The Deadly Delay: What’s the Cost of Ignoring Scientific Evidence in Policy-Making?

In the early 20th century, leaded gasoline and asbestos were hailed as revolutionary technologies that would transform industries and benefit the public. However, it was the work of scientists that uncovered the adverse health effects of these materials and led to their eventual ban. Unfortunately, implementing these bans faced delay by heavy industry lobbying, resulting in thousands of deaths and illnesses that could have been prevented.

Today, we face a similar situation with the use of engineered stone benchtops, which have been linked to the deadly lung disease silicosis. The scientists have thoroughly reviewed the scientific literature and information and this week they released their work, concluding that a percentage of crystalline silica that is protective of worker health, or “safe” just can’t be determined. This means that the experts recommend that all engineered stone needs to be banned, regardless of how much crystalline silica is in it.

In light of the current situation with engineered stone benchtops, a complete ban on their use may seem like an extreme measure. However, history has shown us that similar action has been necessary in the past to protect people's lives. Leaded petrol was phased out completely in Australia in 2002, while asbestos was banned entirely from 2003. Unfortunately, industry lobbying has often delayed the implementation of such bans on dangerous materials. For example, the lead industry was successful in postponing the phase-out of leaded gasoline for many years, resulting in millions of people being unnecessarily exposed to lead. Similarly, the asbestos industry was aware of the dangers of asbestos since the 1930s but successfully lobbied against regulations for decades. The 722 cases of mesothelioma recorded in Australia in 2021 demonstrate the legacy of delaying a ban on toxic products. If policy decisions were based on science rather than lobbying, many lives could have been saved.

Safe Work Australia are currently reviewing submissions regarding the potential prohibition of engineered stone. They are considering three options, including a complete prohibition of all engineered stone, a prohibition of engineered stone with 40% or more crystalline silica, and a prohibition of engineered stone with 40% or more crystalline silica, along with licensing for companies who work with engineered stone containing less than 40% crystalline silica.

For those not close to the issue, a 40% threshold may seem like a safe bet. After all, it's much less than the current 90% content, so it should be safe, right? Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Simply assuming that a particular percentage of silica in a product is safe is a problem. The argument for a 40% cutoff is based on a comparison to natural stone and assumes that dust from natural stone doesn’t cause silica-related disease. However, this argument overlooks several critical factors. The first is that cases of silicosis have been reported in workers who process natural stone and in workers exposed to minerals with silica content well below 40%. Another is that the emissions from engineered stone are qualitatively different from natural stone, including differences in chemical composition, particle size and particle charge. These components may contribute to the accelerated silicosis seen in workers exposed to respirable engineered stone dust.

Time will tell which stakeholder voices Safe Work Australia will prioritise in their decision-making. The history of leaded gasoline and asbestos have shown us the tragic consequences and the cost of prioritising industry lobbying and delaying bans on dangerous materials. The current situation with engineered stone benchtops and the deadly lung disease silicosis can’t be ignored. It is our responsibility to prioritise scientific evidence and to take action to protect worker health. Let us make sure that history does not repeat itself.