[From "Rotterdam Convention"]

On September 18th 2004, the Member States of the Rotterdam Convention refused, as was proposed, to include chrysotile in the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure. Numerous countries, representing more than 3 billion people, expressed their views on this subject and stated that the Rotterdam Convention was not the appropriate vehicle to protect the health of workers involved in the commerce, transformation and use of chrysotile

This is a resounding failure for the European Union, Chile and others dedicated to the banning of chrysotile and leading the battle to force this fibre to join a list of environmentally dangerous pesticides and chemicals. Some of these special interest groups expressed their frustration at having lost the battle by accusing countries, such as Russia and Canada, of having prioritized the economic interests of a few to the detrimental health risk of many

These gratuitous insinuations should not make us lose sight of the fact that the primary objective of the countries and groups, which supported the inclusion of chrysotile in the Rotterdam Convention; it is the prohibition of the trade of chrysotile in order to benefit replacement fibres[…]
There is no scientific or medical reason to justify the classification of chrysotile fibre with pesticides and the most dangerous chemicals[…]The use of chrysotile does not pose an environmental problem[…]
Inclusion of chrysotile is inappropriate because it is widely recognized that chrysotile fibre can be used safely and responsibly. The safe use policy implemented by the Governments’ of Canada and of Quebec has proven to be effective[…]
Canada must not fall into the trap laid by the European Union and Chile. We are well aware that these countries are spearheading an aggressive international campaign against chrysotile, to ensure the lion’s share of a lucrative market[…]This is a trade war