Mesothelioma law and lawsuits
Global dirty tricks campaign
Asbestos producer nations have blocked the addition of chrysotile (white) asbestos to the UN list of highly dangerous substances that cannot be exported to developing countries without their knowledge and agreement. The blocking manoeuvre on "prior informed consent" (PIC) listing of chrysotile at the Rotterdam convention meeting in Geneva on 18 September 2004 was spearheaded by the Canadian and Russian governments.
The move drew protests from campaigners, while the European Union said it would set a negative precedent. "The failure to list chrysotile asbestos is a bad omen for the convention, risking serious harm by sending a signal that the convention's requirements do not need to be taken seriously," said Clifton Curtis, director of World Wildlife Fund's global toxics programme.
Global construction union IFBWW, which has been at the forefront of the worldwide union ban campaign on asbestos, expressed "profound disappointment and its determination to continue the struggle for a global ban." Supporters of the inclusion of chrysotile asbestos on the list are expected to keep up the pressure.
The asbestos lobby pulled off an identical blocking move at the 2003 PIC meeting. As the procedure has no mechanism to force signatories to play by the rules, Canada and other asbestos interests could feasibly block listing indefinitely. However, the strategy could totally discredit the Rotterdam Treaty, which could lead to increasing pressure on these nations to observe the spirit of the treaty.
In September 2004, the International Social Security Association joined international union and health organisations in calling for a global asbestos ban.
- asbestos attorney mesothelioma
- asbestosis mesothelioma
- cause of mesothelioma
- malignant mesothelioma
- malignant pleural mesothelioma
- mesothelioma
- mesothelioma asbestos
- mesothelioma asbestos lung cancer
- mesothelioma attorney
- mesothelioma diagnosis
- mesothelioma doctor
- mesothelioma law
- mesothelioma law firm
- mesothelioma lawsuit
- mesothelioma lawyer
- mesothelioma prognosis
- mesothelioma support
- mesothelioma symptom
- mesothelioma treatment
- pericardial mesothelioma
- peritoneal mesothelioma
- pleural mesothelioma
Generations of deadly asbestos deceit
A generation ago, the UK asbestos industry paid for full page advertisements in national newspapers and magazines.
A UK Asbestos Information Committee ad from the 2 September 1970 edition of Punch claimed we would be "in danger!" withoutasbestos, warning that without this "indispensable material" ships and buildings would be in peril from fire. In fact, fire deaths
plummeted after asbestos
lagging was banned.
Having lost the argument in the UK, the global asbestos industry is now using the same sleazy PR techniques in developing nations.
A "special sponsored feature" in the 9 January 2004 edition of India's Business Standard newspaper, looking deceptively like an ordinary feature, claims a New Delhi conference convened by Indian, Canadian and US asbestos industry bodies - including the Canadian government-funded Asbestos Institute - "had cleared the last fibres of doubt about the effect of chrysotile asbestos cement on human health and environment."
Another headline in the advertorial claims: "Asbestos cement used in India is free from all health risks"; another says "The last fibres of doubt disappear at the International Conference."
The industry is not relying solely on propaganda, however. A report in British Medical Journal last year said occupational health doctors complain they are under pressure from the asbestos industry to label patients with asbestos disease as having tuberculosis or bronchitis
