Banned here, sold elsewhere: globalization, e-commerce and the continuing circulation of asbestos-containing products

Our plain-English summary of Banned here, sold elsewhere: globalization, e-commerce and the continuing circulation of asbestos-containing products, by A.F. Gualtieri, A. Cavallo (Environmental Health, 2026).

The study

• Authors: A.F. Gualtieri, A. Cavallo
• Journal: Environmental Health
• Published: 2026;25(1)
• Type of article: Letter
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

Abstract

Despite widespread recognition of its carcinogenicity and bans in many countries, asbestos remains a persistent global public health challenge. Regulatory fragmentation, transnational trade, and the rapid expansion of digital marketplaces continue to facilitate the circulation of asbestos-containing materials (ACM) across national borders. While all forms of asbestos, including chrysotile are prohibited in several jurisdictions, chrysotile is still mined, manufactured, and extensively used in major economies, including Russia and China, and remains incorporated into construction materials throughout large parts of Asia, the Middle East, and other regions. This regulatory asymmetry undermines national bans and compromises efforts to achieve zero exposure. In this Comment, we examine the consequences of the absence of a global asbestos ban and the continued failure to include chrysotile in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention. We discuss how these regulatory gaps contribute to unrecognized exposure among the general population, create legal and economic liabilities for industries, and exacerbate environmental health risks in conflict zones and during large-scale construction and demolition activities. To illustrate the practical implications of these shortcomings, we present a case study demonstrating the ease with which asbestos-containing consumer products can be purchased through international e-commerce platforms. Laboratory analyses confirmed the presence of regulated chrysotile fibres in heat-resistant gloves purchased online, highlighting substantial deficiencies in product disclosure, regulatory enforcement, and cross-border accountability. This finding demonstrates how digital trade can bypass existing regulatory safeguards and expose unsuspecting consumers to carcinogenic materials. Asbestos should no longer be viewed as a legacy hazard but as an evolving global risk sustained by economic globalization, regulatory inconsistency, and technological change. Addressing this challenge will require coordinated international action, greater supply-chain transparency, and regulatory frameworks capable of responding to the realities of twenty-first century commerce.

© 2026. The Author(s).

In plain English

This article is a Comment. The authors argued that because chrysotile is neither banned worldwide nor listed in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention, chrysotile-containing materials can be traded without mandatory warning labels. To illustrate, in December 2025 they decided to buy white heat-resistant oven gloves from a top-five global e-commerce retailer. Two independent purchases, made two weeks apart, both arrived within days. The manufacturer information said the product was made in China; asbestos was not declared, and there was no CE marking. Fragments analysed by X-ray diffraction and electron microscopy consisted of chrysotile fibre bundles with calcite and dolomite. The estimated chrysotile content was 89.0(5.0) wt% (percent by weight); the article does not explain the bracketed figure. The fibres met the size criteria for regulated, respirable fibres, and the gloves released dust when handled. The authors said the work was a case-study report, not systematic research. They stated that their findings suggest the product does not comply with Italian asbestos rules. They concluded that online sales are a distinct challenge the Rotterdam Convention alone cannot fully address.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Comment (opinion piece on asbestos regulation and trade) that includes a single-product case study with laboratory analysis
• Who was studied: One consumer product: white heat-resistant oven gloves sold by one of the top five global e-commerce retailers (retailer not named), for about 14 euros. A private citizen asked about the product in November 2025. In December 2025 the authors decided to buy it, and two independent purchases were made two weeks apart.
• Exposure: Chrysotile asbestos in a consumer product sold online. The article's broader subject is international trade in chrysotile, which it notes is not listed in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention.
• Main results:
  • Two independent purchases of the gloves, made two weeks apart, were both successful, and in both cases the gloves were delivered within a few days.
  • According to the manufacturer information, the product was made in China.
  • The presence of asbestos was not declared, and there was no CE marking.
  • Fragments from the pair of gloves were composed of chrysotile fibre bundles, mixed with calcite and dolomite.
  • The chrysotile content of the glove fragments, estimated from diffraction peak areas, was 89.0(5.0) wt%, meaning 89.0 percent by weight. The article does not explain the figure in parentheses.
  • The fibres met the size criteria for regulated, respirable fibres: length at least 5 micrometres, width under 3 micrometres, and length-to-width ratio at least 3 to 1.
  • The gloves tended to release dust when handled.
  • The authors stated that their findings suggest the product does not comply with asbestos regulations applicable in Italy.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that online distribution of asbestos-containing materials is a distinct, emerging challenge that the Rotterdam Convention's mechanisms alone cannot fully address. They called for a dedicated international framework for online asbestos sales.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The authors state that the investigation is only a case-study report and not systematic or comprehensive research.

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Chrysotile.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM), Chrysotile, Jurisdiction, regulatory gap, Carcinogenic.

Related studies

• Exporting death made in Quebec — G. Paradis (2010)
• Asbestos poisons World Trade Organization atmosphere — L. Kazan-Allen (2001)
• RE: Call for an International Ban on Asbestos: Why asbestos should be banned — R.A. Lemen (2000)
• Chamber for testing asbestos-containing products: validation and testing of a re-created chrysotile-containing joint compound — P.J. Sheehan, G.P. Brorby, et al. (2011)
• Evaluation of asbestos-containing products and released fibers in home appliances — S.H. Hwang, W.M. Park (2016)
• Minimising health hazards associated with derogated products and in-situ materials containing chrysotile contaminated with amphibole asbestos fibres — R.M. Howie (1999)

Browse more research in Environmental Health, or return to medical research.