The dangers of asbestos have long been identified. The first warning was issued in… 1906! Denis Auribault, a labor inspector in Caen, observed a higher mortality rate among workers using asbestos in a textile factory. Medical reports followed one after another without any action being taken until 1955. Irrefutable scientific evidence was provided on the actual links between asbestos and lung cancer. It is true that asbestos was a “miracle material”! Its exceptional resistance to heat, electrical and chemical attacks, its insulating power, and its tensile strength made it very sought after by industrialists. Asbestos was mixed with cement or woven into fabrics. It was used in brake pads, electric ovens, heating plates, and in all building insulation. Named “asbestos” meaning the indestructible by the ancient Greeks, its extraction increased significantly from the late 19th century. By the late 1980s, there were over three thousand common products made with asbestos in France. Asbestos then represented an annual market of 3.5 billion francs, just for a single multinational like Saint-Gobain. Workers in the asbestos processing industries were the most affected; they were employed in textiles, construction, automotive, shipbuilding, aerospace, household appliances, electrical insulation, etc. Beyond these highly exposed professions, pathologies began to be identified among painters, janitors of large buildings, and then among people occasionally exposed to asbestos, such as researchers at the Jussieu University in Paris. Forty years, thousands of deaths, and millions of illnesses were necessary before initial measures were finally taken under public pressure.
Indeed, excessively powerful lobbies worked behind the scenes to preserve the profits of large groups. When no one doubted the dangers of asbestos anymore, there was radio silence on television or in the written media, at the risk of losing advertising budgets. In company safety committee meetings, the issue continued to be downplayed in the name of the national economy. Industrialists sometimes resorted to employment blackmail, with threats of factory closures. In 1975, researchers from Jussieu University managed to bring the case to public attention, prompting a redoubled counterattack. A Permanent Asbestos Committee was created to silence scientists and doctors. Around a round table, it brought together industrialists, scientists, all the trade unions (except Force Ouvrière), and even representatives from the Ministry of Labor, the General Directorate of Health, and the National Institute for Research and Safety! This committee advocated for the controlled use of asbestos to delay its ban as much as possible.
Today, the responsibility of industrialists has finally been established by the courts. The state’s responsibility was recognized in 2000 by the administrative court in Marseille. But how many years were lost in unspoken words, misinformation, and lies, leading to new cases of pathologies and mortality. However, no real progress has been made on the criminal front; no industrial or political responsibility has been sanctioned. Prosecutors hesitate to prosecute; the 140 widows in the Dunkirk region who lost their spouses due to asbestos have been dismissed. The asbestos case remains a story with astonishing ramifications!
Cultivating awareness
This asbestos saga should indeed cultivate awareness… In many everyday technologies, similar cases arise where serious doubts emerge or are confirmed. Will people keep hiding the reality from themselves and await the next wave of deaths? For example, what should be done about the suspicions regarding diesel? Diesel engine emissions are blamed for many ailments. Among other things, they cause respiratory symptoms, promote the development of allergies, and especially provoke cancers… A new Swedish study (Karolinska Hospital in Stockholm) has fully confirmed this danger. Men, whose occupations expose them to this fuel’s emissions, have a 63% increased probability of developing lung cancer.
As for POPs, these persistent organic pollutants, the problem seems much more severe. These are molecules that resist natural biological degradation and accumulate in living tissues. Their concentrations therefore increase along the food chain. POPs are present everywhere, starting with food; many of them are pesticides. Cancer in farmers spreading these substances is proven. What about the consumers of treated fruits and vegetables?
These substances are also found in the everyday environment. They are used as lubricants or solvents in paints or in furniture composition. They are part of many plastics and diffuse slowly. Household waste incinerators indirectly produce quantities that spread into the atmosphere of cities; these are dioxins or furans. A convention known as the Stockholm Convention has listed a long list, updated at the Geneva conference (May 4-8, 2009). Unlike the Copenhagen conference, this one went completely unnoticed. In the short term, the impact of these POPs is more determinative than climate change. Many states are taking measures to ban them; in France, foot-dragging occurs once again.
The most characteristic example is Bisphenol_A (BPA), well known for its presence in baby bottles. Although its toxicity is recognized by numerous studies and bans have been established in several countries, the French Agency for Sanitary Safety does not conclude on the risks posed by BPA; it merely notes “warning signals” (February 5, 2010)! One sees a denial strategy similar to that of asbestos; the agency advocates cautious use: “Avoid heating food (water, milk, soups…) to very high temperatures!”
And what about mobile phones, antennas, or other electromagnetic waves? A series of official studies, conducted by Swedish, Dutch, and German researchers, has raised many suspicions, and the results of the European REFLEX program bolster the legitimate concerns of some mobile phone users and relay antenna neighbors. Here too, measures are slow due to huge economic stakes, while mainstream media creates some blur or misinformation. It is true that lobbyist strategies are now very refined. When a report from independent scientists raises a problem, studies funded by the respective industries minimize the impact or contradict it point by point…
So how can one know as a citizen? And especially when and how to protect oneself? Certainly, there are commissions, French or European institutes that are supposed to oversee and address these issues… In France, don’t we have the Agency for Biomedicine, the French Food Safety Agency (Afssa), the French Health Products Safety Agency (Afssaps), the French Environmental and Occupational Health Safety Agency (Afsset), the High Health Authority (HAS), the National Cancer Institute (INCa), the National Institute for Prevention and Health Education (Inpes), the Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN), the Institute of Public Health Surveillance (InVS).
But how much trust to place in them? Numerous collusions, conflicts of interest, and complacency have already been identified and denounced, as was the case with asbestos. Only 3% of the 100,000 chemical substances currently marketed have been evaluated, for example. The chemical industry lobby opposes the European REACH directive (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization of Chemicals) which aims to test such substances before they are marketed! Meanwhile, the effects of the large-scale diffusion of chemical molecules in our environment remain largely unknown due to the lack of studies.
The solution is not in the strict application of the “precautionary principle,” which has shown all its deviations, including financial exploitation, as seen with the treatment of swine flu. It is primarily a civic matter; it is no longer possible to blindly trust experts or agencies. It is a matter of democratic “struggle.” It involves citizen oversight of the operation of safety agencies. It should be pursued by a demand to dismantle multiple misinformation, to seek adequate information, notably by strengthening independent research, and above all by sharing research findings as widely as possible.
The establishment of “consumer” associations or “citizen committees” also has its place. Ultimately, these health and environmental issues should be addressed through genuine consensus conferences or what we hope for, “Citizen Assemblies.” Greater engagement and participation of individuals in society’s life are surely a challenge for our time.
Notes
1. Collective expertise of the National Institute of Health and Medical Research (Inserm 1996).
2. Study by British epidemiologist Richard Doll (1950-55). This was further confirmed in 1960 among asbestos workers and even residents in South Africa (Observations of mesotheliomas by Dr. Wagner, 1960).
3. Thirteen years after its ban, this fiber continues to wreak havoc: there are 3,000 deaths per year in France alone. Such carnage makes asbestos one of the most significant public health disasters.
4. In the name of the French people, a panel of citizens drawn by lot from electoral rolls are entrusted with the fate of potential criminals; similarly, a panel of citizens could be appointed to decide on these controversial issues. Experts would also be called to testify but would not be decision-makers.
