Archive for the ‘Asbestos Legislation’ Category

The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) has shown its appreciation of the new “Ban Asbestos” bill introduced to the United States House of Representatives. The bill is known as H.R. 6903, the “Bruce Vento Ban Asbestos and Prevent Mesothelioma Act of 2008.”

In ADAO’s latest press release, the organization applauded the U.S. House of Representatives and the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials for introducing the landmark bill.

The bill will amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to enhance funding for public education and awareness programs, as well as reduce the health risks of asbestos exposure.

In the press release, the ADAO specifically mentioned a number of representatives, including Chairman John D. Dingell (D-MI), Chairman Gene Green (D-TX), Cosponsors Reps. Betty McCollum (D-MN), Hilda Solis (D-CA), Lois Capps (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), Doris Matsui (D-CA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), and Steve Cohen (D-TN), praising them for their roles in moving the bill forward.

For more than four years, the ADAO has been working with Congress to advocate the passage of anti-asbestos legislation, and has strongly encouraged the speedy passage of the bill through the House.

Other advocates of the bill include the Committee to Ban Asbestos in America, an organization recently formed as an adjunct to the ADAO, and the John McNamara Foundation, an organization dedicated to preventing exposure and eliminating asbestos-related diseases such as asbestosis and pleural mesothelioma.

In the press release, Co-Founder and current Executive Director of the ADAO Linda Reinstein said, “As we remember the tragedy of 9-11, thousands still suffer from the irreversible damage caused from asbestos exposure. An asbestos ban prohibiting its importation, manufacturing, processing, and distribution is absolutely necessary and long overdue.”

“Other countries look to us to set global examples of responsibility and accountability. We must ban asbestos to eradicate the deadly diseases caused from asbestos exposure that plague so many families. As the largest volunteer organization in the United States, we are enormously pleased to support H.R. 6903 banning asbestos, a known human carcinogen, to protect public health.”

Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) added, “I also commend the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, not only for supporting this important legislation to ban asbestos in America once and for all, but also for all they do to help patients and families dealing with asbestos diseases. I’m proud to work with them to move this legislation forward.”

The federal Environmental Protection Agency continues to come under heavy fire over its proposed changes to asbestos regulations. This time, experts are accusing the EPA of watering down the regulations in an attempt to placate big industry.

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to hold a public meeting to discuss the method of assessing asbestos-related carcinogenic risks as outlined by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). Many public health experts have subsequently spoken about their concerns with the EPA’s plans.

The meeting, held on the 21st and 22nd of July, was attended by asbestos and asbestos disease experts, including Richard A. Lemen, a pioneering asbestos researcher and former Assistant Surgeon General, and Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization director Linda Reinstein.

Currently the EPA uses methods which were developed in the 1980s, based on phase contrast microscopy as a measure of numbers of asbestos particles in samples being tested. This method was developed using existing data from cohorts of workers previously exposed to asbestos in various industrial settings.

However, the EPA methodology currently in use does not account for differences between different types of asbestos, and varying sizes and shapes of asbestos fibers. OSWER is proposing that an interim method be developed which accounts for these and other factors when assessing asbestos exposure risks.

The problem, some public health experts say, is that this may lead to some types of asbestos being considered “safer” than others—and that this is a dangerous way to regulate a highly toxic substance. Many high respected asbestos experts believe that all asbestos should be considered dangerous, and that there is no safe level of exposure.

After the EPA’s meeting this week many of the attendees have denounced the plans, but according to recent reports the EPA may end up making the changes regardless.

Another concern for experts is that the EPA’s proposal seems to be being rushed through the approval process—many physicians and scientists in federal organizations who would normally have a chance to review such plans haven’t had so much as a quick glance at the EPA’s proposal.

Even worse are the rumors that the EPA is rushing its proposal through in an effort to appease complaints from the automotive, mining, construction and chemical industries, all of which are feeling the sting of lawsuits from people who have developed asbestos-related diseases due to exposure over the past several decades.

The EPA appointed twenty scientists to its Scientific Advisory Board asbestos panel, asking them to evaluate the agency’s plan to change the way chrysotile asbestos—the most common type—is assessed in terms of the risks of exposure. Decades worth of research confirming that chrysotile is deadly were ignored by the EPA in favor of other studies claiming it does not cause mesothelioma.

According to one report, lawyers who routinely defend corporations against asbestos claims say passage of the EPA’s proposed regulation concerning chrysotile would vastly increase their chances of winning lawsuits relating to diseases caused by exposure to this type of asbestos.

A New Jersey environmental group has increased its legal efforts against two chemical companies it alleges have polluted a section of the Raritan River in Edison. The polluted segment of river is located near a popular public boating area.

On July 16, Edison Wetlands Association and Eastern Environmental Law Center filed a motion seeking an injunction which would force the two companies—Akzo Nobel Chemicals and Basell USA—to immediately cease discharging liquid and solid waste into the environment, and remove hazardous waste which has already built up along the river’s shoreline.

Edison Wetlands Association member Robert Spiegel says samples of mud and tar from the river’s shore have been tested and found to contain a range of contaminants, including asbestos and 4-chloroaniline. Spiegel says the presence of those site-related materials clearly indicate that the materials are seeping out from the industrial sites.

Even worse, however, is that the polluted area is located very close to popular public recreation areas. Spiegel says contaminated samples have been taken from an area which is “not even a hundred feet from where people come to fish.”

Samples taken by an Akzo Nobel Chemicals consultant indicated the presence of high levels of benzene and arsenic. Benzene was found to be present at 860 times higher than acceptable limits, and arsenic at 550 times higher, according to standards set by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

In January 2008, EWA filed a lawsuit claiming both chemical companies were violating the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. However, Spiegel says that despite the evidence the environmental association presented no further action was taken.

The EWA says it doesn’t yet know how far into the river the pollution has spread. Spiegel says, “We want the judge to order the companies to clean up their toxic mess first. Only then, we can clean up the river.”

Spiegel says that the Department of Environmental Quality, and the owner of the site, have known for years that the contamination has reached unacceptably high levels, but have consistently failed to take any action.

One problem delaying action is the question of who is responsible. Akzo Novel sold the site to Basell USA around two years ago, and Basell says that the responsibility for cleaning up the mess lies with Akzo Nobel.

An Akzo representative said the company is reviewing the documents the EWA filed on Wednesday.

The ASARCO trial is almost over, and an enormous number of environmental and asbestos-related lawsuit claims could depend on its outcome.

Closing arguments will be given on Thursday June 12, for the case in which Arizona-based mining company ASARCO alleges that its parent company, Grupo Mexico, systematically stripped its assets and left behind little more than a shell.

Grupo Mexico is a mining conglomerate headed by Chairman and Chief Executive German Larrea Mota-Velasco. The company is the world’s third largest producer of copper, and has mining interests in several South American locations.

ASARCO filed for bankruptcy in 2005, and during the process a bankruptcy judge removed Grupo Mexico’s control over the company due to allegations that the parent company was stripping ASARCO’s assets in an attempt to protect those assets from asbestos and environmental liability claims.

Among ASARCO’s claims are that Grupo Mexico knew it faced potential liabilities of more than $1 billion when it acquired the ASARCO company in 1999, and also that the parent company knew it might also shoulder the responsibility of cleaning up to twenty Superfund sites.

In addition, ASARCO claims that Grupo Mexico stripped the subsidiary of assets, including Peruvian copper mines that ASARCO once had a significant stake in and were the company’s most significant asset. ASARCO claims the parent company did this to prevent the mines being used to pay ASARCO’s creditors.

ASARCO also claims that Grupo Mexico used the fact that it controlled all the parties in the transaction to its own advantage, because it allowed the parent company to underpay ASARCO for the mines.

ASARCO’s legal battle began Monday May 12, with the beginning of a multi-billion dollar civil lawsuit against Grupo Mexico. Among those who testified at the trial was German Larrea Mota-Velasco, who repeatedly denied wanting the Andes copper mines in question, and who stated that he had never intended ASARCO should be forced into bankruptcy.

The outcome of this civil case will likely determine whether or not many of ASARCO’s creditors—including contaminated sites in many western states, as well as bond creditors and former employees and others suffering from asbestos-related diseases that the company is liable for—will see any money when the company emerges from bankruptcy. Some estimates say that ASARCO is responsible for tens of billions of dollars worth of liability, including several billion dollars worth of claims relating to exposure to toxins such as asbestos and lead.

The European Commission has granted Arenegyr, MolMed’s new mesothelioma drug “orphan” designation.

The Orphan designation is granted to drugs which are intended to be used in the treatment of life-threatening or chronic conditions which affect no more than five in ten thousand people. Designating Arenegyr as an Orphan drug means it may be possible to reduce the drug’s development time and make it available on the market more quickly.

The MolMed biotech company focuses on research and development of new anti-tumor therapy. Arenegyr is one a new class of anti-cancer drug called a “vascular targeting agent.” These types of drugs selectively target the vascular system of tumors, and prevent cancer cells from receiving vital blood, oxygen, and nutrients. Arenegyr is currently undergoing clinical trials both as a single chemotherapy agent and in combination with different drugs. The new chemotherapy drug is being trialed for colorectal cancer as well as mesothelioma treatment.

Malignant plural mesothelioma is a type of cancer which develops in the lining of the lungs as a result of exposure to asbestos. The cancer is relatively rare but highly lethal, as the cancer is both aggressive and resistant to treatment.

MolMed has said that their preliminary results show that Arenegyr has demonstrated both safety and efficacy, has promising survival rates, and may provide substantial clinical benefit. In addition, the drug appears to have low toxicity.

In the company’s malignant plural mesothelioma trial, Arenegyr was tested as a second line therapy in patients who had received prior chemotherapy treatment. MolMed’s results show overall improved survival rates, and almost doubled progression-free survival rates.

The company has also trialed Arenegyr for the treatment of colorectal cancer, which has a variety of different causes, one of which is known to be asbestos exposure. Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in the world, with one million new cases diagnosed every year, and is the second most common cause of cancer deaths in the Western world. Most patients with advanced colorectal cancer develop resistance to commonly-used therapies, and there is therefore a strong need for new treatments.

MolMed’s colorectal cancer study included 43 patients, all of whom had received other types of prior treatments which had all failed. MolMed claims the preliminary data shows a fifty percent relative improved overall survival rate.

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of MolMed Claudio Bordignon said of European Commission’s decision, “Orphan Drug designation for Arenegyr in mesothelioma represents a fundamental acknowledgement of the interesting early efficacy and safety results achieved in an ongoing Phase II trial…”

The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization and other public health advocates have this week announced the formation of the Committee to Ban Asbestos in America. The Committee is calling upon the United States Congress and the President to ban asbestos in American as soon as possible.

Formed from a collaboration between the John McNamara Foundation, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, and other advocates of public health, the Committee to Ban Asbestos in America has declared its dedication to seeing all uses of asbestos banned in America, and to eliminating asbestos-related diseases.

In its first press release, the Committee to Ban Asbestos in America points out that asbestos-related diseases kill 10,000 people every year, and that according to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the incidence rate of mesothelioma deaths has increased every year since 1980.

TC McNamara, Founder of The John McNamara Foundation, said, “Asbestos and the manufacturers of asbestos are responsible for creating the largest man made health crisis in this country. Asbestos went from being a miracle product to a serial killer which makes this legislation long overdue, but now is the time to ban asbestos in America.”

The John McNamara foundation was founded by the McNamara family, who formed the foundation after losing a family member to asbestos-related disease. The organization works to provide assistance and support to mesothelioma patients and family members, and to act as advocates for the banning of asbestos.

Linda Reinstein, Chairperson of the Committee to Ban Asbestos in America and director of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization said, “As recommended by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in 1976 the only way to prevent asbestos-related diseases is to ban its use, the CBAA supports language in a Committee Print before the House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Environment & Hazardous Materials.”

“We are calling on the U.S. Congress and the President to do the right thing and ban asbestos in America and fund critical medical programs. Doctors and scientists agree: asbestos is a carcinogen and that there is no safe level of exposure. Preventing asbestos exposure is the only way to eliminate asbestos caused diseases. Recent ADAO product testing confirmed asbestos is still found in consumer products including toys.”

The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization was founded in 2004 by asbestos disease suffers and their family members and advocates. The organization provides support and advocacy for people affected by asbestos-related diseases, to give people a united voice and ensure their rights are protected and represented. In addition, the organization helps raise public awareness of asbestos issues.

A decision from the 4th District Court of Appeal may help thousands of people with pending asbestos-related lawsuits, by invalidating a retroactivity law which was designed to limit the number of people who were eligible to sue.

The ruling was a reversal of thirteen decisions previously made by Palm Beach Circuit Judge Elizabeth Maass, which upheld the retroactivity law. Some of the cases on which the ruling was based date back as far as 1999. This week’s decision now allows plaintiffs the chance to revive those cases.

Not surprisingly, plaintiffs’ attorneys say the ruling is a new victory for thousands of people who are still waiting to have their cases heard in court.

“It certainly means that there are thousands of cases that were in the pipeline that were retroactively thrown out by this legislation that now may see new life,” said one attorney. Another said that the new ruling could revive as many as four thousand asbestos-related lawsuits across Florida.

On the other hand, lawyers working for defendant companies are less than thrilled. One said, the law was created to “put people who were sick at the head of the line,” but now that it’s been overturned, there is the potential for “people who aren’t really sick…[to be] cutting in the line ahead of people who are sick.”

If the decision is appealed, it would likely be based partially on a conflict between District Courts of Appeal in West Palm Beach and Miami. The 3rd District Court of Appeal in Miami concluded that the retroactivity law was valid, and since the 4th District Court ruling in West Palm Beach disagrees, the conflict could allow for an appeal and review by a higher court.

Judge Gary Farmer wrote for the 4th District Court’s unanimous decision that the Florida Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act “may not constitutionally be applied to eliminate the existing vested rights in the lawsuits pending when the act became effective [on July 1, 2005].”

The Florida Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act set new impairment standards on which plaintiffs’ eligibility to file suit became based.

People affected with asbestosis (a non-malignant disease) must have lost at least 20% of their breathing capacity, and people with lung cancer would have to have diminished breathing capacity and asbestosis (to rule out the effects of smoking as a causative agent in the cancer).

A key bill could, if passed, see asbestos and lead removed from children’s toys as early as next year.

The bill has been passed by a state senate and now goes to Governor M. Jodi Rell for her signature. If passed fully the bill will limit the amount of lead that can be present in toys manufactured or sold after July 1, 2009.

On July 1, 2009 it would also become illegal to manufacture or sell any children’s toys that contain asbestos. In addition, new standards for paint sprayed on children’s toys would be in effect.

Sarah Uhl, coordinator of the Coalition for a Safe and Healthy Connecticut, said of the bill, “Now that the science has been allowed to emerge, policy makers have a responsibility to take immediate action to phase out bisphenol A and phthalates from common, everyday products like food and beverage containers.”

This issue is one of the most heavily lobbied of the year: several different toy bills were considered during the session.

The presence of asbestos, lead paint, and other toxins in children’s toys and other products marketed for use by children or parents has been high on the public radar recently.

Last year, California-based asbestos awareness group The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) ADAO announced they had sponsored tests on toys and household goods. Several of the items tested, including a toy crime-scene kit based on the CBS television series CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, were found to contain asbestos.

In April of this year, the ADAO filed a lawsuit against CBS Corp and several toy retailers.

According to the lawsuit the lab tests showed the fingerprint dusting powder in the toy kits contained “substantial quantities of tremolite asbestos…one of the most lethal forms of asbestos.”

Planet Toys Inc, the toy manufacturer, removed the toy crime-scene kits from the market after the ADAO made their asbestos claims public. However, Planet Toys Inc said it had conducted multiple tests on the toys but had not discovered any asbestos.

The toy company said that some of the kits had been manufactured in China. Planet Toys Inc issued a “stop sale” on all CSI fingerprint kits “until further information can be ascertained as to the discrepancy between…respective test findings.”
The ADAO claims the defendants failed to warm consumers that the kits were contaminated with asbestos. Such warnings are required by state law. The ADAO wants a court order to stop the kits being sold unless they carry a warning.

Passage of the Connecticut bill would see toys such as this made illegal to manufacture or sell, regardless of the outcome of the ADAO lawsuit, if any asbestos is found in the products.

Twelve or more senators, accompanied by a XX grassroots lobby, are pushing for funds to be appropriated from the 2009 defense bill to be used for research on asbestos-related cancers such as mesothelioma.

Supporters say that Department of Defense funding is appropriate because one third—or more—of the people who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma have either been in the Navy or have worked in Navy shipyards.

Mesothelioma is a devastating and highly lethal cancer caused only by asbestos exposure. Asbestos was used very widely in Navy ships constructed in or prior to World War II, meaning that Navy service men, and shipyard workers, were often exposed to enough asbestos to cause the development of mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases such as asbestosis.

According to Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation executive director Chris Hahn, more funding is needed because scientists who might have considered working in the field have been dissuaded because this type of research does not have a steady funding stream. According to Hahn, the mesothelioma research community would need around $29 million per year to make good progress in asbestos cancer research.

The Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation is one of the organizations behind a strong grassroots and legislative push to get more federal money backing research into treatment of asbestos-related cancers.

However, Hahn says that more important than having money earmarked for mesothelioma research is that mesothelioma itself get listed as a priority on the Pentagon’s peer-reviewed medical research program.

This, says Hahn, would allow researchers to compete for DOD research grants. The trouble is, Congress has a say in which diseases get on the priority list, as well as how much money is put towards the priority program. Congress appropriated $50 million for the program on the 2008 defense appropriations bill.

Hahn says it’s unclear how much grant money would go towards asbestos cancer research, but noted that last year was the first time supporters achieved a legislative victory. It’s also unclear whether Congress will pass a new 2009 appropriations bill or approve to continue funding at the 2008 level.

Last month, several senators wrote a letter to the chairman and ranking members of the Senate Appropriations Defense Panel, saying “Advancements in the early detection and treatment of this deadly cancer are greatly needed and the mesothelioma medical and research community is well-positioned to achieve this goal…Funding through the Department of Defense appropriations bill is an important demonstration of our nation’s commitment to addressing the tragedy of pleural mesothelioma and its disproportionate impact on those who serve our country.”

A Government Accountability Office report released Wednesday April 30 compares how the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) developed material designed to alert auto repair workers to the possibility of asbestos exposure in automotive brakes.

The report was prepared for members of Congress, including U.S. Rep. Lynn Woolsey, chair of the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

The report found that both agencies took several years to complete their reports, but while OSHA took five and a half years to publish its Asbestos Safety and Health Information Bulletin, OPPTS took only three and a half years to publish its information.

According to the GAO report, OSHA officials claimed that the length of time they took to complete the bulletin was partly due to “the need to address uncertainties regarding the prevalence of asbestos in brake products.”

However, the final GAO report noted that “timeliness seems especially relevant once an agency has determined that there is a need to communicate information about how people can protect themselves from health and safety hazards to which they might be exposed… Having such information might lead people to make different decisions or take different actions to protect themselves than they would in the absence of such information.”

Essentially, that people who know about the dangers of asbestos will act differently when they might be at risk of exposure. It seems obvious, but apparently it wasn’t so obvious to the OSHA.

The report also said that OSHA and OPPTS procedures for designing communication brochures and bulletins don’t currently have any time-oriented benchmarks. There are no regulations in place to ensure that communications like these are completed and disseminated to the public in a reasonable amount of time.

While it’s not necessarily possible to establish one single standard that can apply to every situation, the GAO report says that both OSHA and OPPTS could benefit from some time-frames or benchmarks to provide some motivation or impetus for getting informational bulletins out to the public more quickly.

The report also noted that “It should also be remembered that one of the reasons why agencies use alternatives to rulemaking—such as guidance or general communication products—is because these alternatives have the advantage of being less time consuming than rulemaking.”

In other words, the guidelines issued by these agencies are suggestions, not laws, and thus there is no reason for issuing such guidelines to take several years.

The GAO report recommends that OSHA’s Chief and EPA’s Administrator ensure that their key policies and procedures for preparing communications products includes time-oriented benchmarks to speed up the process of issuing essential information to the public.