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.

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.

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.

The COVID-19 pandemic turned biological hazards in the working environment into a global concern. This systematized review of published reviews aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the specific jobs and categories of workers exposed to biological hazards with the related prevention. We extracted reviews published in English and French in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Two authors, working independently, subsequently screened the potentially relevant titles and abstracts recovered (step 1) and then examined relevant full texts (step 2). Disagreements were resolved by consensus. We built tables summarizing populations of exposed workers, types of hazards, types of outcomes (types of health issues, means of prevention), and routes of transmission. Of 1426 studies initially identified, 79 studies by authors from every continent were selected, mostly published after 2010 (n = 63, 79.7%). About half of the reviews dealt with infectious hazards alone (n = 38, 48.1%). The industrial sectors identified involved healthcare alone (n = 16), laboratories (n = 10), agriculture (including the animal, vegetable, and grain sectors, n = 32), waste (n = 10), in addition of 11 studies without specific sectors. The results also highlighted a range of hazards (infectious and non-infectious agents, endotoxins, bioaerosols, organic dust, and emerging agents). This systematized overview allowed to list the populations of workers exposed to biological hazards and underlined how prevention measures in the healthcare and laboratory sectors were usually well defined and controlled, although this was not the case in the agriculture and waste sectors. Further studies are necessary to quantify these risks and implement prevention measures that can be applied in every country.

Biological risks are a major global problem in the workplace. The recent COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for a more comprehensive understanding of the biological risks at work. This study presents data on both communicable infectious biological agents and noncommunicable factors leading to death and disability for the year 2021. We followed the methodology established by the International Labour Organization (ILO) in their past global estimates on occupational accidents and work-related diseases. We used relevant ILO estimates for hazardous substances and related population attributable fractions derived from literature, which were then applied to World Health Organization mortality data. The communicable diseases included in the estimates were tuberculosis, pneumococcal diseases, malaria, diarrheal diseases, other infectious diseases, neglected tropical diseases, influenza associated respiratory diseases and COVID-19. Noncommunicable diseases and injuries considered were Chronic Obstructive Diseases (COPD) due to organic dusts, asthma, allergic reactions and risks related to animal contact. We estimated death attributable to biological risk at work and disability in terms of disability adjusted life years (DALYs). We estimated that in 2022, 550,819 deaths were caused by biological risk factors, with 476,000 deaths attributed to communicable infectious diseases and 74,000 deaths caused by noncommunicable factors. Among these, there were 223,650 deaths attributed to COVID-19 at work. We calculated the rate of 584 DALYs per 100,000 workers, representing an 11% increase from the previous estimate of the global burden of work-related disabilities measured by DALYs. This is a first update since previous 2007 ILO estimates, which has now increased by 74% and covers most biological risks factors. However, it is important to note that there may be other diseases and deaths are missing from the data, which need to be included when new information becomes available. It is also worth mentioning that while deaths caused by major communicable diseases including COVID-19 are relatively rare within the working population, absences from work due to these diseases are likely to be very common within the active workforce.