Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background: All forms of asbestos are now banned in 52 countries. Safer products have replaced many materials that once were made with it. Nonetheless, many countries still use, import, and export asbestos and asbestos-containing products, and in those that have banned other forms of asbestos, the so-called \"controlled use\" of chrysotile asbestos is often exempted from the ban. In fact, chrysotile has accounted for > 95% of all the asbestos used globally. Objective: We examined and evaluated the literature used to support the exemption of chrysotile asbestos from the ban and how its exemption reflects the political and economic influence of the asbestos mining and manufacturing industry. Discussion: All forms of asbestos, including chrysotile, are proven human carcinogens. All forms cause malignant mesothelioma and lung and laryngeal cancers, and may cause ovarian, gastrointestinal, and other cancers. No exposure to asbestos is without risk. Illnesses and deaths from asbestos exposure are entirely preventable. Conclusions: All countries of the world have an obligation to their citizens to join in the international endeavor to ban the mining, manufacture, and use of all forms of asbestos. An international ban is urgently needed. There is no medical or scientific basis to exempt chrysotile from the worldwide ban of asbestos.

In the 1970s, there were many reports of toxic hazards at corporate subsidiaries in the developing world that were no longer tolerated in the corporations’ “home” countries. Following the chemical disaster in Bhopal, India, in 1984, leading corporations then announced that they applied uniform standards of worker and environmental protection worldwide. With globalization, corporations should also be obliged to take responsibility for their separate supplier, contractor and distributor companies, and licensees of their technology. The asbestos industry today consists of national corporations. Individual countries must overcome the influence of the asbestos-exporting countries and asbestos companies and stop building with asbestos, as recommended by WHO, ILO, and World Bank. WHO precautions for limiting governmental interaction with the tobacco industry should be applied in dealing with the asbestos industry.

Jock William McCulloch, who died at Melbourne, Australia, in January 2018, was one of the foremost historians of occupational health of his generation. This tribute reviews his career and oeuvre, which was tragically ended by his death from mesothelioma.

International scientific organizations have been subject to repeated efforts by Canadian government officials and representatives of the asbestos industry to issue reports that would be favorable to the industry on questions of asbestos use and public health implications. In recent years these efforts have been met with international opposition from scientists, governments, unions, and environmental groups, and a pattern of improprieties, often involving the same individuals and tactics, has emerged. This has been a serious threat to scientific objectivity at the most respected international scientific bodies in the world. The manipulation of these international organizations takes on unprecedented significance in this age of the World Trade Organization.

Asbestos is present in the United States in a multitude of products used in past decades, and in some products that continue to be imported and domestically produced. We have limited information on the hazards posed by some of these individual products and no information at all on most of them. Legal discovery of corporate documents has shed some light on the use of asbestos in some products and exposures from asbestos in others, sometimes adding considerably to what was in the published literature. But liability concerns have motivated corporate efforts to curtail governmental public health guidance on long-recognized hazards to workers. Liability considerations have also evidently led, in the case of asbestos brake linings, to the support of publication in the scientific literature of review articles denying in the 21st century what had been widely accepted and established in health policy in the 20th century. This report is an effort to illustrate the suppression and emergence of scientific knowledge in a climate of regulation and liability. Examples discussed are vinyl-asbestos flooring, feminine hygiene products, automotive friction materials, and asbestos contamination of other minerals such as talc and vermiculite. Global efforts to deal with the hazards of continuing marketing of asbestos products are also discussed.

When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized its 2000 update of the toxicological effects of vinyl chloride (VC), it was concerned with two issues: the classification of VC as a carcinogen and the numerical estimate of its potency. In this commentary we describe how the U.S. EPA review of VC toxicology, which was drafted with substantial input from the chemical industry, weakened safeguards on both points. First, the assessment downplays risks from all cancer sites other than the liver. Second, the estimate of cancer potency was reduced 10-fold from values previously used for environmental decision making, a finding that reduces the cost and extent of pollution reduction and cleanup measures. We suggest that this assessment reflects discredited scientific practices and recommend that the U.S. EPA reverse its trend toward ever-increasing collaborations with the regulated industries when generating scientific reviews and risk assessments.

Deceit and Denial tells the story of public-health catastrophes in the manufacture and marketing of products by the lead and chemical industries, and offers the insightful analysis of historians who have long familiarity with industrial hazards. Gerald Markowitz and David Rosner describe how workers and the public were subjected for decades to hazards through a smokescreen of advertising, withholding of industry data, use of industry-controlled standards groups and trade associations to lobby legislatures and influence policies of governmental agencies, intimidation of independent researchers, systematic methodological criticism of adverse medical reports, pressure on hospitals to withhold evidence of industrial poisoning, sponsorship of scientists to churn out unsupported claims that a certain amount of lead in our bodies is normal, and similarly unsupported assertions that leaded gasoline was not polluting the environment.

The World Trade Organization (WTO), created in 1995, adjudicates \"trade disputes\" between member nations in cases with great human rights, cultural, environmental, and public health significance. Throughout the process of dispute resolution and even after a case is concluded, very little of what happens is made accessible to the public. However, it is one thing to criticize the WTO for its lack of transparency from outside the process, and another to critically examine what was withheld from disclosure and what dangers that presents. This is the inside story from a scientific adviser to one of the parties in a WTO case, analyzing what happened from a public health point of view. This analysis concludes that the public health justification of banning asbestos was accepted in the end by the economists at the WTO, despite the WTO's bias in favoring the party (Canada) making the free trade challenge (to public health legislation, in this case) in numerous stages of the process, despite the WTO's utter lack of expertise in science, medicine, engineering, and public health, and despite important erroneous statements made to the WTO under the cover of confidentiality. Despite its result, this case illustrates that the WTO's threat to national sovereignty could never withstand the light of day, that the people of the world would reject this dangerous free trade fundamentalism if the limitations and dangers of the process were open for all to see.