Background information
Asbestos is recognised as a proven human carcinogen by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the European Union .
After being inhaled, asbestos dust can cause diseases of the lung, malignant mesothelioma of the pleura and peritoneum, cancer of the larynx or asbestosis, to mention the most important ones.
These effects are valid for all different types of asbestos fibres (chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite, and anthophyllite), even if some of them are considered to be less potent than others in their ability to cause mesothelioma for example (e.g. chrysotile compared with crocidolite).

The situation in EU/EEA so far
In Europe, only three of the four commercially used asbestos fibres (and the products containing them) are banned completely. Chrysotile or white asbestos is prohibited in 14 product categories but still used in mostly asbestos cement products (85% volume) e.g. pipes, roofing and wall cladding (other applications include friction materials (9%), textiles, seals, gaskets etc. (6%) and some very specialised applications as diaphragms).
The situation in the EU Member States differs widely. Nine out of the European Union Member States and EFTA countries have already banned asbestos (the last government which joined at the beginning of 1998 the banning side was Belgium. Ireland and Luxembourg support a ban in principle and the UK government has started a hearing-process towards a ban) and these Member States have imposed further national restrictions on products not covered by harmonisation, creating disunity in the Internal Market.
The only Member States expressing reservation to the ban are Spain, Portugal and Greece, where substantial asbestos cement industries still exist.
There is now a clear qualified majority in the Council for a ban with exceptions .
But: even if a ban on the use of asbestos is considered to be the most effective measure in the long-term for safeguarding the health of employees, further restrictions on white asbestos will not offer protection of the thousands of workers who come into contact with existing asbestos while carrying out, for example, maintenance, electrical, plumbing or demolition work.
Therefore, activities have been started at the European level to review the existing legislation concerning the protection of workers exposed to asbestos.

Actual EU legal instruments
Trade regulations forbidding the use of various types of asbestos (except chrysotyle)-
Dir 76/769 as amended by Dir 83/478 and by the adaptation to technical progress by Dir 91/659

Workersí protection directives- Dir 83/477/EEC (based on art.100)as amended by Dir 91/382/EEC giving a occupational limit value; Dir 90/394/EEC (based on art.118A) as amended by Dir 97/42/EC a sister directive of the framework directive covering workplace where workers may be exposed to carcinogens ;Dir 98/24/EEC (based on art.118) covering all chemical agents

ILO Convention 162 on Asbestos ratified by Belgium, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Spain and Norway

Present European debate about the substitutes for Chrysotile asbestos
The question of whether the existing substitutes for chrysotile asbestos are considered to be safe or at least less harmful, is crucial for several reasons:
The Commission is committed to the principle of risk assessment and evaluation of economic impact before any regulatory action is considered concerning harmful substances and materials. The risk assessment includes of course the availability of non- or less harmful substitutes.
The European Member States opposed to a asbestos ban always use the argument of a lack of sufficient information on less hazardous substances to postpone a European-wide decision.
And
Vicarious for the European Union, France has been facing a complaint on the WTO level since June 98, initiated by Canada, (which, besides the former Soviet Union, South Africa and Brazil, is one of the major asbestos-producing countries) on its decision to ban asbestos.

Action taken by the EU Commission
The Commission (DGIII) has asked consultants for a report on risk assessment of chrysotile and substitutes, (published in 1997) and a study on socio-economic consequences of the ban
The Commission also asked a scientific committee chaired under the DGXXIV-Consumer and health protection to give its opinion on chrysotile and candidate substitutes, expressed as follows on 15 September 1998:

ì (Ö) both for the induction of lung and pleural cancer and lung fibrosis - i.e. the end point conditions investigated to a greater extent - and for other effects, it is unlikely that either cellulose, PVA or p-aramid fibres pose an equal or greater risk than chrysotile asbestos. With regard to carcinogenesis and induction of lung fibrosis, the CSTEE has reached a consensus that the risk is likely to be lower.î (CSTEE, 15/9/98 page 7/16, DGXXIV web site).

Council of Social Affairs resolution taken during the British presidency
On April 7 1998, the Council of Social Affairs released a communiqu recommending to the Commission to take into account a number of considerations when reviewing the existing social legislation:
that those facing the highest risk are workers involved in the removal of asbestos and workers who encounter asbestos incidentally in their work, particularly on the maintenance and servicing
enterprises/employers involved in work with asbestos (i.e. demolition, maintenance) have to demonstrate their competence to carry out such work.

Future possible actions in the EU
There are two processes by which an EU trade ban could be implemented:
Because there is a current Directive covering this area (91/659/EEC), it is possible to adapt this Directive to technical progress using a technical progress committee (TPC) where Member States representatives would vote on a Commission proposal, without this having to go formally through Council and the European Parliament. The vote would be a qualified majority voting.
The other possibility, a Council Directive, includes readings by the European Parliament and a vote by the Ministers. This is more time-consuming, in particular against the background that the European Parliament has expressed its opinion on this subject several times.


Considering these elements, the ETUC Executive Committee calls for rapid action from the European institutions.

Resolution:
The ETUC confirms its resolution adopted in March 1997 requesting a ban on trade of asbestos and related products. It considers that the recent conclusions of the Scientific Committee of DG XXIV allows the Commission to take prompt action. The ETUC requests the Commission to present a proposal based on the technical progress adaptation procedure, by the end of this year at the latest.

The ETUC recognises that banning of asbestos (ìmarketing and useî according to directive 76/769) will not bring immediate results for a number of workers exposed professionally in the demolition and maintenance sectors. The ETUC gives its full support to the Council of Social Affairsí resolution for an extensive review of the current legislation for the protection of workers against asbestos and demand Commission to allocate the necessary financial and human resources

This review should bring a reduction of the existing exposure limit values for all asbestos fibres at least to the lowest level already achieved in the Member States.

The ETUC demands that European legislation establishes regulations for professional skills for removal, demolition and maintenance and requirements for the handling and management of waste containing asbestos, these measures will also improve the quality of the environment

Considering the increased number of mesotheliome-specific cancers related to exposure to asbestos, the ETUC demands that Member States keep a register of the incidence of mesotheliomas and cancers in each country in order to help to receive compensation for the victims and the Commission to make available the information and organise the exchange of information.

The ETUC asks the Commission to examine the possibilities to harmonise existing national rules dealing with the field of registration of asbestos in building, plants, infrastructure, transport equipment, household equipment etc. and concerning intervention on sites, in order to ensure proper and updated information to authorities, owners and contractors to protect the overall population and environment from the risk arising from asbestos

The ETUC demands that the research programme of the EU give priority to the evaluation of all hazards arising from substances and preparation used as substitutes for asbestos and gives support for improving investigations on the toxicological testing of new materials. It also recommends the expansion of technological research programmes in order to develop new products and to improve the knowledge on non- or less harmful alternatives including new, thick (less respirable fibres) to the existing applications of the still existing asbestos products.

The ETUC requests the Commission to give support to the regions directly concerned by the socio-economic restructuration of the asbestos cement industries and to promote an exchange of know-how on technologies and substitutes towards these regions. It recalls also the importance of maintaining competition rules in this sector.

The ETUC calls up all EU governments and the Commission to give full support to France on the WTO dispute with Canada. It rejects WTO policy that would challenge European and international health and safety regulations and conventions.

Considering that most of the world production of asbestos is used within third world countries, the ETUC calls for an international ban on asbestos and condemns the export of asbestos waste to countries outside the EU. The ETUC calls for international trade union action and for the ratification by all EU countries of ILO convention n°162.



Directive 67/548/EEC classifies all types of asbestos fibres as category 1 carcinogens. This means that they are proven to be cancer causing from epidemiological and animal test data. They must be labelled with a skull and crossbones symbol and the R-Phrase ìMay cause cancerî.
A Europe-wide ban is also supported by the Council of Europe whose Parliamentary Assembly endorsed on 22 June 1998 a report calling for a ban