Councils lack resources to enforce regulations designed to keep the public and the environment safe from hazardous chemicals, including those that damage hormone systems, organs and aquatic life.

This was the conclusion of analysis of responses to Freedom of Information requests by UK-based environmental charity CHEM Trust, which asked 164 council trading standards departments across the UK how much they spent on monitoring consumer products for hazardous chemicals in the past five years, how many products were tested, and how many of those were found to breach legal limits.

The results revealed an under-resourced, fragmented approach to consumer health and environmental protection. Out of 88 UK councils that tested products for chemicals, 52 percent found hazardous chemicals over legal limits, and nearly a quarter (23 percent) of samples were found to contain hazardous chemicals.

Certain chemicals

These included cadmium – known to cause damage to organs and genetic defects to unborn children – in jewellery samples; phthalates – associated with disruption of the hormone system and metabolic diseases – found in toys; and lead – which can impact brain development – found in lipsticks.

It is clear that risks exist in everyday products. Despite this, 35 percent (58 councils) did not test any products at all for hazardous chemicals. From London boroughs to Welsh valley councils, not a penny was spent on sampling products for chemicals. Others carried out very little, with 31% testing less than ten products over five years.

The extent of action on hazardous chemicals by trading standards officers varied widely between councils. The highest spend in the whole of the UK was in the London Borough of Enfield, which spent £33,917 on testing 18 products over five years, followed by the London Borough of Southwark, which spent £20,290 testing 285 products.

This was followed by Birmingham City Council, which spent £15,733 on products tests. In Wales, the highest spending council was Rhondda Cynon Taf Council, which spent £4,854 testing 42 products. The most spent in Scotland was £2,000 by Midlothian Council, while in Northern Ireland, Belfast City Council spent £3,000.

Environmental campaign groups fought for years for the introduction of chemicals through the EU Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation. Other regulations are linked to REACH, including the Toy Safety Regulation and Cosmetics Product Regulation, which restrict use of certain chemicals in these products.

Improve collaboration

REACH is the most advanced system in the world for controlling chemicals. But consumers in the UK are not benefitting from this protection because it is simply not being enforced at a local level.

Council budget cuts have taken their toll on trading standards departments, and hit their ability to proactively protect the public. Overall council budgets have decreased by 23.5 percent between 2010-11 and 2015-16, according to government spending watchdog the National Audit Office. This has led budgets for trading standards services to call from £213 million in 2009 to £105 million in 2018, and the number of enforcement officers has dropped by 56 percent over this time.

Regulation of products containing potentially deadly chemicals is one of many areas competing for an ever-decreasing pot of money in local authorities.

Trading standards officers have responsibility for enforcing over 260 pieces of legislation, including those on rogue traders, preventing scams and keeping dangerous products that injure consumers off the market. With fewer staff and less money available for investigations and prosecutions, which can be extremely complex for chemicals, councils are having to make hard choices on enforcement priorities.

We were shocked by the results of our investigation. We are asking the government to increase funding for trading standards services across the UK, improve collaboration between the government and local councils on hazardous chemicals, and develop and publish a comprehensive review of the UK’s enforcement of chemical regulations, with an effective strategy to protect the public.

This Author

Kate Young is Brexit and chemicals campaigner at the CHEM Trust.

Using eco-friendly products can help you to reduce your impact on the environment. Many of these green products are also purported to be healthier. But how do you know which products are truly green? Exploring how environmentally friendly products are made can help. Consider the following six factors when looking for products that are truly eco-friendly and healthy.

1. Reduce

One way to reduce your environmental impact is to look at how you purchase and use products. The best way to minimise your impact is to reduce your consumption. Consider whether you actually need a new appliance or try using less of a cleaning product. Only running the dishwasher when it’s full, for example, will help save you detergent and water. You can also make many cleaning products using ordinary household substances.

If you’re looking for a new appliance or another type of item, you could also choose to purchase a used or recycled item rather than a new one. Older machines often, however, use more energy than newer ones. You’ll need to determine whether energy use or the resources used to make the new product will have a more significant environmental impact.

2. Lifecycle Approach

The greenest manufacturers use a lifecycle approach when determining how to produce items sustainably. Sometimes, when a company says a product is green, they are only referring to its useful life. While this is important, goods also have environmental impacts throughout manufacturing, shipping and disposal. Genuinely green products will minimize these impacts through every stage of the product’s life.

Some companies may be able to provide you with information from environmental lifecycle assessments. For others, you may have to estimate. Consider, for example, whether the company used electricity from renewables or from fossil fuels to manufacture it. Also, think about whether you can recycle the item when you’re done with it.

​​​​​​​3. Product Contents 

So, what makes a product environmentally friendly throughout its lifecycle? Many different factors come into play. Attributes that make an item eco-friendly include:

• Minimal presence of potentially harmful substances, such as known or likely human carcinogens, corrosive substances, ozone-depleting compounds and regulate hazardous materials
• Minimal emissions of volatile organic compounds and other pollutants
• Durability, long life and minimal maintenance
• The use of recycled or salvaged materials
• The use of materials obtained locally
• The use of biodegradable materials

You may not be able to find all of these qualities in one product. A product may be made with recycled materials but also contain a corrosive chemical, while a similar product has the opposite attributes. You’ll need to weigh the importance and severity of each quality when choosing between products.

4. Packaging and Shipping

The way in which a product is packaged and shipped is another critical factor influencing its environmental impact. Green shipping practices include minimizing the number of materials used for packaging and packing, as well as using recyclable packaging made with recycled materials. Purchasing products in bulk also reduces the number of shipments required, which decreases the emissions associated with shipping.

Any potentially hazardous substances should also be shipped with the appropriate packing and handling safeguards in place. The packaging for these kinds of items should be clearly labeled.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​5. Environmental Performance

Even if you can’t get information about a particular product, looking at the environmental performance of an organization as a whole can help you to estimate how green their products are. See what information a company has on their website about sustainability and make sure they have details to back up their claims. They may use renewable energy for a certain percentage of their operations, for example, or donate to environmental charities.

Check whether the organization has any certifications, such as ISO-14001, which focuses on having an environmental management system, and ISO-9001, which ensures they have a quality management system in place to ensure consistent product quality.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​6. Certifications and Greenwashing

ISO certifications are reputable and internationally recognized. Many other environmental certifications for specific products can also help to back up a company’s claims. Some of these certifications include:

• ENERGY STAR: Administered by the U.S. EPA and DOE, ENERGY STAR is a rating system for the energy efficiency of products.

• Safer Choice: The Safer Choice logo verifies that a product is made with safer chemicals.

• WaterSense: Managed by the EPA, this program verifies products as water-efficient.

• Forest Stewardship Council: A certification from the Forest Stewardship Council verifies that a product came from a sustainably managed forest.

• Green Seal: The Green Seal evaluates whether a product is safe for people and the environment.

• Cradle to Cradle: This program evaluates products based on their impact on people and the environment and helps companies improve them.

The way a product is made determines how environmentally friendly it is. A truly green product minimizes the negative impacts it has on people and the environment and may even have positive effects. To determine whether a product is eco-friendly, look at its entire lifecycle and consider the aspects listed above.

This Author

Emily Folk is a conservation and sustainability writer and the editor of Conservation Folks.

In the week that the first oil from the Clair Ridge field west of Shetland was produced, DeSmog UK completed our series on the ‘Just Transition’ — exploring how Scotland could shift wholesale from fossil fuels into green and renewable energy, and in doing so create new jobs and a new future.

Working as an environmental journalist is sometimes like a walking nightmare. As we survey the global response to the IPCC’s shocking report – that we only have 12 years left to limit a temperature rise to 1.5°C – the oil giant BP declares it hopes to be able to get 640 million barrels of oil from the Clair Ridge, with production expected to peak at 120,00 barrels a day.

Despite this, and without exception, the media in Scotland reported the new field as an unquestionable good, faithfully reciting BP’s press releases.

Radical alternatives

But rather than descend into despondency it’s time to look at the radical alternatives and opportunities that face us.

We commissioned a talented writer and photographer to team up and document the potential for deep change as we face the reality of climate breakdown.

Christopher Silver and Alan McCredie have spent a few weeks travelling across Scotland to interview workers and communities embedded in the fossil fuel industry, and question them about their future.

Their work has a historical depth, looking back for examples and models of radical change, and forward to the potential for a green future for Scottish energy.

This series starts from the basis of understanding that current lifestyles are dependent on oil and plastic, and that we are all to some degree complicit and integrated into the present system. It looks at how the UK can achieve the immediate, transformative and radical changes to the economy and society necessary to address the climate crisis. And it addresses this transformation through the perspectives of the communities that will be most affected.

Kingdom of Coal

In part one, The Kingdom of Coal, we examine the prospects for the future. Silver writes: “Since winning power in Scotland in 2007, the SNP has self-consciously sought to position itself as a leader on climate change. After 10 years of working within the limits of its devolved powers in office and setting world-leading emissions reduction targets, the current SNP government recently announced a Just Transition Commission headed by Professor Jim Skea.

“The potential for an unprecedented step-change, preserving jobs and skills, aligned with calls for a global ‘Green New Deal’, could open the next, and indeed final, chapter on Scotland’s centuries-long relationship with carbon capital.”

Surveying the region of Fife, pockmarked with abandoned mines and desolate ex-mining commmunities the stark evidence is of a model for how NOT to do energy transition. When Thatcher’s government pulled the plug on the mining industry, in what was an explicitly political choice, and it left many towns facing mass unemployment with no alternatives.

The ongoing issue of the Mossmorran plant at Cowdenbeath flaring stands as a beacon to Scotland’s unregulated post-industrial landscape that blurs the rural and industrial and often treats communities with contempt.

The scale of the challenge to create a viable just transition process is immense. As Silver notes:

“For Scotland to meet its obligations under the Paris Agreement, it can only emit a total of 300 million tonnes more carbon dioxide – meaning it has to cut emissions by at least ten percent every year. Whichever way you look at it, this will be the greatest challenge faced by Scottish industry for a generation.”

Aberdeen: City of Oil

In the second part of our series we looked at Aberdeen, the country’s energy capital. While the amount of profits from North Sea oil is a phenomenon in itself, dig a little deeper and the reality is one of exploitation. How can it be that in Aberdeen, the city of oil, there are foodbanks?

Jake Molloy, the Aberdeen based Regional Organiser for National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) said: “All the work that’s getting done on renewables, and in decommissioning, is being done by vessels which carry Filipino, Malaysian crews, exploited on slave labour rates.

“The North Sea has become a dumping ground, literally a dumping ground, for workers to be exploited on appalling rates, in appalling conditions….” 

Last year, this quiet controversy over the use of foreign-flagged vessels, some with crews on as little as £2.70 an hour, was brought dramatically to the fore. In a debacle that lasted for over a year, the 12-man crew of the Malaviya Seven was left stranded without pay in Aberdeen Harbour, after its Indian owner GOL went into liquidation.

The vessel had been chartered by BP and had previously been hired by other big oil companies such as Dana Oil, the Wood Group and Premier Oil. The exploitation and poverty is not confined to sections of the industry.

Poverty in the city has moved higher up the agenda — “oil rich Aberdeen” now has more foodbanks than any other Scottish city and there is a 17 year gap in life expectancy between the most deprived and most affluent communities in the city.

This is the story of a city in transition, without enough thought, planning or attention to how this can be done justly for its residents.

Centuries of Shale 

In part three we looked at the sprawling Grangemouth plant and its role at the very heart of Scotland’s gas and oil industry, and in the final section we looked at the history of hydro in the highlands.

Amongst all of the obstacles to the change we need – a chronic lack of ambition, bedded-in vested interests, a worldview that still clings to North sea oil as a ‘liberator’ and lack of funds and lack of political levers of power – there is still hope.

Looking back at the experience of the extraordinary transformations that took place through the development of hydro power in the 1950s is inspirational

Under the strategic vision of Tom Johnstone, Labour Secretary of State for Scotland, by 1965, 54 main power stations and 78 dams had been built, providing a total generating capacity of over 1,000 megawatts. As Silver writes:

“To put this in perspective, that amounts to roughly the same capacity as one of Scotland’s two large nuclear power stations today. To achieve this, 300 kilometres of rock tunnel had to be excavated and a similar length of aqueducts and pipelines constructed. In addition, 32,000 kilometres of electricity network would be required to distribute the electricity throughout the north of Scotland.”

This baseload energy system has actually given Scotland a strategic advantage that has allowed it to make great strides in developing its own climate change targets.

New opportunities

Nor is hydro at full capacity. Wind pump storage technology has meant that power plants like Ben Cruachan have increased their capacity and unlocked one of the deficiencies of wind power, that it cannot be ‘stored’.

Three huge opportunities seem to present themselves from our research. All of them are predicated from us having the scale of ambition witnessed by the hydro pioneers in the 1950s and 60s.  

First, the opportunity for decommissioning the north sea oil industry and transitioning into offshore wind is an opportunity for coastal towns and job creations but it needs investment and coordination on a scale that is currently absent.

Second, the opportunity for municipal district heating systems – of the kind pioneered by the Glasgow firm Star Renewables and currently being installed in towns and cities across Norway –  would be a huge jobs boost in construction and give our urban hubs a jump start in the energy transition process.

Community renewables

Third, the opportunity for community renewables is laid out. As Silver writes: “In comparison to 150 megawatt Sloy, the new Arrochar Community Hydro Scheme, opened in May 2018 provides a relatively modest 125 kilowatts. But Duncan, who is Chairman of the Arrochar and Tarbet Community Development Trust, remains enthused about its potential as a community asset.”

“Up a steep hillside above the shore of Loch Long, not far from where her older big sister sits at Sloy, the scheme, which runs a turbine off a fast-flowing burn, lies just a matter of metres away from power lines that link into the national grid. It is projected to generate £76,000 each year, and its 402,000 kilowatt hours will provide enough power to meet the equivalent demand from 130 medium use households annually.”

Small-scale decentralised community owned schemes can be at the heart of the transition process, offering resilience and keeping resources within a local economy.

Fourth, the potential for the promised Scottish Energy Company to be a publicly owned green energy company could be the game-changer offering affordable energy to those suffering fuel poverty and a clean energy future.  

All of this requires a change of mindset, a step-change in levels of ambition and an ability to do joined-up thinking and ‘big scale’ strategic infrastructure development that is a challenge to a small devolved nation. But it is possible, and we now know there is no alternative.

This Author 

Mike Small is a freelance writer, activist and publisher working along the fault line of Social Ecology and self-determination. He is the Deputy Editor of DeSmog UK and the Editor of Bella Caledonia. You can read the full Just Transition series here.   

It sounds like a public holiday. The kind of thing which has a Google doodle dedicated to it. But International Cube Day is not some bizarre celebration that only your search engine has heard of.

Instead, it was a day on which waves of vegan activism broke out across global cities from Mauritius to Hyderabad, from Osaka to Guatemala City. It occurred throughout Europe with demonstrations in the obvious places like Alexanderplatz in Berlin, and in more obscure places like Marks and Spencers in Truro.

They all employed the same method: a spectacle based shock tactic called The Cube of Truth. 

Peaceful movement 

This day of global activism on 3 November was coordinated by the street action group Anonymous for the Voiceless. An offshoot of the hacktivist movement Anonymous, AV was established in 2016 with the aim of converting people to veganism.

Their values are clear and define the movement. They are ‘abolitionists’ when it comes to animal cruelty. They wish – as most vegans do – to end all forms of animal exploitation and fight primarily against speciesism which they view as a form of discrimination.

Although commitment to vegan values has taken Anonymous from behind their screens and onto the streets, they are a peaceful, non-violent movement that operates within the bounds of the law.

Activists that bully or harass and do not comply with the group’s principles are not permitted to carry the group’s name. They seem to strive to be the acceptable face of vegan radicalism. 

Structurally they are impressive, a grassroots effort with no central organising force beyond a website that links to each chapter and a series of Facebook groups that coordinate events.

Silent protest

Although the comparisons stop here, their structure is reminiscent of a biker gang where a local chapter is established (or in the exceptional cases of Cyprus and Mauritius a national chapter) and then affiliates to the organisation.

There are over 800 chapters globally – to be considered an active chapter at least one Cube of Truth demo must be held a month so at a bare minimum there are 9600 of these cubes a year. 

The cube is something to behold, when carried out well. A square of people is constructed in which each person faces outwards, wearing the now familiar Anonymous icon, the Guy Fawkes mask. The cube is silent. It does not need noise.

Each Fawkes-clad Cuber holds a screen or a placard saying truth. On the screens montages of the local industrial farming practises: calves being beaten, caged hens, bloody corpses in grim conditions cannot help but mesmerise you as you’re confronted by the reality of the supply chains you enable.

Outside the cube maskless volunteers explain what is going on and evangelise the benefits of veganism. 

Efficient activism

These shock tactics certainly work but it is questionable whether they’re efficient. As of  5 November 2018 AV’s website boasts: “Over 8,493 demonstrations in 806 cities worldwide, we’ve convinced at least 308,771 bystanders to take veganism seriously.”

While that’s an impressive absolute figure, most cubes last around 3 hours. It does not seem unreasonable to ask whether these hours could be better spent on more efficient promotional activities.

AV sincerely believe in the tactic and it has helped recruit some of their most committed members. Brad Simmons, an organiser for the London chapter, joined AV after witnessing a cube in Covent Garden and has since helped establish demos in other UK cities.

He assures me that it isn’t time wasted. The outreach volunteers only speak to those who have been watching the spectacle for a while, those who are clearly interested, those who might change their habits. 

They want to challenge preconceptions in a civil manner. Brad mentioned a commitment to the Socratic method. This is not the only philosophical grounding of the movement.

Deep ecology

Several of the activists seem to espouse something similar to deep ecology, even if they haven’t read Naess directly.

I spoke to three activists at the Paris cube on International Cube Day. They all stated that vegan activism was part of a wider project to end all forms of exploitation; they were all in other movements alongside AV.

The way that they described the intersections between their various struggles echoed Chantal Mouffe’s idea that to achieve genuine social justice, a “chain of equivalence” must be drawn between different fights for justice. 

To this end AV and wider radical veganism must be understood as anti-capitalist. The setting of the Paris demo highlighted this perfectly. Looming over the cube was the glitzy tackiness of the Mall D’Italie. It is an orgy of advertising and materialism, practically a monument to conspicuous consumption.

AV challenges this, their message is to consume less and consume ethically. Despite this though their politics are not entirely structural. AV lobby as well as use direct action. They theorise that all levels of society must be pressured to achieve the change they want to see.

Creating demand

But, when I ask Meven, a Paris activist, whether my responsibility is equal to that of Macron or Maccies he says yes. His response is simple: “Because these companies need profit they sell things for us to buy. If we stop buying them, they stop selling”.

This is perhaps where AV fall down. Individual choice is certainly worth pressuring, but sometimes they lack the nuance to see that these companies create demand as well as supply. 

That said they do recognise the power of companies. I asked Dianne and Victor, outreach activists at the Paris cube, what their policy was regarding children seeing the disturbing footage.

AV activists approach children watching and tell them they have to ask their parents’ permission and try and  dissuade younger, unaccompanied children from watching.

Victor, only 16 but a competent debater, fired back quickly when I asked him if it was acceptable to have this in public. He told me advertisements are everywhere influencing people, there is far more pressure to consume animal products than to avoid them. Dianne also chipped in with “it’s the truth”.

Online trolling

It’s a persuasive argument. Perhaps AV are approaching the issue from the perspective that in the current system we have trickle down economics, but trickle up morality. The big changes must begin at the grassroots, on the streets not in the ironically named ivory towers. 

AV aren’t without their critics, but they tend to come in the form of anti-PC online trolling. One group imaginatively named “Anonymous for the Voiceless are a Cult!” told me they are pro-capitalist, for-profit and divisive within the animal rights community.

Dianne and Victor refuted this easily. They are a non-profit organisation and are well received as radicals when compared to groups like PETA, whose work they appreciate but whose self-interest they dislike.

You don’t have to agree with AV’s message to see that online groups such as this and “Why are Vegans like this?” are generally trolls, or concern-trolls with nothing to say. There is little in the way of an organised intellectual basis for anti-veganism as most vegans (that aren’t in violent groups like ALF)  peacefully coexist with members of the meat-eating public.

AV certainly reject such methods, despite the hard-edged image, they are generally very friendly, their propaganda outside the cube consisted of fliers for good vegan restaurants and vegan lifestyle magazines.

Environmental justice

AV are interested in making veganism accessible and don’t adopt violence or poverty-shaming tactics like some of their aforementioned peers in the animal rights movement. 

Anonymous for the Voiceless’ slogan is “Animals. Environment. Health” an appeal to the three main benefits of veganism. The most interesting aspect sits in the middle; it’s emphasis on the environmental benefits of veganism is increasingly gaining truck with the public.

A lot of the members at the Paris demo were young, and Meven told me that it is easier to engage people, particularly young people when talking about the benefits of veganism for reducing greenhouse gas output and land clearing in the Amazon.

If they continue to push this line, then AV could perhaps become more central in the new crop of environmental movements that aim to shake us from our destructive torpor.

Climate alarm and Extinction Rebellion are relatively recent international expressions of resistance against an establishment that does not care about climate justice. AV form part of this front and push a more palatable style of militant veganism that is rooted in environmental justice. 

This Author

Oliver Haynes is a politics and French student at the University of Exeter and a freelance writer. Past bylines include Open Democracy, Labour List and Invisible Illness. 

There are many natural and chemical toxins that are dangerous to human health. Materials can be  harmful to individuals  if they are simply inhaled, ingested, or mishandled.

One of those many hazardous materials is asbestos. With scientific evidence proving the substance causes disease over time and many real-life examples to prove this case, scientists and health professionals alike have come out to say that asbestos is a dangerous carcinogen.

Most nations have taken this warning seriously and have banned it completely, but countries like the United States still allow for legal asbestos use within their nations borders. 

What is asbestos?

Asbestos has been used in many different types of housing insulations as well as other consumer products, but do you know what it really is?

Asbestos is made of six natural fibers that have heat resistant, fire resistant, and electricity protecting properties, all of which makes the material a versatile resource. 

In the mid-twentieth century it was discovered that asbestos was a cancer causing agent. If broken or disturbed, it can become airborne which then poses serious threats to the body. Due to its fibrous nature, inhaled or ingested asbestos can cling to the tissue inside the lung or abdomen.

Around thirty years after exposure, asbestos can cause serious ailments including pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma.  Workers in fields such as construction, automotive repair, and commercial product manufacturing are at risk if and when exposed to disrupted asbestos. 

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found that there is no safe level of asbestos exposure, however there are some 30 million pounds of asbestos used in the U.S. every year. While there is no ban in the US, more than 50 countries, including Australia, India, and all 28 countries of the European Nations have banned asbestos. 

Regulating asbestos

Protection of workers from the potential harms of asbestos fall onto the EPA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

OSHA controls and oversees working conditions in the US, ensuring that employees are safe and protected by implementing and managing workplace standards. The EPA is responsible for protecting state and local employees who may be exposed to any form of hazardous material, through the Toxic Substance Control Act. This protects those who were not covered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administrations asbestos regulations.

The NIOSH is a federal agency that runs research and makes recommendations for preventing work-related injuries and illnesses. 

Even though there are restrictions, the US is one of the few major industrialised nations without a ban currently in place.

While there have been many warnings and scientific evidence that proves that that asbestos in fact causes disease there are only acts that restrict the use of asbestos. These include laws like the EPA Asbestos Worker Protection Rule, the Asbestos-Containing Materials in School Rule, and the Asbestos Ban and Phase-out Rule. 

Legal requirements 

Here is a further explanation of some of the rules:

– Asbestos Information Act 

This law requires that companies making certain types asbestos containing products be required to identify themselves and report production to the EPA.

– Clean Air Act (CCA)  

This law explains the EPA’s role in protecting and improving air quality in the U.S. It also states that the EPA is responsible to set standards for dangerous air pollutants. Asbestos is among those air pollutants. 

– The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) (Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Title II)

This law states that the EPA is required to ensure that the local schools are checking their buildings for any material containing asbestos. From there, schools are required to prepare plans for asbestos removal and/or management. It also explains that the EPA is responsible for providing model plans for those conducting asbestos inspections in schools.

– Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

This law oversees the working conditions of U.S. employees by implementing and overseeing safety and health standards for workers.

– EPA Asbestos Worker Protection Rule

This regulation states that the EPA is required to protect workers on the state and local government employee level that were not covered by OSHA.

– Asbestos Ban and Phase-out Rule

Rule issued by the EPA on July 12, 1989, that banned most asbestos-containing products. However, in 1991 this rule was overturned and as a result only a few asbestos-containing products remain banned. The goal is to phase-out the remaining products.

Around the world

Asbestos has been banned in 55 countries worldwide, but not in China, Russia, India, Canada, or the United States. Countries that have banned the product include those such as, France, Turkey, Ireland, South Africa, Poland, and the Netherlands to name a few. 

– China

While there are so many countries that have taken action on the ban on asbestos, China being a major country has not. China is the world’s largest consumer of asbestos in the world, due to the rapid growth of industrialization in the nation.

China is also the second-largest producer of asbestos and according to the China Chrysotile Association, record amounts of the material have been used in the past decade. While the US hit its peak use of asbestos in the 1973, China on the other hand has hit its peak use numbers in recent years  as they started using asbestos frequently in the late 1970s.

– Russia

For years, Russia has been the a lead producer in worldwide asbestos mine production. Since Russia is one of the few nations still mining and exporting the natural substance, the U.S. purchased asbestos from a Russian production company.

Shortly after pictures appeared on the the exporters Facebook page showing a faux stamp of approval featuring Trump’s face which read, “Approved by Donald Trump the 45th President of the United States.” 

– Canada

The Canadian government has made great strides when it comes to asbestos related laws. The government recognizes that asbestos can cause cancer and other diseases, but there is no official ban on the substance entirely.

As of October 2018, the Prohibition of Asbestos and Products Containing Asbestos Regulations are in place, which prohibit the import, sale, and use of asbestos, including the manufacturing and use of asbestos containing products.

Although Canada is taking steps in the right direction, there still needs to be more regulations about current asbestos already in use to protect Canadian workers and homeowners. 

Further action 

There are many ways in which the US legislation is changing the way asbestos is used. However there are no rules that completely ban this deadly material that is affecting the lives of many citizens  and their families.

In order to make a bigger impact, the US needs to rework laws and enact a complete ban on the  use of asbestos in homes, schools, and existing products. As of June, the EPA proposed a “significant new use rule,” that could allow asbestos back into certain products with historic use deemed to be unthreatening.

During the Obama administration, in 2016, the EPA was required to constantly reevaluate harmful toxins and in fact reviewed 10 chemicals due to an amendment added to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act. Under the new Trump administration, the EPA is approaching evaluating chemicals in a new way.

NBC News said: “The agency now focuses on how chemicals potentially cause harm through direct contact in the workplace, not taking into account improper disposal or other means of contamination that could greatly affect the public.”

In response, asbestos-related disease advocacy groups are rebelling and have argued that this rule is providing more loopholes to use this inexpensive toxin at the expense of the health of United States citizens . 

Once new asbestos cannot be introduced, it is important we take the proactive procedures to abate and dispose of known asbestos sites still hidden behind walls and across state lines. The only way the government can make sure that no one is affected by this harmful chemical, is to ban it from the United States completely.

This Author 

Emily Walsh is a community outreach director from New York. Her background is focussed on heightening awareness and advocacy for community health. Walsh is currently specializing in rare cancer research, specifically mesothelioma, one of the only known cancers that is completely preventable. 

It sounds like a public holiday. The kind of thing which has a Google doodle dedicated to it. But International Cube Day is not some bizarre celebration that only your search engine has heard of.

Instead, it was a day on which waves of vegan activism broke out across global cities from Mauritius to Hyderabad, from Osaka to Guatemala City. It occurred throughout Europe with demonstrations in the obvious places like Alexanderplatz in Berlin, and in more obscure places like Marks and Spencers in Truro.

They all employed the same method: a spectacle based shock tactic called The Cube of Truth. 

Peaceful movement 

This day of global activism on 3 November was coordinated by the street action group Anonymous for the Voiceless. An offshoot of the hacktivist movement Anonymous, AV was established in 2016 with the aim of converting people to veganism.

Their values are clear and define the movement. They are ‘abolitionists’ when it comes to animal cruelty. They wish – as most vegans do – to end all forms of animal exploitation and fight primarily against speciesism which they view as a form of discrimination.

Although commitment to vegan values has taken Anonymous from behind their screens and onto the streets, they are a peaceful, non-violent movement that operates within the bounds of the law.

Activists that bully or harass and do not comply with the group’s principles are not permitted to carry the group’s name. They seem to strive to be the acceptable face of vegan radicalism. 

Structurally they are impressive, a grassroots effort with no central organising force beyond a website that links to each chapter and a series of Facebook groups that coordinate events.

Silent protest

Although the comparisons stop here, their structure is reminiscent of a biker gang where a local chapter is established (or in the exceptional cases of Cyprus and Mauritius a national chapter) and then affiliates to the organisation.

There are over 800 chapters globally – to be considered an active chapter at least one Cube of Truth demo must be held a month so at a bare minimum there are 9600 of these cubes a year. 

The cube is something to behold, when carried out well. A square of people is constructed in which each person faces outwards, wearing the now familiar Anonymous icon, the Guy Fawkes mask. The cube is silent. It does not need noise.

Each Fawkes-clad Cuber holds a screen or a placard saying truth. On the screens montages of the local industrial farming practises: calves being beaten, caged hens, bloody corpses in grim conditions cannot help but mesmerise you as you’re confronted by the reality of the supply chains you enable.

Outside the cube maskless volunteers explain what is going on and evangelise the benefits of veganism. 

Efficient activism

These shock tactics certainly work but it is questionable whether they’re efficient. As of  5 November 2018 AV’s website boasts: “Over 8,493 demonstrations in 806 cities worldwide, we’ve convinced at least 308,771 bystanders to take veganism seriously.”

While that’s an impressive absolute figure, most cubes last around 3 hours. It does not seem unreasonable to ask whether these hours could be better spent on more efficient promotional activities.

AV sincerely believe in the tactic and it has helped recruit some of their most committed members. Brad Simmons, an organiser for the London chapter, joined AV after witnessing a cube in Covent Garden and has since helped establish demos in other UK cities.

He assures me that it isn’t time wasted. The outreach volunteers only speak to those who have been watching the spectacle for a while, those who are clearly interested, those who might change their habits. 

They want to challenge preconceptions in a civil manner. Brad mentioned a commitment to the Socratic method. This is not the only philosophical grounding of the movement.

Deep ecology

Several of the activists seem to espouse something similar to deep ecology, even if they haven’t read Naess directly.

I spoke to three activists at the Paris cube on International Cube Day. They all stated that vegan activism was part of a wider project to end all forms of exploitation; they were all in other movements alongside AV.

The way that they described the intersections between their various struggles echoed Chantal Mouffe’s idea that to achieve genuine social justice, a “chain of equivalence” must be drawn between different fights for justice. 

To this end AV and wider radical veganism must be understood as anti-capitalist. The setting of the Paris demo highlighted this perfectly. Looming over the cube was the glitzy tackiness of the Mall D’Italie. It is an orgy of advertising and materialism, practically a monument to conspicuous consumption.

AV challenges this, their message is to consume less and consume ethically. Despite this though their politics are not entirely structural. AV lobby as well as use direct action. They theorise that all levels of society must be pressured to achieve the change they want to see.

Creating demand

But, when I ask Meven, a Paris activist, whether my responsibility is equal to that of Macron or Maccies he says yes. His response is simple: “Because these companies need profit they sell things for us to buy. If we stop buying them, they stop selling”.

This is perhaps where AV fall down. Individual choice is certainly worth pressuring, but sometimes they lack the nuance to see that these companies create demand as well as supply. 

That said they do recognise the power of companies. I asked Dianne and Victor, outreach activists at the Paris cube, what their policy was regarding children seeing the disturbing footage.

AV activists approach children watching and tell them they have to ask their parents’ permission and try and  dissuade younger, unaccompanied children from watching.

Victor, only 16 but a competent debater, fired back quickly when I asked him if it was acceptable to have this in public. He told me advertisements are everywhere influencing people, there is far more pressure to consume animal products than to avoid them. Dianne also chipped in with “it’s the truth”.

Online trolling

It’s a persuasive argument. Perhaps AV are approaching the issue from the perspective that in the current system we have trickle down economics, but trickle up morality. The big changes must begin at the grassroots, on the streets not in the ironically named ivory towers. 

AV aren’t without their critics, but they tend to come in the form of anti-PC online trolling. One group imaginatively named “Anonymous for the Voiceless are a Cult!” told me they are pro-capitalist, for-profit and divisive within the animal rights community.

Dianne and Victor refuted this easily. They are a non-profit organisation and are well received as radicals when compared to groups like PETA, whose work they appreciate but whose self-interest they dislike.

You don’t have to agree with AV’s message to see that online groups such as this and “Why are Vegans like this?” are generally trolls, or concern-trolls with nothing to say. There is little in the way of an organised intellectual basis for anti-veganism as most vegans (that aren’t in violent groups like ALF)  peacefully coexist with members of the meat-eating public.

AV certainly reject such methods, despite the hard-edged image, they are generally very friendly, their propaganda outside the cube consisted of fliers for good vegan restaurants and vegan lifestyle magazines.

Environmental justice

AV are interested in making veganism accessible and don’t adopt violence or poverty-shaming tactics like some of their aforementioned peers in the animal rights movement. 

Anonymous for the Voiceless’ slogan is “Animals. Environment. Health” an appeal to the three main benefits of veganism. The most interesting aspect sits in the middle; it’s emphasis on the environmental benefits of veganism is increasingly gaining truck with the public.

A lot of the members at the Paris demo were young, and Meven told me that it is easier to engage people, particularly young people when talking about the benefits of veganism for reducing greenhouse gas output and land clearing in the Amazon.

If they continue to push this line, then AV could perhaps become more central in the new crop of environmental movements that aim to shake us from our destructive torpor.

Climate alarm and Extinction Rebellion are relatively recent international expressions of resistance against an establishment that does not care about climate justice. AV form part of this front and push a more palatable style of militant veganism that is rooted in environmental justice. 

This Author

Oliver Haynes is a politics and French student at the University of Exeter and a freelance writer. Past bylines include Open Democracy, Labour List and Invisible Illness. 

There are many natural and chemical toxins that are dangerous to human health. Materials can be  harmful to individuals  if they are simply inhaled, ingested, or mishandled.

One of those many hazardous materials is asbestos. With scientific evidence proving the substance causes disease over time and many real-life examples to prove this case, scientists and health professionals alike have come out to say that asbestos is a dangerous carcinogen.

Most nations have taken this warning seriously and have banned it completely, but countries like the United States still allow for legal asbestos use within their nations borders. 

What is asbestos?

Asbestos has been used in many different types of housing insulations as well as other consumer products, but do you know what it really is?

Asbestos is made of six natural fibers that have heat resistant, fire resistant, and electricity protecting properties, all of which makes the material a versatile resource. 

In the mid-twentieth century it was discovered that asbestos was a cancer causing agent. If broken or disturbed, it can become airborne which then poses serious threats to the body. Due to its fibrous nature, inhaled or ingested asbestos can cling to the tissue inside the lung or abdomen.

Around thirty years after exposure, asbestos can cause serious ailments including pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma.  Workers in fields such as construction, automotive repair, and commercial product manufacturing are at risk if and when exposed to disrupted asbestos. 

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found that there is no safe level of asbestos exposure, however there are some 30 million pounds of asbestos used in the U.S. every year. While there is no ban in the US, more than 50 countries, including Australia, India, and all 28 countries of the European Nations have banned asbestos. 

Regulating asbestos

Protection of workers from the potential harms of asbestos fall onto the EPA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

OSHA controls and oversees working conditions in the US, ensuring that employees are safe and protected by implementing and managing workplace standards. The EPA is responsible for protecting state and local employees who may be exposed to any form of hazardous material, through the Toxic Substance Control Act. This protects those who were not covered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administrations asbestos regulations.

The NIOSH is a federal agency that runs research and makes recommendations for preventing work-related injuries and illnesses. 

Even though there are restrictions, the US is one of the few major industrialised nations without a ban currently in place.

While there have been many warnings and scientific evidence that proves that that asbestos in fact causes disease there are only acts that restrict the use of asbestos. These include laws like the EPA Asbestos Worker Protection Rule, the Asbestos-Containing Materials in School Rule, and the Asbestos Ban and Phase-out Rule. 

Legal requirements 

Here is a further explanation of some of the rules:

– Asbestos Information Act 

This law requires that companies making certain types asbestos containing products be required to identify themselves and report production to the EPA.

– Clean Air Act (CCA)  

This law explains the EPA’s role in protecting and improving air quality in the U.S. It also states that the EPA is responsible to set standards for dangerous air pollutants. Asbestos is among those air pollutants. 

– The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) (Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Title II)

This law states that the EPA is required to ensure that the local schools are checking their buildings for any material containing asbestos. From there, schools are required to prepare plans for asbestos removal and/or management. It also explains that the EPA is responsible for providing model plans for those conducting asbestos inspections in schools.

– Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

This law oversees the working conditions of U.S. employees by implementing and overseeing safety and health standards for workers.

– EPA Asbestos Worker Protection Rule

This regulation states that the EPA is required to protect workers on the state and local government employee level that were not covered by OSHA.

– Asbestos Ban and Phase-out Rule

Rule issued by the EPA on July 12, 1989, that banned most asbestos-containing products. However, in 1991 this rule was overturned and as a result only a few asbestos-containing products remain banned. The goal is to phase-out the remaining products.

Around the world

Asbestos has been banned in 55 countries worldwide, but not in China, Russia, India, Canada, or the United States. Countries that have banned the product include those such as, France, Turkey, Ireland, South Africa, Poland, and the Netherlands to name a few. 

– China

While there are so many countries that have taken action on the ban on asbestos, China being a major country has not. China is the world’s largest consumer of asbestos in the world, due to the rapid growth of industrialization in the nation.

China is also the second-largest producer of asbestos and according to the China Chrysotile Association, record amounts of the material have been used in the past decade. While the US hit its peak use of asbestos in the 1973, China on the other hand has hit its peak use numbers in recent years  as they started using asbestos frequently in the late 1970s.

– Russia

For years, Russia has been the a lead producer in worldwide asbestos mine production. Since Russia is one of the few nations still mining and exporting the natural substance, the U.S. purchased asbestos from a Russian production company.

Shortly after pictures appeared on the the exporters Facebook page showing a faux stamp of approval featuring Trump’s face which read, “Approved by Donald Trump the 45th President of the United States.” 

– Canada

The Canadian government has made great strides when it comes to asbestos related laws. The government recognizes that asbestos can cause cancer and other diseases, but there is no official ban on the substance entirely.

As of October 2018, the Prohibition of Asbestos and Products Containing Asbestos Regulations are in place, which prohibit the import, sale, and use of asbestos, including the manufacturing and use of asbestos containing products.

Although Canada is taking steps in the right direction, there still needs to be more regulations about current asbestos already in use to protect Canadian workers and homeowners. 

Further action 

There are many ways in which the US legislation is changing the way asbestos is used. However there are no rules that completely ban this deadly material that is affecting the lives of many citizens  and their families.

In order to make a bigger impact, the US needs to rework laws and enact a complete ban on the  use of asbestos in homes, schools, and existing products. As of June, the EPA proposed a “significant new use rule,” that could allow asbestos back into certain products with historic use deemed to be unthreatening.

During the Obama administration, in 2016, the EPA was required to constantly reevaluate harmful toxins and in fact reviewed 10 chemicals due to an amendment added to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act. Under the new Trump administration, the EPA is approaching evaluating chemicals in a new way.

NBC News said: “The agency now focuses on how chemicals potentially cause harm through direct contact in the workplace, not taking into account improper disposal or other means of contamination that could greatly affect the public.”

In response, asbestos-related disease advocacy groups are rebelling and have argued that this rule is providing more loopholes to use this inexpensive toxin at the expense of the health of United States citizens . 

Once new asbestos cannot be introduced, it is important we take the proactive procedures to abate and dispose of known asbestos sites still hidden behind walls and across state lines. The only way the government can make sure that no one is affected by this harmful chemical, is to ban it from the United States completely.

This Author 

Emily Walsh is a community outreach director from New York. Her background is focussed on heightening awareness and advocacy for community health. Walsh is currently specializing in rare cancer research, specifically mesothelioma, one of the only known cancers that is completely preventable. 

It sounds like a public holiday. The kind of thing which has a Google doodle dedicated to it. But International Cube Day is not some bizarre celebration that only your search engine has heard of.

Instead, it was a day on which waves of vegan activism broke out across global cities from Mauritius to Hyderabad, from Osaka to Guatemala City. It occurred throughout Europe with demonstrations in the obvious places like Alexanderplatz in Berlin, and in more obscure places like Marks and Spencers in Truro.

They all employed the same method: a spectacle based shock tactic called The Cube of Truth. 

Peaceful movement 

This day of global activism on 3 November was coordinated by the street action group Anonymous for the Voiceless. An offshoot of the hacktivist movement Anonymous, AV was established in 2016 with the aim of converting people to veganism.

Their values are clear and define the movement. They are ‘abolitionists’ when it comes to animal cruelty. They wish – as most vegans do – to end all forms of animal exploitation and fight primarily against speciesism which they view as a form of discrimination.

Although commitment to vegan values has taken Anonymous from behind their screens and onto the streets, they are a peaceful, non-violent movement that operates within the bounds of the law.

Activists that bully or harass and do not comply with the group’s principles are not permitted to carry the group’s name. They seem to strive to be the acceptable face of vegan radicalism. 

Structurally they are impressive, a grassroots effort with no central organising force beyond a website that links to each chapter and a series of Facebook groups that coordinate events.

Silent protest

Although the comparisons stop here, their structure is reminiscent of a biker gang where a local chapter is established (or in the exceptional cases of Cyprus and Mauritius a national chapter) and then affiliates to the organisation.

There are over 800 chapters globally – to be considered an active chapter at least one Cube of Truth demo must be held a month so at a bare minimum there are 9600 of these cubes a year. 

The cube is something to behold, when carried out well. A square of people is constructed in which each person faces outwards, wearing the now familiar Anonymous icon, the Guy Fawkes mask. The cube is silent. It does not need noise.

Each Fawkes-clad Cuber holds a screen or a placard saying truth. On the screens montages of the local industrial farming practises: calves being beaten, caged hens, bloody corpses in grim conditions cannot help but mesmerise you as you’re confronted by the reality of the supply chains you enable.

Outside the cube maskless volunteers explain what is going on and evangelise the benefits of veganism. 

Efficient activism

These shock tactics certainly work but it is questionable whether they’re efficient. As of  5 November 2018 AV’s website boasts: “Over 8,493 demonstrations in 806 cities worldwide, we’ve convinced at least 308,771 bystanders to take veganism seriously.”

While that’s an impressive absolute figure, most cubes last around 3 hours. It does not seem unreasonable to ask whether these hours could be better spent on more efficient promotional activities.

AV sincerely believe in the tactic and it has helped recruit some of their most committed members. Brad Simmons, an organiser for the London chapter, joined AV after witnessing a cube in Covent Garden and has since helped establish demos in other UK cities.

He assures me that it isn’t time wasted. The outreach volunteers only speak to those who have been watching the spectacle for a while, those who are clearly interested, those who might change their habits. 

They want to challenge preconceptions in a civil manner. Brad mentioned a commitment to the Socratic method. This is not the only philosophical grounding of the movement.

Deep ecology

Several of the activists seem to espouse something similar to deep ecology, even if they haven’t read Naess directly.

I spoke to three activists at the Paris cube on International Cube Day. They all stated that vegan activism was part of a wider project to end all forms of exploitation; they were all in other movements alongside AV.

The way that they described the intersections between their various struggles echoed Chantal Mouffe’s idea that to achieve genuine social justice, a “chain of equivalence” must be drawn between different fights for justice. 

To this end AV and wider radical veganism must be understood as anti-capitalist. The setting of the Paris demo highlighted this perfectly. Looming over the cube was the glitzy tackiness of the Mall D’Italie. It is an orgy of advertising and materialism, practically a monument to conspicuous consumption.

AV challenges this, their message is to consume less and consume ethically. Despite this though their politics are not entirely structural. AV lobby as well as use direct action. They theorise that all levels of society must be pressured to achieve the change they want to see.

Creating demand

But, when I ask Meven, a Paris activist, whether my responsibility is equal to that of Macron or Maccies he says yes. His response is simple: “Because these companies need profit they sell things for us to buy. If we stop buying them, they stop selling”.

This is perhaps where AV fall down. Individual choice is certainly worth pressuring, but sometimes they lack the nuance to see that these companies create demand as well as supply. 

That said they do recognise the power of companies. I asked Dianne and Victor, outreach activists at the Paris cube, what their policy was regarding children seeing the disturbing footage.

AV activists approach children watching and tell them they have to ask their parents’ permission and try and  dissuade younger, unaccompanied children from watching.

Victor, only 16 but a competent debater, fired back quickly when I asked him if it was acceptable to have this in public. He told me advertisements are everywhere influencing people, there is far more pressure to consume animal products than to avoid them. Dianne also chipped in with “it’s the truth”.

Online trolling

It’s a persuasive argument. Perhaps AV are approaching the issue from the perspective that in the current system we have trickle down economics, but trickle up morality. The big changes must begin at the grassroots, on the streets not in the ironically named ivory towers. 

AV aren’t without their critics, but they tend to come in the form of anti-PC online trolling. One group imaginatively named “Anonymous for the Voiceless are a Cult!” told me they are pro-capitalist, for-profit and divisive within the animal rights community.

Dianne and Victor refuted this easily. They are a non-profit organisation and are well received as radicals when compared to groups like PETA, whose work they appreciate but whose self-interest they dislike.

You don’t have to agree with AV’s message to see that online groups such as this and “Why are Vegans like this?” are generally trolls, or concern-trolls with nothing to say. There is little in the way of an organised intellectual basis for anti-veganism as most vegans (that aren’t in violent groups like ALF)  peacefully coexist with members of the meat-eating public.

AV certainly reject such methods, despite the hard-edged image, they are generally very friendly, their propaganda outside the cube consisted of fliers for good vegan restaurants and vegan lifestyle magazines.

Environmental justice

AV are interested in making veganism accessible and don’t adopt violence or poverty-shaming tactics like some of their aforementioned peers in the animal rights movement. 

Anonymous for the Voiceless’ slogan is “Animals. Environment. Health” an appeal to the three main benefits of veganism. The most interesting aspect sits in the middle; it’s emphasis on the environmental benefits of veganism is increasingly gaining truck with the public.

A lot of the members at the Paris demo were young, and Meven told me that it is easier to engage people, particularly young people when talking about the benefits of veganism for reducing greenhouse gas output and land clearing in the Amazon.

If they continue to push this line, then AV could perhaps become more central in the new crop of environmental movements that aim to shake us from our destructive torpor.

Climate alarm and Extinction Rebellion are relatively recent international expressions of resistance against an establishment that does not care about climate justice. AV form part of this front and push a more palatable style of militant veganism that is rooted in environmental justice. 

This Author

Oliver Haynes is a politics and French student at the University of Exeter and a freelance writer. Past bylines include Open Democracy, Labour List and Invisible Illness. 

There are many natural and chemical toxins that are dangerous to human health. Materials can be  harmful to individuals  if they are simply inhaled, ingested, or mishandled.

One of those many hazardous materials is asbestos. With scientific evidence proving the substance causes disease over time and many real-life examples to prove this case, scientists and health professionals alike have come out to say that asbestos is a dangerous carcinogen.

Most nations have taken this warning seriously and have banned it completely, but countries like the United States still allow for legal asbestos use within their nations borders. 

What is asbestos?

Asbestos has been used in many different types of housing insulations as well as other consumer products, but do you know what it really is?

Asbestos is made of six natural fibers that have heat resistant, fire resistant, and electricity protecting properties, all of which makes the material a versatile resource. 

In the mid-twentieth century it was discovered that asbestos was a cancer causing agent. If broken or disturbed, it can become airborne which then poses serious threats to the body. Due to its fibrous nature, inhaled or ingested asbestos can cling to the tissue inside the lung or abdomen.

Around thirty years after exposure, asbestos can cause serious ailments including pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma.  Workers in fields such as construction, automotive repair, and commercial product manufacturing are at risk if and when exposed to disrupted asbestos. 

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found that there is no safe level of asbestos exposure, however there are some 30 million pounds of asbestos used in the U.S. every year. While there is no ban in the US, more than 50 countries, including Australia, India, and all 28 countries of the European Nations have banned asbestos. 

Regulating asbestos

Protection of workers from the potential harms of asbestos fall onto the EPA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

OSHA controls and oversees working conditions in the US, ensuring that employees are safe and protected by implementing and managing workplace standards. The EPA is responsible for protecting state and local employees who may be exposed to any form of hazardous material, through the Toxic Substance Control Act. This protects those who were not covered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administrations asbestos regulations.

The NIOSH is a federal agency that runs research and makes recommendations for preventing work-related injuries and illnesses. 

Even though there are restrictions, the US is one of the few major industrialised nations without a ban currently in place.

While there have been many warnings and scientific evidence that proves that that asbestos in fact causes disease there are only acts that restrict the use of asbestos. These include laws like the EPA Asbestos Worker Protection Rule, the Asbestos-Containing Materials in School Rule, and the Asbestos Ban and Phase-out Rule. 

Legal requirements 

Here is a further explanation of some of the rules:

– Asbestos Information Act 

This law requires that companies making certain types asbestos containing products be required to identify themselves and report production to the EPA.

– Clean Air Act (CCA)  

This law explains the EPA’s role in protecting and improving air quality in the U.S. It also states that the EPA is responsible to set standards for dangerous air pollutants. Asbestos is among those air pollutants. 

– The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) (Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Title II)

This law states that the EPA is required to ensure that the local schools are checking their buildings for any material containing asbestos. From there, schools are required to prepare plans for asbestos removal and/or management. It also explains that the EPA is responsible for providing model plans for those conducting asbestos inspections in schools.

– Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

This law oversees the working conditions of U.S. employees by implementing and overseeing safety and health standards for workers.

– EPA Asbestos Worker Protection Rule

This regulation states that the EPA is required to protect workers on the state and local government employee level that were not covered by OSHA.

– Asbestos Ban and Phase-out Rule

Rule issued by the EPA on July 12, 1989, that banned most asbestos-containing products. However, in 1991 this rule was overturned and as a result only a few asbestos-containing products remain banned. The goal is to phase-out the remaining products.

Around the world

Asbestos has been banned in 55 countries worldwide, but not in China, Russia, India, Canada, or the United States. Countries that have banned the product include those such as, France, Turkey, Ireland, South Africa, Poland, and the Netherlands to name a few. 

– China

While there are so many countries that have taken action on the ban on asbestos, China being a major country has not. China is the world’s largest consumer of asbestos in the world, due to the rapid growth of industrialization in the nation.

China is also the second-largest producer of asbestos and according to the China Chrysotile Association, record amounts of the material have been used in the past decade. While the US hit its peak use of asbestos in the 1973, China on the other hand has hit its peak use numbers in recent years  as they started using asbestos frequently in the late 1970s.

– Russia

For years, Russia has been the a lead producer in worldwide asbestos mine production. Since Russia is one of the few nations still mining and exporting the natural substance, the U.S. purchased asbestos from a Russian production company.

Shortly after pictures appeared on the the exporters Facebook page showing a faux stamp of approval featuring Trump’s face which read, “Approved by Donald Trump the 45th President of the United States.” 

– Canada

The Canadian government has made great strides when it comes to asbestos related laws. The government recognizes that asbestos can cause cancer and other diseases, but there is no official ban on the substance entirely.

As of October 2018, the Prohibition of Asbestos and Products Containing Asbestos Regulations are in place, which prohibit the import, sale, and use of asbestos, including the manufacturing and use of asbestos containing products.

Although Canada is taking steps in the right direction, there still needs to be more regulations about current asbestos already in use to protect Canadian workers and homeowners. 

Further action 

There are many ways in which the US legislation is changing the way asbestos is used. However there are no rules that completely ban this deadly material that is affecting the lives of many citizens  and their families.

In order to make a bigger impact, the US needs to rework laws and enact a complete ban on the  use of asbestos in homes, schools, and existing products. As of June, the EPA proposed a “significant new use rule,” that could allow asbestos back into certain products with historic use deemed to be unthreatening.

During the Obama administration, in 2016, the EPA was required to constantly reevaluate harmful toxins and in fact reviewed 10 chemicals due to an amendment added to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act. Under the new Trump administration, the EPA is approaching evaluating chemicals in a new way.

NBC News said: “The agency now focuses on how chemicals potentially cause harm through direct contact in the workplace, not taking into account improper disposal or other means of contamination that could greatly affect the public.”

In response, asbestos-related disease advocacy groups are rebelling and have argued that this rule is providing more loopholes to use this inexpensive toxin at the expense of the health of United States citizens . 

Once new asbestos cannot be introduced, it is important we take the proactive procedures to abate and dispose of known asbestos sites still hidden behind walls and across state lines. The only way the government can make sure that no one is affected by this harmful chemical, is to ban it from the United States completely.

This Author 

Emily Walsh is a community outreach director from New York. Her background is focussed on heightening awareness and advocacy for community health. Walsh is currently specializing in rare cancer research, specifically mesothelioma, one of the only known cancers that is completely preventable. 

It sounds like a public holiday. The kind of thing which has a Google doodle dedicated to it. But International Cube Day is not some bizarre celebration that only your search engine has heard of.

Instead, it was a day on which waves of vegan activism broke out across global cities from Mauritius to Hyderabad, from Osaka to Guatemala City. It occurred throughout Europe with demonstrations in the obvious places like Alexanderplatz in Berlin, and in more obscure places like Marks and Spencers in Truro.

They all employed the same method: a spectacle based shock tactic called The Cube of Truth. 

Peaceful movement 

This day of global activism on 3 November was coordinated by the street action group Anonymous for the Voiceless. An offshoot of the hacktivist movement Anonymous, AV was established in 2016 with the aim of converting people to veganism.

Their values are clear and define the movement. They are ‘abolitionists’ when it comes to animal cruelty. They wish – as most vegans do – to end all forms of animal exploitation and fight primarily against speciesism which they view as a form of discrimination.

Although commitment to vegan values has taken Anonymous from behind their screens and onto the streets, they are a peaceful, non-violent movement that operates within the bounds of the law.

Activists that bully or harass and do not comply with the group’s principles are not permitted to carry the group’s name. They seem to strive to be the acceptable face of vegan radicalism. 

Structurally they are impressive, a grassroots effort with no central organising force beyond a website that links to each chapter and a series of Facebook groups that coordinate events.

Silent protest

Although the comparisons stop here, their structure is reminiscent of a biker gang where a local chapter is established (or in the exceptional cases of Cyprus and Mauritius a national chapter) and then affiliates to the organisation.

There are over 800 chapters globally – to be considered an active chapter at least one Cube of Truth demo must be held a month so at a bare minimum there are 9600 of these cubes a year. 

The cube is something to behold, when carried out well. A square of people is constructed in which each person faces outwards, wearing the now familiar Anonymous icon, the Guy Fawkes mask. The cube is silent. It does not need noise.

Each Fawkes-clad Cuber holds a screen or a placard saying truth. On the screens montages of the local industrial farming practises: calves being beaten, caged hens, bloody corpses in grim conditions cannot help but mesmerise you as you’re confronted by the reality of the supply chains you enable.

Outside the cube maskless volunteers explain what is going on and evangelise the benefits of veganism. 

Efficient activism

These shock tactics certainly work but it is questionable whether they’re efficient. As of  5 November 2018 AV’s website boasts: “Over 8,493 demonstrations in 806 cities worldwide, we’ve convinced at least 308,771 bystanders to take veganism seriously.”

While that’s an impressive absolute figure, most cubes last around 3 hours. It does not seem unreasonable to ask whether these hours could be better spent on more efficient promotional activities.

AV sincerely believe in the tactic and it has helped recruit some of their most committed members. Brad Simmons, an organiser for the London chapter, joined AV after witnessing a cube in Covent Garden and has since helped establish demos in other UK cities.

He assures me that it isn’t time wasted. The outreach volunteers only speak to those who have been watching the spectacle for a while, those who are clearly interested, those who might change their habits. 

They want to challenge preconceptions in a civil manner. Brad mentioned a commitment to the Socratic method. This is not the only philosophical grounding of the movement.

Deep ecology

Several of the activists seem to espouse something similar to deep ecology, even if they haven’t read Naess directly.

I spoke to three activists at the Paris cube on International Cube Day. They all stated that vegan activism was part of a wider project to end all forms of exploitation; they were all in other movements alongside AV.

The way that they described the intersections between their various struggles echoed Chantal Mouffe’s idea that to achieve genuine social justice, a “chain of equivalence” must be drawn between different fights for justice. 

To this end AV and wider radical veganism must be understood as anti-capitalist. The setting of the Paris demo highlighted this perfectly. Looming over the cube was the glitzy tackiness of the Mall D’Italie. It is an orgy of advertising and materialism, practically a monument to conspicuous consumption.

AV challenges this, their message is to consume less and consume ethically. Despite this though their politics are not entirely structural. AV lobby as well as use direct action. They theorise that all levels of society must be pressured to achieve the change they want to see.

Creating demand

But, when I ask Meven, a Paris activist, whether my responsibility is equal to that of Macron or Maccies he says yes. His response is simple: “Because these companies need profit they sell things for us to buy. If we stop buying them, they stop selling”.

This is perhaps where AV fall down. Individual choice is certainly worth pressuring, but sometimes they lack the nuance to see that these companies create demand as well as supply. 

That said they do recognise the power of companies. I asked Dianne and Victor, outreach activists at the Paris cube, what their policy was regarding children seeing the disturbing footage.

AV activists approach children watching and tell them they have to ask their parents’ permission and try and  dissuade younger, unaccompanied children from watching.

Victor, only 16 but a competent debater, fired back quickly when I asked him if it was acceptable to have this in public. He told me advertisements are everywhere influencing people, there is far more pressure to consume animal products than to avoid them. Dianne also chipped in with “it’s the truth”.

Online trolling

It’s a persuasive argument. Perhaps AV are approaching the issue from the perspective that in the current system we have trickle down economics, but trickle up morality. The big changes must begin at the grassroots, on the streets not in the ironically named ivory towers. 

AV aren’t without their critics, but they tend to come in the form of anti-PC online trolling. One group imaginatively named “Anonymous for the Voiceless are a Cult!” told me they are pro-capitalist, for-profit and divisive within the animal rights community.

Dianne and Victor refuted this easily. They are a non-profit organisation and are well received as radicals when compared to groups like PETA, whose work they appreciate but whose self-interest they dislike.

You don’t have to agree with AV’s message to see that online groups such as this and “Why are Vegans like this?” are generally trolls, or concern-trolls with nothing to say. There is little in the way of an organised intellectual basis for anti-veganism as most vegans (that aren’t in violent groups like ALF)  peacefully coexist with members of the meat-eating public.

AV certainly reject such methods, despite the hard-edged image, they are generally very friendly, their propaganda outside the cube consisted of fliers for good vegan restaurants and vegan lifestyle magazines.

Environmental justice

AV are interested in making veganism accessible and don’t adopt violence or poverty-shaming tactics like some of their aforementioned peers in the animal rights movement. 

Anonymous for the Voiceless’ slogan is “Animals. Environment. Health” an appeal to the three main benefits of veganism. The most interesting aspect sits in the middle; it’s emphasis on the environmental benefits of veganism is increasingly gaining truck with the public.

A lot of the members at the Paris demo were young, and Meven told me that it is easier to engage people, particularly young people when talking about the benefits of veganism for reducing greenhouse gas output and land clearing in the Amazon.

If they continue to push this line, then AV could perhaps become more central in the new crop of environmental movements that aim to shake us from our destructive torpor.

Climate alarm and Extinction Rebellion are relatively recent international expressions of resistance against an establishment that does not care about climate justice. AV form part of this front and push a more palatable style of militant veganism that is rooted in environmental justice. 

This Author

Oliver Haynes is a politics and French student at the University of Exeter and a freelance writer. Past bylines include Open Democracy, Labour List and Invisible Illness.