

Controlled use, the Canadian government and the Asbestos Institute suggest, means that with our high level of protective technologies, asbestos can now be used safely and without risk to both those working with it and those receiving second-hand exposure. There is no evidence that controlled use has been implemented successfully anywhere in the world. Canadian workers are continuing to be diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases, workers who were exposed in the 70s and 80s when controlled use policies were already supposed to be in place. Even the pro-commerce World Trade Organization has suggested that the concept is highly questionable in practice. And most obviously, if chrysotile is so safe, why is the Canadian government spending millions of dollars to remove it from government buildings?
The need to ban this deadly substance becomes more immediate when one examines the question of what Canada does with chrysotile. Again, if chrysotile is so safe, why do we export 95% of it to the developing world? The answer is simple - developing countries with few environmental and health and safety regulations are the only ones that will use it.
The concept of "controlled use" is a fallacy. More and more industrialized countries are banning the substance and recognizing that there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos. And if industrialized countries can't manage to 'control' the risks of asbestos, how are countries like India, Thailand, and the Philippines expected to do so?
Canada has an international reputation for upholding human rights and being a global leader in social justice issues, yet the practices of both mining and exporting asbestos represents a gross disregard for human life. It is for this reason that BAC calls for a global ban on all types of asbestos.
For more information please see the "Asbestos Facts" and "Links and Resources" sections.