of 1986 is required to be strictly adhered
to. It further states, “In terms of the
above judgement of this Court as well as reasons stated in this judgement, we
hereby direct the Union of India and States to review safeguards in relation to
primary as well as secondary exposure to asbestos keeping in mind the
information supplied by the respective States in furtherance to the earlier
judgement as well as fresh resolution passed by the ILO. Upon such review,
further directions, consistent with law, shall be issued within a period of six
months from the date of passing of this order.”
As to ‘fresh resolution passed by the ILO’, it is noteworthy that “A Resolution
concerning asbestos was adopted by the International Labour Conference at its
95th Session in 2006. Noting that all forms of asbestos, including chrysotile,
are classified as human carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC), and expressing its concern that workers continue to face serious
risks from asbestos exposure, particularly in asbestos removal, demolition,
building maintenance, ship breaking and waste handling activities, it calls
for: – the elimination of the future use of asbestos and the identification and
proper management of asbestos currently in place as the most effective means to
protect workers from asbestos exposure and to prevent future asbestos-related
diseases and deaths.”
In a letter dated May
29, 2012, Joint Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand has referred to a document
Medline Plus Trusted Health Information for You, U.S. National Library of
Medicine and the prescription of National Institutes of Health (NIH)
highlighting the Treatment stating: “There is no cure. Stopping exposure to asbestos
is essential.”
It is not surprising
that Union Ministry of Labour’s concept paper declares, "The Government of
India is considering the ban on use of chrysotile asbestos in India to protect
the workers and the general population against primary and secondary exposure
to Chrysotile form of Asbestos. The Concept paper of the Central Government
notes, "Asbestosis is yet another occupational disease of the Lungs which
is on an increase under similar circumstances warranting concerted efforts of all
stake holders to evolve strategies to curb this menace".
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 120,000 deaths. 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 of that 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. 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.
Indian laws include
asbestos in the list of hazardous substances but undue influence of commercial
interests has been persuaded to take a position which is diametrically opposite
of domestic laws in the past. It is hoped that the situation will be different
this time.
Prime Minister should
intervene to insulate Indian delegation from undue and motivated industry
influence to ensure that they are not made to act like parrots of commercial
interests. In matters like exposure from carcinogenic fibers of asbestos these
officials must be made to factor in far reaching implications for public health
before defending the indefensible hazardous asbestos industry. The day is not
far when officials who are members of the Indian delegation 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. The representtaives of asbestos industry
association has been undermining India’s stature among the global scientific
community for long.
The crucial issue is that Indian delegation must resist the influence of foreign interests working
through ACPMA to ensure that public health interest triumphs over immoral,
unethical and myopic commercial considerations of foreign asbestos producers to
defend India’s supreme interest. The manufacturers in India can easily shift to
non-asbestos materials for manufacturing and some of them have started to move
in that direction in South India.
Even early
industry-funded studies had shown 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.
Indian delegation
should take an independent position without being bullied by countries like
Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, Zimbabwe and Vietnam and support the
listing of White Chrysotile Asbestos as a hazardous chemical becasue CPCB’s
inventory and other Indian laws mention it as a hazardous chemical.
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.
India should not allow
itself to be misled by asbestos producers like Russia and Kazakhstan in this
regard now that Canada has rightly stopped mining of white chrysotile asbestos
almost like India due its “deleterious” impact on health.
As per Environmental
Impact Assessment Guidance Manual for Asbestos Based Industries , the Terms of
Reference (TOR) that is awarded by the Experts Appraisal Committee (EAC),
Industrial Project, Union Ministry of Environment & Forests for Chrysotile
asbestos based roofing factory asks the project proponent to prepare a “Health
Management Plan for Mesothelioma, Lung cancer and Asbestosis related problems in
asbestos industries” revealing its hazardous nature.
The recommendation to
list white chrysotile asbestos to the PIC list can be a remedy for the mistake
committed in the past to pave the way for making India free of incurable
hazardous asbestos related diseases. While one remains quite alarmed to note
that Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs, Government of India does not
include Ministers of Consumer Affairs, Health, Labour, and Environment, it is
hoped that despite such a structural constraint myopic commercial
considerations will not triumph over gnawing concerns related to consumers,
public health, workers, and environment.
In this conflict
between Truth Versus Profit, the former must prevail taking cognizance of the
hazardous nature of all kinds of asbestos including white chrysotile asbestos
and decision of the countries that have banned it. These countries are: 1) Algeria, 2) Argentina, 3) Australia, 4)
Austria, 5) Bahrain, 6) Belgium, 7) Brunei, 8) Bulgaria, 9) Chile, 10) Croatia, 11) Cyprus, 12) Czech
Republic, 13) Denmark, 14) Egypt, 15) Estonia, 16) Finland, 17) France,
18) Gabon, 19) Greece, 20) Germany, 21)
Gibraltar, 22) Hungary, 23) Honduras, 24) Iceland, 25) Iraq, 26) Ireland, 27)
Israel, 28) Italy, 29) Japan, 30) Jordan, 31) Kuwait, 32) Latvia, 33)
Luxembourg, 34) Lithuania, 35) Mauritius, 36) Mozambique, 37) Malta, 38)
Netherlands, 39) New Caledonia, 40) New Zealand, 41) Norway, 42) Oman, 43)
Portugal, 44) Poland, 45) Qatar, 46) Romania, 47) Saudi Arabia, 48)
Sweden, 49) Switzerland, 50) Serbia, 51)
Seychelles, 52) Slovakia, 53) Slovenia, 54) South Africa, 55) South Korea, 56)
Spain, 57) Turkey, 58) Uruguay and 59) United Kingdom. India needs to learn from them in this regard.
The CoP 8 of Rotterdam
Convention provides an opportunity to demonstrate that Indian Government does
not put blind profit above public health and to underline that it is concerned
about the public health of present and future generations.
Prime Minister must
ensure that India supports the proposed amendment from the twelve African
countries represents the only hope of ensuring that the white chrysotile
asbestos industry and other hazardous industries do not get the right to cause
the demise of the Convention.
For Details:
Dr Gopal Krishna, Ban Asbestos
Network of India (BANI)-ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Mb: 08227816731, 09818089660, E-mail-1715krishna@gmail.com, Web:
www.asbestosfreeindia.org, toxicswatch.org
1 comment:
free swagbucks codes hack
WHY WE'RE ALL MISSING OUT WITH SWAGBUCKS…
Post a Comment