Fact check: Which countries still allow asbestos use?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, the United States is the only industrialized country that still allows asbestos as a legal commercial product ^[1]. However, several other countries continue to use asbestos extensively, with China and India being the major consumers, utilizing about half of the world's current production of approximately 2 million tons ^[2].

Russia remains the primary producer of asbestos globally ^[2], and along with Kazakhstan and Brazil, was among the world leaders in asbestos production in 2015 and 2016 ^[3]. These countries - Russia, Kazakhstan, Brazil, China, and India - continue to allow asbestos use ^[3].

In contrast, more than 60 nations have completely banned the use of asbestos ^[2], with Iceland being the first country to implement a ban in 1983 ^[4]. However, only 60 out of nearly 200 countries have banned asbestos, leaving considerable work to be done ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks important context about the economic and health implications of continued asbestos use. Recent evidence shows that banning asbestos has no negative economic impact ^{[5] [6]}, contradicting industry arguments that have historically opposed bans.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and economic consulting company NERA have found that the global asbestos industry is shrinking, and country-level data show no negative economic impact from asbestos bans ^[6]. This challenges the narrative that asbestos bans harm economic development.

Additionally, the question doesn't address the substantial costs related to health, remediation, and litigation associated with continued asbestos use ^[5]. Mining, shipyard, construction industry, and railway workers in countries where asbestos remains legal face high risk of suffering from mesothelioma ^[7].

Several alternatives exist to reduce the environmental impact generated by the use of asbestos ^[8], providing viable options for countries still using this material.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself is neutral and factual, seeking information about current asbestos regulations globally. However, it could be interpreted as lacking urgency about the public health crisis associated with continued asbestos use.

The question doesn't acknowledge that this is fundamentally a public health issue rather than merely a regulatory matter. The framing could benefit from recognizing that more than 50 countries have banned asbestos completely ^[7] due to well-established health risks, making continued use in other countries a matter of significant concern rather than simply a policy choice.

The analyses suggest that powerful economic interests in asbestos-producing and consuming countries may benefit from maintaining the status quo, despite clear evidence of health risks and economic viability of alternatives.