Banning asbestos should not be a controversial decision. The links between asbestos and cancer, particularly mesothelioma, have been clearly established and the World Health Organisation could not be clearer in its stance against its use. Large companies involved in its manufacture have paid substantial amounts of money in compensation to victims. So far, more than 50 countries have instituted a ban, even if some still permit highly specialised uses.
Still, despite all the international evidence, consistent recommendations from the industry and public health ministries and the persistence of anti-asbestos campaigners, the cabinet has again shown there is a lack of will to ban the substance in Thailand. Last month it decided not to adopt a Public Health Ministry proposal that would have phased out the use and production of asbestos.
The decision to again delay a ban comes as a disappointment, if not a surprise. Variations of this proposal have been put to successive cabinets since 2011, but never enforced, so there has been failure across the political divide on an issue that should be relatively straightforward.
This is a shame for several reasons, prime among them is that a ban would have reduced the risk of disease in future decades. In all likelihood, it would save lives: despite proponents of asbestos arguing there have been no asbestos-related deaths in Thailand, researchers from the Prince of Songkla University put the figure at 1,295 per year. The Disease Control Department says there have been only five cases where health problems could be directly attributed to asbestos, yet the department knows how dangerous the substance can be and has shown support for a ban.
Part of the problem is that asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma can take decades to present, so knowing how many people have been exposed and whether that will lead to cancer is difficult. Regardless, the government could and should be taking whatever steps it can to mitigate the risk. It is pleasing to see staunch anti-asbestos campaigner and academic Vithaya Kulsomboon in the National Legislative Assembly, and using his position to further the cause despite facing intimidation in the past. Mr Vithaya has suggested the vested interests of manufacturers and politicians who have invested in the roof tile business are behind the delay.
There is also a chance that the delay will inadvertently give credence to the idea that asbestos is perfectly safe. Industry groups have used slogans such as “toothpicks are more dangerous than asbestos” — this might appear patently ridiculous, but should not be allowed to go unchallenged. Instead, even without a ban, a clear message should come from the government that it is a potentially dangerous substance that must be handled with care.
While asbestos can be used for building materials and roof tiles without any harm being done, there are very real dangers should it crack or be removed incorrectly. With asbestos in roof tiles of 17.35 million households around the country, the potential is high for amateurs to make mistakes and unwittingly jeopardise their health.
The cabinet also missed an opportunity to take a leading role in the region. Currently, Singapore is the only Asean country with an asbestos ban, outlawing it from construction materials in 1989 and car parts in 1995. Singapore also has strict regulations governing the removal of asbestos from older buildings.
Had Thailand followed suit, and hopefully it will take the next opportunity to do so, it would have sent a strong message to other Asean countries that asbestos is a thing of the past. Mr Vithaya has said there could be a domino effect whereby other countries in the region would follow Thailand’s lead. There could also be opportunities from leading such changes in the region, and being at the forefront of such a transition will be better than trying to play catch-up later.
Countries on every continent have successfully phased out the use of asbestos because there are reliable alternatives. These are not necessarily cheaper, otherwise the businesses in question would have made the switch already, but they are better in the longer term.
There would be an economic burden to enforcing a ban, which King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang estimated in 2013 to be more than 460 billion baht. This alone would have made the cabinet pause to wonder whether a ban would be worthwhile, but it fails to take into account the fact there will be costs associated with removing the asbestos in ageing buildings across the country. Some trade might be put at risk, particularly with Russia, which may also explain the delay. Hopefully the government can negotiate.
As much as proponents may want to dispute Thailand’s health statistics, the link between asbestos and disease is clear. We would be safer without it.