India refers to cancer causing white asbestos as non –hazardous at UN
Meet!
WORKER CRUSHED TO DEATH IN ASBESTOS
FACTORY IN BIHAR
New Delhi, May
11, 2013: Ignoring the recommendations
of WHO, ILO and the Supreme Court’s order, Indian delegation joined supporters of
asbestos industry against human health and the
environment at the . Countries like Russia,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, Zimbabwe and Vietnam acted regressively to put
profit of the asbestos industry before public health at the Sixth meeting of
the 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 (RC COP6), which concluded on May 10, 2013 in Geneva, Switzerland.
Unmindful disastrous public health consequences due to exposure from carcinogenic
fibers of white chrysotile asbestos, India became a partner of those who practice
irresponsible trade.
The Rotterdam Convention requires that countries
exporting hazardous substances practice responsible trade and obtain
prior informed consent before exporting a hazardous substance on the
Convention’s list, thus enabling countries to protect the health of their
citizens and the environment. All Parties to the Convention have a duty to
practice responsible trade and to respect the right of prior informed consent.
It is all about responsible trade information practices. But as there was no
agreement on listing chrysotile asbestos, RC COP6 could not adopt a decision
with regard to its inclusion in the list of hazardous substances for the fourth
time. Now the issue of listing chrysotile asbestos will automatically be on the
agenda of RC COP7.
It is incomprehensible as to how Indian delegation allied
itself in opposition to right of countries to prior informed consent. Even
World Trade Organisation and World Bank have recognized that white chrysotile
asbestos is a hazardous substance.
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) expresses its outrage
at the compromised conduct of the India delegation which ignored that
chrysotile asbestos meets all the criteria for inclusion in the list of
hazardous substances under the influence of asbestos industry. Their irresponsible
conduct has contributed to the delay in action which has huge costs to human
health and the environment. Barring seven countries including India all the
other countries supported the listing by raising their flags at the RC COP6.
Indian delegation cited an admittedly tainted and doctored
study of National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH), Ahmedabad to argue
that India cannot support listing of the white chrysotile asbestos as a
hazardous substance. The influence of the asbestos industry on the government
officials appears quite stark. TWA has written a letter to the head of the
Indian delegation in this regard. The same is attached.
It
is noteworthy that the expert scientific body (the Chemical Review Committee)
of Rotterdam Convention
has recommended listing of white chrysotile asbestos as hazardous substance for
the fouth time. Chrysotile asbestos represents 100% of the global
asbestos trade and, over the past one hundred years, 95% of all asbestos traded
was chrysotile asbestos. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that all
forms of asbestos, including chrysotile asbestos, are hazardous to health. But
for the past many decades, the asbestos industry covered up and denied the
scientific evidence that all asbestos can cause disease and death. As a
consequence, millions of people have lost their lives and continue to lose
them. 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.
If what the Indian delegation has
been made to say at the UN meet is indeed the case then how is it that Union
Environment Ministry’s Vision Statement that says, “Alternatives to asbestos
may be used to the extent possible and use of asbestos may be phased out”.
The vision statement is here: http://moef.nic.in/divisions/
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 Mesothelmia,
Lung cancer and Asbestosis related problems in asbestos industries” revealing
its hazardous nature.
Given
the fact that the delegation represents the voice of Government of India, how
does Ajay Tyagi, head of the Indian delegation respond to the concept paper by
Union Ministry of Labour presented at the 5th India-EU Joint Seminar on
“Occupational Safety and Health” saying "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." It has noted that "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". The paper is available here:
If
white chrysotile asbestos is not hazardous why its ban and phase out is
recommended? TWA disapproves of such manifest inconsistency on the part of the
government under the influence of the white chrysotile asbestos industry.
Briefing
TWA about the goings at the UN Meet in Geneva, Dr Barry Castleman, a noted
expert of asbestos who has worked with WHO and World Bank in an email
communication from Geneva said that "The Indians distinguished themselves
by objecting to the listing of chrysotile, Paraquat and PFOA. There were 2
representatives of the asbestos industry from India there. The gov
spokesman insisted that there was a study from NIOH that showed things were OK
in the Indian asbestos industry and bristled when I told him that was
scandalously influenced by the asbestos industry" on May 8, 2013.
It
may be noted that Supreme Court’s judgement of January 27, 1995 in the
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 206 of 1986 refers to the book of Dr Castleman, at
paragraph 18, reads: “In Asbestos Medical and Legal Aspects by Barry I.
Castleman at p.10 had stated that Dr. Merewether following the diagnosis by
Homburter in his coincidence of Primary Carcinoma at the Lungs and Pulmonary
Asbestos 1943 stated that fibrosis of the lungs as it occurs among asbestos
workers as the slow growth of fibrous tissue (scar tissue) between the air
cells of the lungs whenever the inhaled dust comes to rest. While new fibrous
tissue is being laid down like a spider's web that deposited earlier gradually
contract. This fibrous tissue is not only useless as a substitute for the air
cells, but with continued inhalation of the casuative dust, by its invasion of
new territory and consolidation of that already occupied, it gradually, and
literally strangles the essential tissues of the lungs.”
Documents unearthed under the Right to Information
Act reveal how white asbetsos industry added Rs. 16 lakh to the government’s
Rs. 44 lakh to commission a study by the NIOH to “specifically indicate how
technology has made working conditions [in asbestos factories] better.”
The discredited 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.” The minutes of the Review Committee for the NIOH
study obtained 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.”
Not only that the predisposition of the NIOH
study is revealed from a letter dated 24.4.2006 from Under Secretary to the
Government of India, Dept. of Chemicals and Petrochemicals, Union Ministry of
Chemicals and Fertilisers to Director, NIOH: “the deliverables will include
generation of data which would justify the safe standards of its usage as also
the reasons/rationale justifying its non-inclusion/or otherwise in the PIC
ambit…”.
Clearly, a scientific study that is finalised
after discussions with the corporate interests is grossly conflict of interest
ridden. Citing of the NIOH study by Government of India at the UN Meet
belittles its stature at world stage.
TWA demands a probe into circumstances and
influences which compelled the Indian delegation to take such a compromising
position although at the last RCCOP, it had indicated that it would support the
inclusion of chrysotile asbestos in the PIC list. This sudden U turn merits
inquiry.
The NIOH study that has been exposed using the
Right to Information Act was meant for stage mananged at the meetings of the
Rotterdam Convention to rationalise its continued action on white asbestos. The
Rotterdam Convention is a treaty which is a result the efforts of the UN. It
came into force in February 2004.
It
is factually incorrect on the part of the Indian delegation in Geneva to state
that the experience with white chrysotile asbestos was not so bad in India
based on a discredited and conflict of interest ridden study done by NIOH. The
fact is that affidavits filed by several State governments in India before the
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), New Delhi reveal that such claims are
totally misplaced.
Government
of India was compelled to admit that the NIOH study was funded by the white
chrysotile asbestos industry in two separate replies in both the Houses of the
Parliament after the same was revealed in a reply accessed using Right to
Information Act. The replies were released by the Press Information Bureau. The
urls of the replies is here:
Earth
Negotiations Bulletin dated May 7, 2013 reported saying, "INDIA did not
support listing, citing the utility of the substance, the finding of “no
hazard” in domestic studies and the increased trade costs of the PIC Procedure." The bulletin is attached. The
domestic study which reached the conclusion of 'no hazard' is with reference to
the doctored NIOH study.
Contradicting
such misleading claims of the Indian delegation, Indian government agencies
like Directorate General, Factory Advice Service and Labour Institutes
(DGFASLI) took note of Prevalence of Asbestosis and Related Disorders in a
Asbestos Fiber Processing Unit in West Bengal as early as in 1996. Reference:
Prevalence of Asbestosis and Related Disorders in a Asbestos Fiber Processing
Unit in West Bengal. The same is available here:
Even
documents of Planning Commission of India contradict the claims of the Indian
delegation at the UN Meet underway in Geneva.
It must be noted that a Working Group of a
Planning Commission prepared the Xth Five Year Plan on Occupational Safety and
Health at the workplace under the Chairmanship of Secretary, Ministry of
Labour, Government of India vide their order no. M-13015/9/2000-LEM/LP
dated 27.04.2001. In its 159 page report dated September 2001, the
Working Group noted that “The workers are also exposed to a host of hazardous
substances, which have a potential to cause serious occupational diseases such
as asbestosis…” It has recorded that various studies conducted by the Central
Labour Institute have revealed substantial prevalence of occupational health
disorders amongst the workers such as Asbestosis. The prevalence rate for
Asbestosis was reported to be 7.25%. It has been acknowledged that “At the same
time the number of occupational diseases reported is very meager…This makes it
evident that early identification of occupational diseases is required. It has
recommended that “To meet these requirements, measures are needed for
diagnostic facilities and appropriate training in the field of occupational
health. Occupational health hazards and diseases to the workmen employed in
asbestos industries are of great concern to the industries, Govt. and the
public. The Honorable Supreme Court of India in its judgement dated 27th
January, 1995 relating to the Public Interest Litigation No.206 of 1986 had
given several directions concerning the protective measures to be taken against
the hazards of exposure to asbestos at workplaces such as mining and
manufacturing activities. In the light of Supreme Court directives, it is
proposed to launch a comprehensive programme for the protection of the health
of the workers engaged in hazardous industries with adequate mechanisms for
monitoring of work environment and diagnosis and control of disease.”
The following chemicals was considered by the RC
COP-6 for listing in Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention: Azinphos-methyl;
Chrysotile asbestos; Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, perfluorooctanesulfonates,
perfluorooctanesulfonamides and perfluorooctanesulfonyls; Pentabromodiphenyl
ether (CAS No. 32534-81-9) and pentabromodiphenyl ether commercial mixtures;
Octabromodiphenyl ether commercial mixtures; liquid formulations (emulsifiable
concentrate and soluble concentrate) containing paraquat dichloride at or above
276 g/L, corresponding to paraquat ion at or above 200 g/L.
TWA underlines that Indian delegation failed to support
inclusion of white chrysotile asbestos in the Rotterdam Convention’s list of
hazardous substances in order to protect public health. It succumbed to the influence
of the asbestos industry which is obsessed with profit at any human cost. It
demands an impartial inquiry into the conduct of the Indian delegation in
Geneva which compromised public interest.
In a sad development, demonstrating scant regard
towards human life in a second tragic incident of its kind, Dharmendra Kumar
Rawani, a 35 year old worker was crushed to death on the conveyor belt of an asbestos
factory operated by Utkal Asbestos Limited in early hours of May 10, 2013 in
Gidhha, Koilwar Block, Bhojpur District, Bihar. The victim was from Rasoolpur
village of Jehanabad district, Bihar. The asbestos factory has been closed following
demonstration by All India Central Council of Trade Unions after the incident. Paryawaran Sawatha Suraksha Samiti of Giddha
has been demanding permanent closure of the hazardous asbestos factory. It has demanded
Rs 10 lakh as compensation for the victim. It has demanded immediate medical
checkup of all the workers who were working in the factory as it will indicate
the adverse health consequences for the villagers who live in the vicinity of
the cancer causing plant. Agitation against two asbestos factories of Ramco
Industries in Bhojpur’s Bihiya is also continuing and the villagers have given
representations against the factory to the Bihar State Pollution Control Board.
Following bitter movement against the construction of asbestos factories in
Bihar’s Muzaffarpur and Vaishali, the construction of these plants has been
stopped permanently. The message is clear. If the government does not act,
peoples’ movements will ensure that hazardous asbestos factories are treated as
hazardous and not allowed.
For Details: Gopal Krishna, Convener,
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
Web: www.toxicswatch.org,
E-mail: gopalkrishna1715@
Website of Rotterdam Convention: http://www.pic.int/
Post a Comment