LETTER | We refer to the recent letter published on Malaysiakini raising concerns about asbestos use in Malaysia, demanding an immediate and total ban.

The letter raises serious claims but fails to provide the central element required to support such a policy decision: Malaysian scientific and epidemiological evidence.

After more than six decades of regulated chrysotile use in Malaysia, there is no indication of a public health crisis associated with its use. This absence of evidence is a critical fact that must underpin any informed policy discussion.

Facts led policy: evidence and national data

Industry medical surveillance and occupational health records monitored by the Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) have not identified any significant documented cases of chrysotile-related disease within Malaysia’s chrysotile-cement sector.

Reported mesothelioma rates remain within global averages. In addition, a 2019 study conducted by a Malaysian public university found no measurable chrysotile fibre contamination in residential environments using chrysotile-cement roofing.

Given the long latency period of asbestos-related diseases, the absence of such findings over several decades is highly relevant.

To date, no credible Malaysian data has been presented to justify a blanket ban. Anti-asbestos pressure groups are therefore only advocating for a ban based on estimates and statistical extrapolations - not real facts or data.

It is difficult to overstate how important this fact-based gap is when evaluating safe use policies.

Material distinctions and use conditions

The call for an asbestos ban in Malaysia - just like in other countries such as Thailand, which has repeatedly rejected overtures to ban - is based on the false premise, promoted by campaigners, that all asbestos types present identical risks.

Once again, a fact-based approach is essential, as asbestos is formally categorised into two biochemically different groups.

In the first group, Amphibole asbestos, including crocidolite, was appropriately banned in Malaysia in 1999, as it has been banned around the world.

The second group, however, containing only chrysotile, is a distinct mineral with different biochemical properties, has been used in Malaysia in high-density, non-friable cement products for decades, as it has been used till now in the majority of countries around the world.

For the avoidance of doubt, all uses of chrysotile occur when the product is encapsulated within a cement matrix. Under these conditions, fibre release in concentrations capable of triggering disease is impossible.

It is worth reiterating that this statement is backed by decades of health data.

Unfortunately, campaigners often rely on highly inflammatory and medically inappropriate comparisons with countries such as Australia.

What they conveniently leave out - and what renders the Australian experience non-applicable- is that their asbestos-related health burden was driven by mining and the uncontrolled use of amphibole asbestos under fundamentally different industrial and regulatory conditions.

International frameworks and national discretion

Another area where a focus on the facts is necessary is the references to positions of international organisations, including the WHO and ILO, that are regularly cherry-picked and presented without context.

While these bodies adopt precautionary approaches, they also formally recognise the importance of national circumstances.

For example, the WHO stated in 2007 a differentiated approach toward different asbestos forms, and ILO Convention No 162 explicitly provides for controlled use as a legitimate regulatory approach.

Chrysotile is also not included under the strictest controls of the Rotterdam Convention.

Critically, these frameworks do not mandate a universal ban and allow governments to base decisions on national evidence and conditions.

Exposure and risk management

In Malaysia, exposure to raw chrysotile fibre is limited to controlled industrial environments involving trained personnel and subject to strict regulatory safeguards.

For the general population, exposure is limited to finished chrysotile-cement products, where fibres are a minor component of the final product and bound within the cement matrix (eight percent of fibre and 92percent of the cement).

Under normal conditions of use, there is no evidence of exposure at levels associated with adverse health outcomes.

While chrysotile is classified as a Group 1 carcinogen, the same as processed meat, chromium, quartz, solar radiation, vinyl chloride, tobacco, alcoholic beverages, salted fish, wood dust, shoe manufacturing and repair, furniture manufacturing, iron and steel casting, and the rubber industry.

This reflects intrinsic hazard rather than actual risk under specific conditions of controlled use. Many widely used substances share this classification and are safely managed through appropriate regulation.

For instance, vinyl chloride, which is a Group 1 carcinogen like asbestos, but is also a component of plastics - polyvinyl chloride (PVC) - is used in the production of drinking containers, windows, and drinking water pipes.

However, no one is calling for a ban on products made from it.

Socio-economic considerations

Chrysotile-cement roofing remains widely used across Malaysia, including in large-scale housing communities such as Felda settlements.

Available estimates indicate that replacement costs would be substantial - exceeding RM1.6 billion for these communities alone.

Conclusion

ICA and CIC Malaysia support evidence-based policymaking grounded in Malaysian data, scientific rigour, and proportional risk management.

The available national evidence does not support the existence of a health crisis linked to chrysotile-cement products under current conditions of use.

The central question remains: what Malaysian evidence justifies a blanket ban?

In the absence of such evidence, policy decisions should remain anchored in facts, not assumptions or external generalisations.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.