Fact check: What are the economic benefits and drawbacks of asbestos use?

1. Summary of the results

The analyses reveal a clear economic consensus: asbestos use creates substantial financial burdens that far outweigh any perceived benefits. The health-related costs are staggering, with annual healthcare expenses estimated at $2.4-3.9 billion in the United States alone ^{[1] [2]}. Additionally, asbestos litigation costs reach approximately $2.3 billion annually in the US ^[2].

Individual case costs are equally devastating, with each mesothelioma or lung cancer case costing over $1 million ^[3]. In Canada, over 235,000 workers remain regularly exposed to asbestos, creating ongoing economic liabilities ^[4]. The Canadian government has already spent millions on research and fighting international bans, yet the domestic asbestos industry faces natural decline due to high transportation costs and international competition ^[5].

Countries that have banned asbestos have experienced no negative economic impact, according to recent WHO findings ^[1]. More than 50 WHO Member States have prohibited asbestos use ^[6], and the Biden-Harris Administration finalized a ban on chrysotile asbestos in 2024 ^[2].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks crucial context about who benefits from continued asbestos use. The analyses suggest that asbestos industry stakeholders and companies with existing asbestos infrastructure have financial incentives to downplay health risks and emphasize economic benefits.

Key missing perspectives include:

• Legal and liability costs: Companies face significant legal exposure, with asbestos litigation representing a multi-billion dollar industry ^{[2] [7]}
• Supply chain contamination risks: Despite bans, asbestos persists in supply chains, creating ongoing economic risks for companies that must implement costly quality control measures and work with industrial hygienists ^[7]
• Transition opportunities: The phase-out creates economic opportunities in sustainable industries and safer substitute materials, potentially generating new jobs ^[3]
• Remediation costs: The analyses mention substantial costs related to asbestos remediation that aren't captured in the original question ^[1]

Construction workers, insulators, and other tradespeople continue bearing the health and economic burden, with calls for a national asbestos strategy to address ongoing exposure risks ^[4].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question's framing as "benefits and drawbacks" suggests a balanced economic equation that doesn't reflect the overwhelming evidence against asbestos use. This framing could perpetuate industry narratives that have historically downplayed health risks for economic gain.

Specific biases in the framing:

• False equivalency: Presenting benefits and drawbacks as comparable when evidence shows costs dramatically outweigh any benefits
• Omission of human cost: The question focuses purely on economics without acknowledging that the "drawbacks" involve human lives and suffering
• Outdated perspective: The question doesn't reflect current scientific consensus and recent policy developments, including the 2024 US ban on chrysotile asbestos ^{[2] [8]}

The World Health Organization's recommendation to stop all asbestos use and promote safer substitutes ^[6] indicates that any perceived economic benefits are negated by overwhelming health and financial costs. Companies and governments that continue promoting asbestos use despite this evidence may be prioritizing short-term profits over public health and long-term economic stability.