Document mEQnD7rwLoD46vLD46k7GwdJ

FILE NAME: Asbestos in India (IND) DATE: 1981 Oct 22 DOC#: IND013 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Newspaper Articles [2] - Asbestos Distribution Global Issue & J-M Tells its Indian Affiliate to Improve Health Standards ' ~~~~~ ('e>/2/i/(%) Asbestos distribution a global issue ByBARBARA COOK Even as it is being sued by thousands of persons in this country who have contracted asbestosrelated diseases, the Johns-Manville Corp. reportedly continues to be in volved in the same unhealthful pro duction and distribution practices of asbestos products overseas, especial ly in Third World countries. In an article recently published in India in a weekly described by the In dian Consulate in New York City as a "highly respected and reputable weekly magazine which covers economic and political issues," it was reported that J ohns-Manville provides the raw materials for, and is "exclusive seller" of, asbestos pro ducts manufactured and distributed under conditions which are illegal and known to cause cancer in the Western world. The Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. of Ahmedabad produces 50,000 tons per year of asbestos-cement pipe sheet and its "foreign col laborator" is the Johns-Manville Cor poration, the June 13 issue of Economic and Political Weekly states. Shree Digvijay has been a "steady customer" for Canadian asbestos fiber mined by Johns-Manville, ac cording to the article, which goes on to describe how asbestos-laden solid wastes and process water are dumped outside of the Ahmedabad plant "in a completely wanton man ner." "Children play on the waste dumps, dnd workers ae not informed of the lethal dangers of the dust," it continues. "Johns-Manville is the exclusive seller of Shree Digvijay products shipped to the Middle East and Africa. Ironically, these products bear no warning labels, yet JohnsManville is being sued for billions of dollars by thousands of American workers with cancer and asbestosis for not having affixed warning labels on products sold in the US until 1964," it says. It appears to be a tenuous situation for a company which is claiming prior lack of medical knowledge as a legal defense against pending asbestos litigation in this country. Johns-Manville notes in its own 1980 annual report that since the mid1970s, the company has sold asbestos fiber in the United States "only in pressure pack, block form or other similar condition, and not in loose form." Dennis Markusson, the company's assistant corporate counsel in charge of asbestos litigation, notes in Insight 81, J-M's quarterly publication for in vestors, that J-M's safety practices and warning labels since 1964 are a main defense against the suits. There is a long latency period betweeen exposure and manifesta tion of asbestos-related diseases, from 15 to 30 years, and Markusson says that a "vast majority" of the disease manifested in the 1970s was the result of exposure in the '40s and '50s, "before medical knowledge was advanced enough to alert industry to the scope of the problem." "If you condense all the legal theories, you end up with basically three: the foreseeability defense bas ed upon the medical knowledge at the time of exposure, use of asbestos by `sophisticated users,' and negligence by the p la in tiff which is characteristic in cigarette smoking cases." "The state of medical knowledge theory boils down to the issue of foreseeability -- that is, when was it reasonably foreseeable that asbestos insulation products presented a hazard and therefore gave rise to a duty to warn. We know that J-M started to label all its insulation pro ducts in 1964, so that's not an issue." As to whether the company should have done so earlier, Markusson said that "because we believe it first became a duty in 1964 -- and the medical literature supports that belief -- J-M satisfied its duty and thus didn't, as a m atter of law, place a defective product on the market." Environmental consultant Barry Castleman, who co-authored the In dian article, in a telephone interview accused J-M of "selling asbestos without warning of risk, while know ing it full well." "It's a continuing pattern," he add ed. "It's what they've always done. What they're doing in India is what they've always done in the United States." As most Americans now realize, and many local residents tragically know full well, breathing asbestos fibers causes lung damage and may lead to cancer. Indeed, J-M is defendant or co defendant in nearly 6,000 asbestos lawsuits lawsuits brought by present or former insualation, shipyard and factory workers and other persons alleging damage to their health from exposure to dust from asbestos fibers or asbestos products manufatuered or sold by J-M and other defendants. Yet the overseas market is a pro fitable one. Despite fact that J-M's net sales in 1980 were $10 mill lower than 1979 net sales, "for all i 1980, net sales by overseas sul sidiaries were 18 percent higher tha for 1979," according to compar figures. "To avoid the cost of regulator and lawsuits for damages, multin; tional firms have looked to develo] ing nations as sanctuaries t manufacture cheaply, and as a `lai frontier' for developing nei markets," the Economic an Political Weekly article explained. In a May 28 Insight interview wit: senior J-M vice president Eai Parker and Markusson regarding J M's defenses, Markusson discusser the "sophisticated user theory,' which focuses on the knowlege of th< employer at the time of exposure. "In terms of warnings, there ii nothing about asbestos that Johns M anville co u ld h a v e tol< sophisticated maunfacturers bad then that they didn't already know.' Regarding punitive damages foi the future, Markusson said: "If the notion is to punish, then a1 some point it goes beyond punishing and becomes an abuse of due process or at least nonsensical. If it's intend ed to deter, then that wouldn't apply in asbstos cases because in mosl cases the products aren't manufac tured anymore." Except overseas, where the profif is still to be made and life apparently is still cheap. For, as the Indian article points out, "Even in the apparent vacuum of government regulation, it is ap palling that these giant asbestos companies conduct business under such conditions in India and elsewhere." PAGE 8-SOMERSET MESSENGER-GAZETTE-OCTOBER 22,1981 J-M tells its Indian affiliate to improve health standards ByBARBARACOOK DENVER -- In response to "a great deal of incorrect information" about JohnsManville's involvement in an Indian asbestos cement plant printed in an Indian magazine which served as the basis for an article in last week's Gazette, J-M . officials opened their records this week to present a more complete picture of the situation. James Reis, director of asbestos policy at JM's Denver corportate headquarters, said environmentalist Barry Castleman's report on conditions at the Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. p l a n t in Ahmedabad, India, carried in the June 13 issue of Economic and Polictaicl Weekly, "is not factual, and we have repeatedly pointed that out to him that." The Shree Digvijay plant is described in the article as a classic exam p le of w an to n disregard of asbestos safety standards. J-M, the article stated, is the ^exclusive seller" Of Shree Digvijay products shipped to the Middle East and Africa. Further, asbestos products distributed by J-M display no warning labels, the article said. Yet Reis said the link between the two companies is not nearly as complete as the article would suggest. "We have never been and are not now the exelusive seller," he said, with J-M providing only one-seventh of the plant's asbestos in 1980. Johns-Manville has less than a 10 percent ownership in the company, he said, dating from the early 1960s, when J-M was consultant to companies around the world which were building asbestos plants. Shree Digvijay was one of them, The plant was sold to the Indian company in I960 or 1961 with the highest technical standards and equipment of the time, he said, The under 10 percent ownership came about as partial payment for the technology. But J-M has no one on the board of directors and the nature of the ownership "does not entail day-today operations," Reis said, Reis asserts that J-M adheres to established safety standards while doing business overseas, "Every bag of raw fiber that J-M ships to In dia has a warning label on it in six languages," he said, While it is true that the f inished asbestoscement products do not have warning labels, there is no requirement of that, even in the United States, Reis said, since products in which the asbestos fiber is bound are excluded, "The danger is from the raw fiber which can get into the lungs," Reis said. Although Castleman has appeared in Man ville with slides showing unhealthy handling of the raw asbestos fiber by Shree Digvijay workers, J-M records indicate that the company has consistently prodded their Indian affiliate to improve health stan dards. "We are concerned with the way asbestos products are used around the world which are giving asbestos a bad image," Reis stated. After a J-M team visited the Shree Digvi jay plant in September 1977, they wrote in a J-M memorandum: " The plant currently has a very severe dust pro blem with asbstos fiber as well as cement. Most of the fiber handling and usage is done by hand and with shovels without dust control of any kind. Further, the Indian Government Environ ment Division has been recently tightening dust emissions (standards) and Shree Digvijay has been told to either shape up or close down, with their management liable for jail sentences." ` ' * J-M offered technical assitance for the plant to clean up, and a January 1978 com m unication from Shree Digvijay, says they followed J-M's recommendations, cbntacted dust control experts and had, in fact, "already entrusted certain jobs to them." J-M followed up the next year with a compilation of asbestos and health materials which the Indian plant managment promised to disseminate "to all concerned people in my plant," according to an October 1979 letter. But in August 1980 Johns-Manville senior vice presidnet Monroe Harris wrote to Indian officials "to draw your attention to a number of recent events which could have a profound in fluence upon the future of the asbestos cement industry in India." The letter describes JM's efforts "both in determining the causal factors" leading to asbestos-related diseases and in develop ing techology to "assure that asbestos can be min ed, milled, shipped and manufactured into a finished product in a safe manner." The letter called for a timetable for cleanup completion at Shree Digvijay. In November 1980, a J M environmental control engineering team visited Shree Digvijay and issued four pages of detailed recommenda tion for cleanup. A December 1980 followup visit and letter indicated that steps had thsese projects the highest priority1 possi ble." Reis contends that the record shows J-M's con sistent efforts to exercise what limited influence they have with Shree Digvijay. "Yes, we do have a policy, but our policy is not a slamming of the door," he said. He noted that if J-M quits selling asbestos to India, other countries will quickly fill the gap. 'the '* fm tions, and that further steps were underway, with safety equipment, ordered. 1 According records from another visit on March 12, the Shree Digvijay had "made prgress" cleaning up and that "most of the equipment which we recommended has at least been ordered." Shree Digvijay was again urged "to give