Introduction: Asbestos has been used for thousands of years but only at a large industrial scale for about 100–150 years. The first identified disease was asbestosis, a type of incurable pneumoconiosis caused by asbestos dust and fibres. The latest estimate of global number of asbestosis deaths from the Global Burden of Disease estimate 2016 is 3495. Asbestos-caused cancer was identified in the late 1930’s but despite today’s overwhelming evidence of the strong carcinogenicity of all asbestos types, including chrysotile, it is still widely used globally. Various estimates have been made over time including those of World Health Organization and International Labour Organization: 107,000–112,000 deaths. Present estimates are much higher. Objective: This article summarizes the special edition of this Journal related to asbestos and key aspects of the past and present of the asbestos problem globally. The objective is to collect and provide the latest evidence of the magnitude of asbestos-related diseases and to provide the present best data for revitalizing the International Labor Organization/World Health Organization Joint Program on Asbestos-related Diseases. Methods: Documentation on asbestos-related diseases, their recognition, reporting, compensation and prevention efforts were examined, in particular from the regulatory and prevention point of view. Estimated global numbers of incidence and mortality of asbestos-related diseases were examined. Results: Asbestos causes an estimated 255,000 deaths (243,223–260,029) annually according to latest knowledge, of which work-related exposures are responsible for 233,000 deaths (222,322–242,802). In the European Union, United States of America and in other high income economies (World Health Organization regional classification) the direct costs for sickness, early retirement and death, including production losses, have been estimated to be very high; in the Western European countries and European Union, and equivalent of 0.70% of the Gross Domestic Product or 114 × 10⁹ United States Dollars. Intangible costs could be much higher. When applying the Value of Statistical Life of 4 million EUR per cancer death used by the European Commission, we arrived at 410 × 10⁹ United States Dollars loss related to occupational cancer and 340 × 10⁹ related to asbestos exposure at work, while the human suffering and loss of life is impossible to quantify. The numbers and costs are increasing practically in every country and region in the world. Asbestos has been banned in 55 countries but is used widely today; some 2,030,000 tons consumed annually according to the latest available consumption data. Every 20 tons of asbestos produced and consumed kills a person somewhere in the world. Buying 1 kg of asbestos powder, e.g., in Asia, costs 0.38 United States Dollars, and 20 tons would cost in such retail market 7600 United States Dollars. Conclusions: Present efforts to eliminate this man-made problem, in fact an epidemiological disaster, and preventing exposures leading to it are insufficient in most countries in the world. Applying programs and policies, such as those for the elimination of all kind of asbestos use—that is banning of new asbestos use and tight control and management of existing structures containing asbestos—need revision and resources. The International Labor Organization/World Health Organization Joint Program for the Elimination of Asbestos-Related Diseases needs to be revitalized. Exposure limits do not protect properly against cancer but for asbestos removal and equivalent exposure elimination work, we propose a limit value of 1000 fibres/m³.

With the widespread and increasing number of cases of Coronavirus Disease (2019) globally, countries have been taking preventive measures against this pandemic. However, there is no universal agreement across cultures on whether wearing face masks are an effective physical intervention against disease transmission. We investigated the relationship between mask wearing and COVID-19 among close contacts of COVID-19 patients in the Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan. In the Hiroshima Prefecture, a COVID-19 form adapted from the reporting form, “Japanese Surveillance in Post-Extreme Emergencies and Disasters”, was developed to collect data from COVID-19 patients’ close contacts under active epidemiological surveillance at Public Health Centers. The relative risk of COVID-19 for mask users versus non-mask users was calculated. A total of 820 interviewees were included in the analysis and 53.3% of them responded that they wore masks. Non-mask users were infected at a rate of 16.4%, while mask users were infected at a rate of 7.1%. Those who wore masks were infected at a rate of 0.4 times that of those who did not wear masks. (RR = 0.4, 95%CI = 0.3–0.6; Adjusted RR = 0.6, 95%CI = 0.3–0.9). These findings implied that COVID-19 could be avoided to a certain degree by wearing a mask.

Background: This study compares estimates of the global-level mesothelioma burden with a focus on how existing national mortality data were utilized and further assesses the interrelationship of country-level mesothelioma burden and asbestos use with national income status. Methods: Country-level mesothelioma deaths in the WHO Mortality Database as of December 2019 were analyzed by national income category of countries in terms of data availability and reliability. Numbers of mesothelioma deaths from the study of Odgerel et al. were reanalyzed to assess country-level mesothelioma death burdens by national income status. Results: Among 80 high-income countries, 54 (68%) reported mesothelioma to the WHO and 26 (32%) did not, and among 60 upper middle-income countries, the respective numbers (proportions) were 39 (65%) countries and 21 (35%) countries, respectively. In contrast, among 78 low- and lower middle-income countries, only 11 (14%) reported mesothelioma deaths while 67 (86%) did not. Of the mesothelioma deaths, 29,854 (78%) were attributed to high- and upper middle-income countries, and 8534 (22%) were attributed to low- and lower middle- income countries. Conclusions: The global mesothelioma burden, based on reported numbers, is currently shouldered predominantly by high-income countries; however, mesothelioma burdens will likely manifest soon in upper middle-income and eventually in low and lower middle-income countries.

Objective: The current study aimed to quantify the overall sickness absence and sickness presence in five Japanese companies. Methods: Two indicators were calculated: worktime lost rates and average working days lost per employee per annum. Results: In total, 1.1% of working days per annum were lost due to sick leave. The average number of annual sick-leave days per employee was 2.58. Sickness presence accounted for a total worktime loss of 6.55% and an average of 15.36 work days lost per employee per annum. Overall, employees lost 7.65% of their total working days, or an average of 17.92 days were lost per employee per annum, due to sickness leave and sickness presence combined. Conclusion: Sickness-absence rate among Japanese workers is quite lower than other countries; however, sickness presence is more critical than absenteeism, which is in line with other countries.

Worldwide, 230,000+ people die annually from asbestos-related diseases (ARDs). The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that countries develop a National Asbestos Profile (NAP) to eliminate ARDs. For 195 countries, we assessed the global status of NAPs (A: bona fide NAP, B: proxy NAP, C: relevant published information, D: no relevant information) by national income (HI: high, UMI: upper-middle, LMI: lower-middle, LI: low), asbestos bans (banned, no-ban) and public data availability. Fourteen (7% of 195) countries were category A (having a bona fide NAP), while 98, 51 and 32 countries were categories B, C and D, respectively. Of the 14 category-A countries, 8, 3 and 3 were LMI, UMI and HI, respectively. Development of a bona fide NAP showed no gradient by national income. The proportions of countries having a bona fide NAP were similar between asbestos-banned and no-ban countries. Public databases useful for developing NAPs contained data for most countries. Irrespective of the status of national income or asbestos ban, most countries have not developed a NAP despite having the potential. The global status of NAP is suboptimal. Country-level data on asbestos and ARDs in public databases can be better utilized to develop NAPs for globally eliminating ARDs.

Background: The distribution of protein intake throughout the day is frequently skewed, with breakfast having the lowest protein intake across all age groups. There is no review that addresses the association between breakfast protein intake and muscle mass and strength. Objective: This scoping review aims to summarize the literature on the relationship between protein intake during breakfast and muscle mass and strength in adults. Methods: This review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Two independent reviewers screened and appraised the articles identified from 3 electronic databases (Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus) that focused on protein intake per meal and its impact on muscle-related outcomes. Results: A total of 14 763 articles were retrieved from 3 databases, and after the screening process, 15 articles were included for analysis. Approximately 58.8% of findings from 11 studies examining the association between high protein intake during breakfast and muscle mass indicated an increase in muscle mass among participants. Half of 6 studies (50.0%) exploring the relationship between high protein intake at breakfast and muscle strength demonstrated an increase in muscle strength. Consuming high amounts of protein at breakfast or more protein in the morning than in the evening was associated with an increase in the skeletal muscle index and lean body mass. Conclusion: Protein consumption at breakfast revealed potential benefits in increasing muscle mass across 5 studies involving an elderly population and 2 studies encompassing middle-aged women and young men in our review. However, the relationship between protein intake at breakfast and muscle strength remains unclear. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to examine whether adults can preserve skeletal muscle health outcomes by consuming higher amounts of protein at breakfast.