TRADE AND HEALTH: SOME ORGANIZATIONS FOR THE HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT SAY TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE WTO RULES.

By Danielle Knight WASHINGTON, Sep 19 (IPS) - A recent ruling by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) that upheld a French ban on asbestos reveals a flawed process that sets a dangerous precedent for future international trade cases, warn health and environmental organisations. On Monday a WTO dispute panel upheld a French ban on chrysotile or white asbestos, rejecting a Canadian complaint that the domestic law violated international trade law. Environmental and public health watchdogs applauded the panel's support of the French ban, which was designed to protect French workers and consumers from this substance that scientists say cause cancer. But civil society remains critical of the institution and point out that this was the first dispute resolution case when the Geneva-based trade body upheld a trade-restrictive public health measure rather than ruling that it violated international trade law. Organisations are worried that if the reasoning used in making this ruling is employed in future disputes, important health and safety laws could nevertheless be trumped in the name of free trade. Initially the panel found that the ban - in place since 1996 - discriminated against imported products because France had not also banned the sale of products made in France used for similar purposes. In other words, the panel interpreted WTO rules as prohibiting France from singling out asbestos, since France itself uses products that are like asbestos. Imported concrete containing asbestos, according to the trade panel, is ''like'' or similar to domestically produced concrete containing non-toxic cellulose, and to treat them differently violates Canada's right to access French markets. Despite this interpretation, the panel decided that under an exception clause, governments are allowed to prevent the import of a product to protect public health. So the panel then forced France to prove that asbestos is toxic. France successfully proved to the panel that asbestos, banned in many industrialised nations, is harmful to human health. Each year, France estimates it at least 2,000 people die from asbestos-related cancer. A British study concluded that asbestos exposure will lead to 500,000 deaths in the European Union by 2020. Most European countries, including Germany, Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands, Finland, Italy, Sweden and Belgium ban all forms of asbestos. Despite the awareness about the negative health impacts from asbestos, the substance is still used in developing countries as insulation and a fire retardant in construction and manufacturing materials. Canada, the second largest exporter of asbestos in the world, is concerned that developing countries may impose similar bans. It has 60 days to decide whether it will appeal the ruling. Health and environmental groups worry that in circumstances where evidence of the threat to public health is less obvious than is the case with asbestos, the WTO could deny the importing government an exception. ''This is a dangerous precedent,'' says David Waskow, a policy analyst with Friends of the Earth here. ''The reasoning that a carcinogenic product is the same as a non-carcinogenic product defies logic.'' Martin Wagner, director of international programmes for the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, says the asbestos ruling appears to represent general progress, but many rules and procedures of the trade body remain a concern. ''Why is the burden still on the public health measure to 'earn' an exception and justify itself?'' asks Wagner. Environmental and public health groups continue to press the trade body to open up its meetings and hearings to outside organisations. Dispute resolution panels meet behind closed doors and do not allow outside interested parties to submit relevant briefs. This lack of transparency in the operations of the WTO was one of the many reasons that thousands of activists protested the institution's third ministerial meeting last year in Seattle. WTO dispute panel judges have been accused of refusing to consult with technical or experts in the field related to the case. Such experts could provide critical input in cases like the asbestos ban, which raised highly technical scientific questions about the toxicity of a product, they argue. ''In the aftermath of Seattle, civil society will not accept an inaccessible panel of trade experts deciding in secret whether or not domestic policy measure to protect human health are compatible with international economic obligations,'' says a joint statement by the Center for International Environmental Law and World Wide Fund for Nature International.