Documents unearthed
under the Right to Information Act reveal how industry added Rs. 16
lakh to the government’s Rs. 44 lakh to commission a study by the
National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH) to “specifically
indicate how technology has made working conditions [in asbestos
factories] better.”
The study is titled “Implementation of Rotterdam Convention on Prior
Informed Consent Procedures — Study of Health Hazards/Environment
Hazards Resulting from the Use of Chrysotile Variety of Asbestos in the
Country.” Chrysotile is popularly known as white asbestos.
Acknowledging the hazards from asbestos, Anbumani Ramadoss, Union
Health Minister, informed Parliament: “…regarding asbestos, a lot of
poor people use it. As regards the issue pertaining to banning of
asbestos, as a health issue, the government certainly has not taken it
up. It is an occupational hazard and people working in the asbestos
factories are prone to lung cancer, but we are taking the enormity of
the usage of asbestos. Mostly, poor people in the villages use it.
Hence, I cannot take a decision on this issue.”
Deadly fibre
The enormity of usage is no excuse to expose Indian workers and
citizens to this deadly fibre. Without amendment to the existing import
policy by the Union Ministry of Commerce and Industry for white
asbestos, its consumption pattern is unlikely to change.
The study that has now been exposed through the Right to Information is
supposed to be presented at the next meeting of the Chemical Review
Committee of the Rotterdam Convention to rationalise its third veto
against the U.N. action on white asbestos. It will also form the basis
for India’s domestic policy on the continued use of asbestos.
The next conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention will be
held from October 27 to 31, 2008 in Rome. Chrysotile asbestos will be
on the agenda of Fourth Conference of Parties (COP-4) as was agreed at
COP-3. This treaty, a result the efforts of the United Nations, came
into force in February 2004. The text of the Convention was adopted in
Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The Indian government, irrespective of the
ruling party, has consistently colluded with asbestos interests.
The COP-3 of Rotterdam Convention held in Geneva, Switzerland, in
October 2006 failed to bring the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Treaty to
apply to chrysotile (white asbestos), a known human carcinogen that
represents 94 per cent of world’s asbestos.
Although 95 per cent of the countries sought its inclusion, the COP-3
failed to list this and the decision to include it has been proposed in
COP-4 in 2008. The Indian delegation has consistently argued that the
science behind the recommendation to list chrysotile asbestos was not
categorical.
The minutes of the Review Committee obtained recently through the Right
to Information Act, dated December 19, 2006, read: “The report will be
finalised after due discussions with the asbestos industry.” Another
meeting minutes, dated April 18, 2007, report that “...the results of
the study which was under way could not be shared [with public] till
the same was finalised.” Clearly, a scientific study that is finalised
after discussions with the corporate interests is grossly conflict of
interest ridden and deserves to be scrapped.
As per data released by the U.N. Statistics Division, India imported
about 306,000 tonnes of asbestos in 2006. Of which, 152,820 tonnes was
imported from Russia and 63,980 tonnes from Canada.
Made-to-order science
The rising consumption is a result of a made-to-order science that gets
exposed by the documents that show how the Union Ministry of Chemicals,
acting in collusion with the asbestos industry, is manufacturing
science to back its pre-determined position to fight global regulation
on the killer fibre by reiterating that ‘controlled and safe use’ of
white asbestos is acceptable both to the white asbestos industry and
the Indian government.
Dr. Barry Castleman, an expert on asbestos who was in India in December
2007, commented: “Anyone who says there’s a controlled use of asbestos
in the Third World is either a liar or a fool.”
http://www.hindu.com/op/2008/03/02/stories/2008030252801500.htm
Copyright
© 2008, The Hindu.
