Brazil Bans Asbestos in Landmark 2017 Ruling

A Historic Vote in Brasília

When Brazil’s Supreme Court convened on November 29, 2017, justices faced a question that had divided the country for decades: Could the world’s third-largest asbestos producer continue business as usual, or did the Constitution demand a different path?

By a 7-2 vote, they chose change.

The ruling struck down federal legislation that had permitted “controlled use” of chrysotile asbestos—the legal framework that had allowed Brazil’s asbestos industry to operate for generations. For the families of workers who had died from mesothelioma and asbestosis, the decision came as vindication after years of advocacy. For the industry, it marked the end of an era.

The Constitutional Question

Justice Rosa Weber, writing for the majority, framed the case not as an economic matter but as a question of fundamental rights. The Constitution, she argued, guarantees Brazilians both health and a safe environment. Permitting the continued use of a known carcinogen violated both.

The court examined decades of scientific evidence and found what public health authorities worldwide had concluded: there is no safe level of asbestos exposure. The industry’s arguments about “controlled use” failed under scrutiny. Workers continued to develop mesothelioma regardless of safety protocols.

International standards reinforced the court’s position. Brazil had signed International Labour Organization conventions on occupational safety that were increasingly difficult to reconcile with continued asbestos production.

A Nation’s Toll

The ban came after decades of documented harm in Brazilian communities. Between 1980 and 2010, more than 3,700 Brazilians died from mesothelioma—and this figure likely underestimates the true toll, given challenges in diagnosis and reporting.

The state of Goiás, home to Brazil’s largest asbestos mines, bore a disproportionate burden. Mining communities there had watched generation after generation of workers develop lung disease. Families experienced secondary exposure when workers brought fibers home on their clothing. The pattern was familiar to anyone who had studied asbestos history in the United States, Europe, or Australia.

Thousands more died from asbestosis and asbestos-related lung cancer. The latency period—often 20 to 40 years between exposure and diagnosis—meant that even after the ban, Brazil would continue seeing new cases for decades.

Ripple Effects Across the Atlantic

Brazil’s decision reverberated beyond its borders, including in the United States, which still imported asbestos for industrial use.

Before the ban, Brazil had been a significant source of U.S. asbestos imports. In 2017, the United States imported 341 metric tons of the mineral. With Brazil exiting the market, American importers turned elsewhere—primarily to Russia, which became the dominant supplier.

The shift produced one of the more surreal images in recent asbestos history: the Russian company Uralasbest celebrating its expanded American market by stamping President Trump’s face on pallets of chrysotile. The company posted photos on social media, declaring the U.S. a “friendly” market.

For public health advocates, the episode highlighted an uncomfortable reality. While Brazil and other major producers were banning the mineral, the United States remained one of the few developed nations still importing it.

Industry Adaptation

Brazil’s largest asbestos company, Eternit, had seen the writing on the wall. The day before the Supreme Court ruling, the company announced it would phase out chrysotile use and transition to asbestos-free products.

The announcement was partly strategic—getting ahead of an unfavorable ruling—but it also reflected years of preparation. Eternit had already begun developing alternative materials, recognizing that global trends were moving decisively against asbestos.

Other industry players challenged the ban through Brazil’s complex legal system, but the Supreme Court’s constitutional reasoning proved difficult to overcome. The ruling established that health rights trump economic interests when a product poses inherent, unavoidable risks.

Joining the Global Movement

Brazil’s ban placed it among more than 70 countries that have prohibited asbestos. The list includes most developed nations: the European Union banned all forms in 2005, the United Kingdom in 1999, and Nordic countries even earlier.

Canada, once a major asbestos exporter itself, followed Brazil’s lead and implemented its own ban in 2018. The United States would not take comprehensive action until 2024, when the EPA finally banned ongoing uses of chrysotile—though the rule left legacy asbestos in place and allowed extended phase-out periods for certain industries.

What the Ban Did—and Didn’t—Do

Brazil’s prohibition was forward-looking. It stopped new mining, manufacturing, and sales, but it did not require removal of asbestos already installed in buildings throughout the country. Managing that legacy—the millions of tons of asbestos in roofing, insulation, and other materials—remains an ongoing challenge.

Workers in the asbestos industry required job transition support. Mining communities that had depended on the industry for generations faced economic disruption even as they gained protection from future exposure.

The ban also could not undo past harm. Brazilians exposed decades ago will continue developing mesothelioma and other asbestos diseases for years to come. The country’s healthcare system must manage this burden while the legal system processes compensation claims.

A Precedent for Change

For advocates worldwide, Brazil’s ruling demonstrated that change is possible even in countries with significant asbestos industries. Constitutional health protections, when taken seriously by courts, can override economic interests. Major producing nations can transition away from dangerous materials.

The path from scientific consensus to policy action took decades in Brazil, as it has elsewhere. But the Supreme Court’s decision showed that the path, however long, can reach its destination.