Arguments presented by third parties
Download 1.28 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Introductory Comments by Dr. Henderson
Selection of experts5.20 The Panel has requested the assistance of five institutions in identifying experts. The institutions concerned are the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Labour Organization (ILO), the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). The parties have also submitted names to the Panel. The Secretariat then requested those of the proposed experts who were prepared to participate to submit to it a detailed curriculum vitae. Those curricula vitae were forwarded to the parties, who were able to convey to the panel their comments concerning the potential experts and to indicate, where appropriate, whether they had any major objections to any of them. Upon careful examination of the curricula vitae and the comments of the parties, the Panel accepted the following four experts, whose nominations were not opposed by the parties: Dr. Nicholas H. de Klerk, Senior Research Fellow, Department of Public Health, University of Western Australia, Australia; Dr. Douglas W. Henderson, Professor of Pathology, Head of the Department of Anatomical Pathology, Flinders Medical Center and The Flinders University of South Australia, Australia; Dr. Peter F. Infante, Director, Office of Standards Review, Health Standards Programme, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Washington D.C., United States; Dr. Arthur W. Musk, Clinical Professor of Medicine and Public Health, University of Western Australia, and Physician, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Australia. 5.21 The experts were asked to acquaint themselves with the Rules of Conduct for the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes12, paying special attention to Annex 2 (Illustrative list of information to be disclosed). No expert has disclosed any circumstance that could be considered as the potential source of a conflict of interest. 5.22 In consultation with the parties, the Panel prepared precise questions which it submitted to each expert individually. The experts were requested to answer only those questions that they considered to be within their domain(s) of competence. Written communications by the parties, transcriptions of their oral statements, as well as the references they submitted to the Panel were transmitted to the experts for their information. The written answers from the experts have been forwarded to the parties, who have had a chance to comment on them. The questions posed by the Panel and the answers given by the experts are contained in section V.C. The observations of the parties are reproduced in section V.D. 5.23 On 17 January 2000, the experts were invited to discuss with the Panel and the parties their written answers to the questions and to provide additional information. Annex VI to this report contains the minutes of the meeting. questions by the panel and comments by the scientific experts5.24 The Panel requested the experts to comment on the areas of difference between the parties highlighted in the first paragraph of each question, as well as to address the specific points listed. The Panel encouraged the experts to indicate, to the extent possible, key points on which they considered that (i) there is scientific proof, (ii) there is broad agreement among experts, (iii) there is uncertainty and/or a range of divergent opinions among experts. Introductory Comments by Dr. HendersonIntroductionThis introduction sets out a general summary of prevailing knowledge and uncertainties on asbestos-related disorders, with emphasis on mesothelioma and lung cancer, together with discussion of both the amphiboles and commercial chrysotile, patterns of exposure, and some brief details of in vivo and in vitro experimental studies. This introduction has two purposes: (i) to provide a general background and broad perspective to the questions and answers that follow; and (ii) to correct some inaccuracies and errors in the documentation supplied already to the WTO. In so doing, I have tried to broaden the perspective beyond the classical Canadian studies on the Quebec chrysotile miners and millers, and beyond the INSERM Report. A number of the general discussions in this introduction have been truncated after the issue has been put into context, and some of these discussions are then continued and amplified in my specific responses to the questions. This has produced some iteration of some points, but I believe that the advantages - avoidance of the potential for distortion created by answers without adequate background information - outweigh any disadvantages. The division of my report into these sections also provides an opportunity to indicate the relative importance of epidemiological studies versus in vivo or in vitro experimental models in the formulation of my opinions and answers. At the outset, I emphasize that Australia (including Western Australia) is no longer an asbestos producer. Production of crocidolite at the Wittenoom blue asbestos industry stopped in 1966. None has been produced or exported since. Crocidolite was used in asbestos-cement products in Australia until 1966 when its use was discontinued, but imported amosite was used in these products until 1984 [NICNAS 99]13. The use of chrysotile in fibro-cement products was discontinued in 1987. As stated repeatedly in the documentation provided to the WTO, asbestos has the capacity to induce at least five benign pleuropulmonary disorders, and two cancers: parietal pleural fibrous plaques; benign asbestos pleuritis with effusion; diffuse pleural fibrosis; rounded atelectasis; asbestosis; primary lung cancer; malignant mesothelioma. The essential characteristics of these disorders are discussed in the documentation submitted to the WTO and lie beyond the scope of this report; if further details are required, standard texts should be consulted [26-30]. There is no persuasive or compelling evidence that asbestos of any type causes cancers other than lung cancer and mesothelioma, with the arguable exception of cancer of the larynx. At this stage, it is sufficient to point out that: " ... there is an exposure-response relationship for all chrysotile-related diseases. Reduction of exposure through introduction of control measures should significantly reduce risks. Construction and demolition operations may present special control problems". [EHC 203, p 141]. Directory: english -> tratop e -> dispu e dispu e -> Annex g list of exhibits submitted by the parties dispu e -> World Trade Organization dispu e -> World Trade Organization Download 1.28 Mb. Share with your friends:
|