The transparency and public availability of asbestos exposure levels

Abstract

Asbestos exposure continues to be a critical public health concern due to its established link with serious respiratory diseases and malignancies. Despite the attention that asbestos-related disease has received and the litigation that has existed, asbestos-related deaths have increased over time. Public reporting of asbestos levels is essential to inform at-risk populations and facilitate regulatory compliance. Laws and practices regarding measuring of asbestos levels and reporting of these levels vary widely. Each different country has different standards that are applied to reporting. In many countries, legislation that has been passed by governing bodies has affected the amount of asbestos use and the reporting standards. Other countries have depended on community organizations to spread awareness and public pressure regarding standards of reporting. This review summarizes current practices in asbestos monitoring and public reporting, examines the strengths and limitations of existing frameworks, and explores technological and policy innovations aimed at improving transparency and public awareness. Enhancing data accessibility and public engagement remains vital to reducing asbestos-related health risks worldwide. Creating a uniform policy as widely as possible regarding asbestos reporting will empower the public and aid in reducing harm from asbestos-related disease. Future efforts should focus on creating comprehensive reporting policies and facilitating the ease at which the public can access this data.

Introduction

Asbestos is a collective term used in reference to a group of naturally occurring silicate minerals known for their durability, heat resistance, and most notably their fibrous structure. This unique combination makes asbestos highly versatile. When woven into fabric, asbestos imbues these properties to furnishings, insulation and even clothing. These qualities were harnessed by civilizations as early as 2,500 BC, and their use steadily expanded over millennia (1). Asbestos use peaked in the mid twentieth century, the material having made its way into a broad range of products including automotive, construction and consumer goods. At the time, asbestos was widely viewed as an indispensable material.

Unfortunately, the true impact of this ubiquitous material would not come into focus until much later, when its health effects were more fully understood. We now know that the primary danger of asbestos arises when its fibers become airborne and are inhaled. Once inside the lungs, these fibers can become embedded in lung tissue and cause scar tissue or fibrosis. This fibrotic tissue gradually impairs lung function and can lead to respiratory failure (2). The first reports describing a new disease, asbestosis, emerged in the 1890s. In the 1930s, further concern arose when a series of publications in Germany, England and America reported lung cancer amongst asbestos workers (3). This work set the stage for a landmark paper that convincingly described the association between asbestos and malignancy (4). Soon after, another asbestos-related cancer, mesothelioma, would be described. This rare but aggressive cancer primarily affects the pleura and peritoneum and is now known to be almost exclusively caused by asbestos exposure (5). In addition, recent studies have found that asbestos exposure acting in synergy with cigarette smoking significantly increases the risk of lung cancer (6). There is also evidence linking asbestos to cancers of the larynx, ovaries and gastrointestinal tract (7).

Though the health risk was first established in the 1930s, it would be decades before changes in asbestos policies and practices were implemented. In the US, asbestos regulation began in the 1970s with the Clean Air Act and the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA). When compared with other industrialized countries, which began banning asbestos as early as the 1980s, the response in the US has been slower and more fragmented with a ban finally being passed in 2024 (8). This response will be examined further in the following sections.

Despite current regulations, asbestos-related deaths continue to rise worldwide, likely due to the long latency of the disease following exposure and challenges in exposure measurement. In 2003, the International Labor Organization (ILO) predicted a constant number of asbestos-related deaths, between 100,000 and 140,000 annually worldwide (9). However, by 2019, the actual number had climbed to approximately 239,000 (10). More recent estimates from 2021 show a decline to approximately 190,000 asbestos-related deaths reflecting the impact of bans and stronger regulations (10,11). This trend underscores a central issue that partial or inconsistent national regulations, while effective, are insufficient. Current mortality tends likely reflect ongoing exposure rather than historical use alone. While research has focused largely on occupational exposures, we know there are other sources. According to the US housing stock and the 2010 US census, 48% of United States residences were built before any asbestos regulations were put into place. As such, many residences have asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) (12). Quantification and understanding of these continued exposures is essential to limiting disease and supporting a global comprehensive ban. Without this, asbestos-related disease will continue for decades, particularly in regions with disproportionate exposure and disease burden (13).

When considering the risks associated with asbestos exposure, public reporting of asbestos levels, both occupational and community-based, is paramount. This data provides an essential mechanism for informing communities, guiding preventive measures and ensuring government oversight. The current review evaluates the current landscape of asbestos level reporting, including an overview of historical and current regulatory frameworks, education practices, and challenges faced in effectively communicating such risk to the public. It also describes emerging technologies and policy changes that may enhance public reporting systems.

Methods

Countries included in our regulatory and reporting search were based on those identified in the US Geological Survey as using asbestos in their 2019 report, the most recent available (14). Countries considered to have bans were based on those identified by the International Ban Asbestos Secretariat (IBAS) (15). Countries that were not included in this report and not identified as having bans were presumed to have de facto bans, bans that are unable to be confirmed, or unknown regulatory methods.

The laws, regulations and reporting mandates for asbestos in every country and state are found in government documents. To find these sources, government websites including the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and European Union (EU) OSHA were searched with the keyword “asbestos” to find relevant publications and legal statutes. When government websites were unable to be located the IBAS News Archive was searched by country as well as Google search queries using “[country] asbestos regulations” to locate other reliable sources. Only the most recent updates of regulations were included unless stated otherwise for historical context. Excluded regulations included those in a foreign language where English translations were unable to be located, and overviews that were not published by the IBAS (Table 1).

Table 1. Overview of asbestos regulations: regions where asbestos is banned according to reports from the International Asbestos Ban Secretariat and where asbestos is still in use according to the 2019 USGS survey.

Region	Banned	Confirmed still in use
Americas	Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Honduras, United States, Uruguay	Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Mexico, Peru, Venezuela
Europe	EU members, Ukraine, United Kingdom	Belarus
Asia and Middle East	Bahrain, Brunei, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Jordan, South Korea, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan	Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, North Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam
Africa	Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ivory Coast, Mauritius, Mozambique, and South Africa	Angola, Ethiopia, Gambia, and Zimbabwe
Oceania	Australia, New Caledonia, New Zealand	–

USGS, United States Geological Survey.

For reporting evaluation in the US, state databases were tested with a standard search query; in cases where databases were not publicly available online, we reached out to relevant state departments to inquire as to the public accessibility of this data.

Results

US and international asbestos regulations

As mentioned above, US asbestos regulation began in the 1970s and spanned several agencies. In 1971, OSHA began enforcing regulations on workplace asbestos exposure, creating the first asbestos policies in the US (16). This was followed by the 1973 Clean Air Act, which allowed the EPA to ban certain ACMs that were considered air pollutants (8). The EPA’s power to regulate asbestos expanded in 1976 with the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) and again in 1986 with AHERA which mandated that all schools between kindergarten and the 12^th grade be inspected for asbestos and develop management plans (17). The EPA tested the extent of its regulatory power in 1989 with a full ban that would be overturned just two years later. Throughout this same period, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) worked to ban asbestos from consumer products and regulate its mining. Over the next 25 years legal restrictions limited progress until 2016, when expansion of the TSCA allowed for greater EPA power, leading to the EPA’s 2024 nationwide asbestos ban. This convoluted history highlights the fragmented oversight in the US. Regulation was split across several agencies (i.e., the EPA, OSHA, CPSC and MSHA), leading to overlap, loopholes and implementation delays. In addition, there was a powerful industrial lobbying effort in the 1980s and 1990s claiming that a ban would cause economic damage and job loss. This history ensured not only that the US would continue using asbestos long after other countries, but also that existing protections would be sporadically enforced (18,19). In contrast, 72 countries worldwide have instituted full bans with many of them happening years before the US (Table 2).

Table 2. Overview of US regulatory and reporting mechanisms.

Law/program	Agency	What must be reported	Who reports	When/how often
TSCA (2023 Rule)	EPA	Manufacturing, import, processing, exposure	Chemical processors, importers	Once per rule cycle (most recent: by May 2024)
AHERA	EPA	Asbestos inspections, management plans, parent notifications	K–12 school districts	Every 3 years + updates
OSHA	OSHA	Exposure records, air monitoring, incidents	Employers	Continuous/internal (30-year retention)
NESHAP	EPA	Demolition/renovation asbestos handling	Contractors, owners, operators	Prior to regulated activity

AHERA, Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act; EPA, Environmental Protection Agency; K–12, kindergarten through 12th grade; NESHAP, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; OSHA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration; TSCA, Toxic Substance Control Act.

The Americas

Full bans were enacted by Canada in 2018 and the US in 2024 (20). Of note, in June of 2025, the US administration requested that the EPA “reconsider” the national ban. This stance elicited an immediate public outcry and led to a pause in these efforts by the current administration (21). Canada’s legislative response has been similarly disjointed, with over 70 individual pieces of legislation governing asbestos management, though its ban is particularly significant because of its past participation in export (22). Canada was previously so entrenched in asbestos production that in 1998, after a ban in France, Canada lodged a complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO) claiming that the ban violated free trade principles. This created an international trade dispute through the WTO, eventually rejected the complaint in 2001 (23).

Minimal data is available from Central America and the Caribbean. The only country in this region with a confirmed ban is Honduras. Usage data is available from El Salvador, Cuba, and Mexico confirming that asbestos is used though regulations are unclear (14,20). South American countries vary in their approaches. Full bans are present in Argentina (2003), Brazil (2017), Chile (2001), Colombia (2019), and Uruguay (2002) (15). Brazil’s ban is of particular importance because of its position as the fourth largest exporter of asbestos as recently as 2018 (24). Meanwhile, Peru has limited regulations, and remaining countries appear to have no or minimal regulation, though usage data is only available for some years from Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela (14,20).

Europe

The earliest full ban was in Iceland in 1983, followed closely by Norway in 1984, and Sweden and Denmark in 1986 (20). The European Commission and Parliament, which are responsible for passing laws and regulations for the EU, passed protections for workers exposed to asbestos in 1983, creating stricter protections over time. In 1999 the commission directed its member nations to cease use of crystalline asbestos (other types having been banned in 1991) by January 1, 2005 (25). Notably they made this decision before the 2001 WTO decision on the Canadian complaint (21). Outside of the EU, data is limited; usage data is available only for Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Belarus. Ukraine went through several legal battles to ban asbestos beginning in 2017, with a full ban finally being implemented in 2022 (20). The United Kingdom has upheld the 2005 ban by the EU while Belarus’ regulatory framework could not be found.

Asia and the Middle East

Asia is the largest asbestos-consuming region in the world, based on average consumption per year. From 2018 to 2020, Asian countries accounted for 87% of worldwide asbestos use (14). Bans in Asia are complicated by high levels of production in Russia and Kazakhstan. As the largest asbestos exporter in the world, Russia has a vested interest in the continued use of this material. In 2018 when Sri Lanka pursued an asbestos ban, Russia threatened to suspend the import of Sri Lankan tea and damage the Sri Lankan economy (26). Today, Sri Lanka continues to import and use asbestos. Russia and various other exporters/importers have also blocked repeated attempts to place asbestos on the Rotterdam Convention list of hazardous chemicals. Inclusion on this list would mean that importing countries are properly informed and have a say in whether they accept shipments of asbestos. At a recent vote in May of 2025, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, India, Zimbabwe, Laos and Belarus joined Russia in blocking the addition (27). Bans have been successfully implemented in Brunei, Japan and South Korea (20). South Korea is a leader in this region as one of only two countries worldwide with a national plan (the Asbestos Safety Management Act passed in 2009) for asbestos that is periodically revised (28). Data on asbestos use is available from Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, North Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam (14). In general, these countries appear to be maintaining similar use levels year to year (14).

While use in the Middle East has been banned by Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, no data is available on use in other countries in this region (14,20). It is worth noting that although precise data may not be available for all parts of this region, rapid analysis allows for estimations of use and exposure. Recent reports by the United Nations state that roughly 800,000 tons of asbestos-contaminated material have been released into the air during the conflict in Gaza (29).

Africa

Use has been banned by Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ivory Coast, Mauritius, Mozambique and South Africa. Kenya is a leader in the region with a suspected ban and ongoing efforts toward eradication, beginning with replacing water pipes and roofs in 2025 (30,31). Usage data is available from Angola, Ethiopia, Gambia, and Zimbabwe (14,20). Generally, use is trending downward apart from Zimbabwe, which has increased use from 1,550 metric tons in 2015 to 2,500 tons in 2019 (14).

Oceania

Australia, New Caledonia and New Zealand have all instituted full bans. Australia is the second country (along with Korea) that has a national plan for asbestos eradication and the only one with an agency dedicated to the process, the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency (ASEA) (32). This policy was heavily influenced by the active campaigning of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU) and broader trade-union mobilization that played a critical role in pushing government action. The trade union movement helped build evidence, brought labor and public health concerns to light, and leveraged public pressure. Victims groups also amplified the human cost of asbestos exposure and framed the ban as a matter of justice (33). Thanks to this advocacy, Australia is a global leader in asbestos policy.

US and international monitoring and public reporting mechanisms

In most industrialized countries, there are several mechanisms of asbestos monitoring that take place. Bulk sampling is commonly used on materials such as insulation, tiles and roofing to evaluate asbestos levels in building material already in place, oftentimes in preparation for demolition. During demolition and removal, asbestos can be released into the air. In these instances, air monitoring is done to evaluate exposure risk. In cases where environmental clean up is necessary, soil and water monitoring can also be done (34). Though the tools for monitoring are available and accessible in many countries, oversight and reporting varies greatly.

Contributing to this variance is a massive history of global litigation. Lawsuits beginning in the 1960s bankrupted many companies and generated hundreds of thousands of claims. The threat of legal liability led many companies to suppress, delay or selectively report exposure measurements and health findings, while some historical records were destroyed or withheld. This phenomenon led to major gaps in occupational exposure data (23). Industry and plaintiff funded research have also polarized the scientific community, producing conflicting interpretations of asbestos risks and undermining public confidence in epidemiology. Evidence has been skewed toward adversarial objective rather than independent public health surveillance (35). This foundation continues to distort how risk is studied, recorded, and communicated.

In the US, OSHA is responsible for collecting workplace exposure data that is not usually publicly released. Exposure monitoring and incident data are maintained internally by employers. The EPA has several laws that outline current national reporting requirements, some of which mandate public availability.

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

The passage of the TSCA sanctioned the EPA to collect data on the manufacture, import, processing and distribution of asbestos (36). This ruling applied to specific time periods, the most recent of which required data submission from 2019–2022. The EPA intends to publish “non-confidential” data in their ChemView database once submissions are processed (37).

AHERA

Through AHERA, the EPA mandates that schools must maintain asbestos management plans that are available on site and to the public (17). These reports include inspection dates and findings, locations of asbestos containing materials, actions taken and reinspection records. While required at schools, there is no national database for AHERA reports. Additionally, the enforcement of these regulations is a source of contention in many communities where inspections have either not been completed or indicate asbestos presence but lack follow up from the EPA (18,19).

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)

NESHAP mandates reporting of asbestos levels resulting from demolitions and renovations. This responsibility ultimately falls to states, however, and there are no regulations as to how these records are maintained or whether they are publicly accessible (38). This lack of standardization has led to a wide variance across states. As of September 2025, only eight states have publicly accessible online databases. These databases have vast differences in their degrees of functionality and usability. Some of the sites are very difficult to navigate, lack user-friendly interfaces, and frequently crash due to technical issues. On a standard search for all projects in a year (January 2023 through December 2023), only five of the eight databases were able to present this information. Furthermore, only three of these databases were able to provide the data in a workable spreadsheet for analysis.

The Americas

In Canada, reporting is largely limited to federal projects and buildings. A national inventory of asbestos in public buildings is maintained and accessible for searching (39). There is no national equivalent to OSHA, and instead each province maintains its own laws and enforcement agencies. Some of these agencies maintain exposure records (e.g., the Ontario Asbestos Workers Register that tracks asbestos exposures in the workplace). Their data is not publicly available, however (40). In British Colombia, WorkSafeBC collects exposure data in a registry and publishes some statistics on work-related deaths, but this data is typically aggregated by region or industry (41). In Brazil a team of software developers, healthcare specialists and practitioners recently developed a monitoring database named Datamianto. This system not only collects data but also has a platform that allows for analysis of epidemiologic data and access to reports (42). While Argentina, Chile, and Colombia have national bans and acknowledge the associated dangers, none has a public reporting system.

Europe

Within the European Union, the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (DG EMPL) sets directives on workplace asbestos exposure. EU-OSHA promotes compliance and publishes technical guidance, but publishes no data on exposures. The National Labor and Health Ministry of each member country implements and monitors asbestos controls. Italy and France have both developed systems for retrospective analysis of exposures. In Italy, the National Mesothelioma Registry (Registro Nazionale dei Mesoteliomi, ReNaM) established in 2002 is structured around regional reporting. An operations center in each region is responsible for identifying cases of mesothelioma and analyzing patient history to identify asbestos exposure (43). France established a similar registry in 1998 (Programme National de Surveillance du Mésothéliome, PNSM) (44). Both ReNaM and PNSM publish public health metrics and surveillance with more specific data being available only to researchers and registered institutions.

In the United Kingdom (UK), mesothelioma deaths are monitored. But there is no systematic review for exposures as is seen in Italy and France. The UK National Asbestos Register (UKNAR) was established in 2023 with the goal of tracking asbestos in all non-domestic buildings (45).

Asia and the Middle East

Many countries in Asia and the Middle East have limited monitoring and accessibility, with South Korea being the exception in this region. South Korea has established a robust network for regulation and reporting on asbestos-related issues, with both national surveillance systems for mesothelioma and occupational lung cancer. Established in 2000, the Mesothelioma Register is maintained by a central agency that receives hospital-based reports through pathologists. This system relies solely on pathologically confirmed cases ensuring accuracy. Like France and Italy, access to records is limited and not publicly available (46). South Korea, however, goes a step further in exposure accessibility with a maintained database of public asbestos containing buildings. Their goal is to expand the database to include schools and other public spaces such as malls and theatres. This database is easily searchable, allowing users to search by address and see surrounding asbestos-containing buildings. Reports on every building are also downloadable for analysis (47).

Africa

In South Africa, the National Institute for Occupational Health (NIOH) publishes annual reports and maintains the pathology autopsy database (PATHAUT) (48). It also maintains records for mesothelioma diagnoses. Other countries maintain cancer registries, but mesothelioma data are sparse or not clearly reported separately. In many of these countries, rare cancers like mesothelioma are underrepresented.

Oceania

Australia has established the ASEA that coordinates national asbestos strategy, public education and data collection. ASEA maintains a National Asbestos Exposure Register that is a voluntary way for individuals to record exposures. Yearly reports are available publicly (49). Additionally, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) maintains the Australian Mesothelioma Registry (AMR), an incidence register that records all new mesothelioma cases nationally. The AMR also collects information on asbestos exposure based on detailed participant exposure histories that are analyzed and published in periodic reports (50).

Effectiveness and limitations of current public reporting

Inaccessibility of data has consequences, community members who are unaware of their potential environmental exposure to asbestos, are unable to access resources for testing and remediation. The case of Libby, Montana highlights the limitations and dangers of reporting in the US. In the early 1900s, companies began to mine vermiculite ore, a substance that is often present alongside asbestos. In 1963, W.R. Grace & Company took control of the company with the knowledge of the contamination. Mining efforts continued into the late 1900s before the workers were made aware of the risk. As asbestos is an airborne risk, townspeople were likewise affected by mining; exposure sites ranged from playgrounds, to roads, and driveways. By the time that the exposure was public knowledge, 694 citizens of Libby had died from asbestos-related diseases, with 1 in 10 people living with a diagnosis. Mitigating a portion of these cases and deaths was possible but was foregone in favor of corporate profit. Cleanup of the site did not take place until 2002, when the EPA stepped in to remove asbestos, notify property owners, and increase public awareness. The efforts continued for 19 years, eventually transferring oversight to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (51,52). Had effective policy been in place that detailed asbestos reporting guidelines, contamination and disease could have been mitigated much earlier.

This problem similarly exists in other countries. One such case was in Sibatém, Colombia, a town built around asbestos-cement manufacturing beginning in the 1940s. Understanding the significance of this exposure, cases of mesothelioma and asbestos-related disease in plant workers are unsurprising, but clusters in surrounding areas and in people without plant exposure warranted further investigation. Surveys of the area identified landfills as well as soil contamination in the region, with the number of those affected remaining unknown (53). According to the 2018 census data, the population living near an asbestos-cement facility ranged from 12 individuals within a 500-meter radius to 932,838 individuals within a 10,000-meter radius (54). In this case and many others, unknown boundaries of exposure and the sheer number of people at risk made it difficult to ensure notification of all those exposed.

Other environmental concerns globally include asbestos exposure in schools. As mentioned in above sections, there has been legislation that has targeted this area in multiple countries (17). In the US the enforcement of legislation is varied. The EPA is responsible for federal inspections in 29 states, including California, Florida and Michigan. All other states either implement and oversee their asbestos-in-school regulations or conduct their inspections with EPA oversight and enforcement. Unfortunately, due to the lack of funding for these programs, the EPA conducted only 13% of the nationwide inspections they were responsible for (55). This does not include the 21 states that have little to no oversight. The fact that some states fall under federal jurisdiction, while others implement and manage their own asbestos management programs makes it difficult to quantify the program’s effectiveness. Without reform, studies have shown that a 5-year-old child’s lifetime risk of developing mesothelioma cancer is approximately five times greater than that of a 30-year-old adult (56). Other countries share this concern, most notably South Korea that has committed to eliminating asbestos in schools by 2027. Currently they are on track to do so. As of September 2025, 87.2% of schools have been cleared (57). This outcome has been accomplished largely through public support and funding of the project. Public awareness in Korea has created grassroots movements championing the removal of asbestos in a way we have yet to see here in the US. This difference in public support and demand may be due to lack of accurate reporting and public awareness.

Though environmental reporting regulations remain limited in the US, strides have been taken in other sectors, such as import and manufacturing. In 2023 under the TSCA the US EPA established a new reporting rule—manufacturers (including importers) or processors of asbestos between 2019 and 2022 with annual sales above $500,000 in any of those years are required to report exposure-related information, including quantities of asbestos manufactured or processed, types of use, and employee data. Importantly, the rule also covers asbestos-containing products (including products that contain asbestos as an impurity) and asbestos that is present as a component of a mixture. Manufacturers and processors subject to the rule will have nine months following the effective date of the final rule to collect and submit all required information to EPA (28). This ruling highlights effective work to track asbestos used prior to the 2024 ban. Data collected from this report can be used to track and develop greater understanding of where ACMs are still in use. While this regulation thoroughly collects data from larger corporations, its limitations must be noted. Smaller companies are not required to report this crucial information, meaning that the data could be incomplete. Additionally, data collection is only useful so long as that data is analyzed. Though there are plans to make this data available for public analysis this has not yet been done. Other policy reform in the US includes the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency (FACT) Act of 2012. This act requires a quarterly public statement from asbestos liability trusts detailing damage claims and payments. This act also allows for asbestos-exposed victims and the public to have a greater awareness while ensuring compensation (58).

Despite the well-documented harms of both asbestos, and lack of reporting, streamlined systems still do not exist in most countries, including the US. Models for data accessibility can be seen in Italy, Brazil, Australia, France, and South Korea that perform national tracking of mesothelioma, though this is done through autopsy reports. Italy’s model in particular demonstrates effective reporting. Their extensive investigation of potential exposures and careful tracking of cases provides a greater understanding of asbestos exposures outside of the workplace (43). Some states in the US offer good insight as well. The “State of Missouri Data Portal” has done an exemplary job of creating both an accessible and comprehensive database of asbestos abatement. Accessible through their website or a simple Google search, citizens are able to view 8,879 entries dating from 2017. Within each entry, there are 32 columns with information ranging from the date, project size, to the phone number of the property owner. The data are also exportable to a workable spreadsheet simplifying the analysis of data. While this data is accessible, the database is underutilized; since 2017, the site has received only 6,015 logins with a state population of over 6 million people (59).

Technological and policy innovations

There are numerous technological advances that have emerged to aid both asbestos detection and reporting with handheld devices becoming increasingly accessible. In the past, asbestos was only detected by laboratory analysis of an obtained sample, a risky, cumbersome, and time-consuming endeavor (60). Now, devices are available for rapid on-site detection, enabling quicker and safer results. Short-wave infrared (SWIR) spectroscopy is the most prevalent form of detection for these devices. This noninvasive method defines a spectral range (1,000–2,500 nm) under which asbestos falls. When images are captured, asbestos fibers are quickly identified as anything falling into this range. This technology is unique in being non-destructive and extremely portable, which is vital for common usage (61). Additional tools for detection now include drones that make testing of roofing slates safer and quicker (62). Drones are equipped with a hyperspectral sensor (similar to a SWIR device) to detect the frequency and density of asbestos in these slates (63). This technology limits unnecessary exposure without sacrificing accuracy. Beyond safety concerns, drones are more effective as they can reach inaccessible areas and, in some cases, even remove the asbestos affected materials (64). There is also great potential in the field for use of artificial intelligence (AI) by way of a decision tree. It has been shown that once programmed, AI can classify the type of fiber presented with incredible accuracy and safety (65). The main limitation of AI is the relatively unproven nature of these analyses. These results of these analytic methods have not generally been made available to the public either during or after they are performed but offer the potential for direct public reporting.

National policy proposals offer promise as well. In the US, the Reducing Exposure to Asbestos Database (READ) Act was introduced in 2015 though it was not passed into law. It outlined a public, searchable database of asbestos-containing products. This would have consolidated crucial information, allowing the public to take control of their own exposure risk (66). Though less relevant after the US national ban in 2024, this legislation offers potential for policy in other countries as well as a foundation for a national exposure database. Brazil’s recent development of the Datamianto database through collaborative efforts of health officials could offer a comprehensive model for exposure tracking, though its success is yet to be determined (41).

While national regulations are crucial in the control of asbestos, state and community monitoring is equally important, though far less standardized. Massachusetts’ 2017 “Healthy Buildings, Healthy Air Initiative” offers a path towards education of school districts about the dangers of asbestos exposure, enhanced enforcement against unsafe/illegal asbestos work in schools as well as better partnerships between state agencies and schools (67). As described above, the “State of Missouri Data Portal” also offers an example of both an accessible and comprehensive database that can be modeled on a wider state and national level.

Recommendations for improving public reporting in the US

The first step towards creating any effective public health program is developing the evidence base for action (68). Without data collection and accessible public reporting, it is impossible to develop this base for asbestos. Our approach to development must be multipronged.

National policy

To ensure transparency and accountability, the scope of asbestos reporting under statutes like the TSCA should be both standardized and broadened. The EPA’s 2023 ruling discussed above requires manufacturers, importers, and processors to report information on asbestos, including quantities used, types of use, exposure from products and employee data. However, many legacy uses, products with impurities, and lower-level exposures are still under-reported or unmonitored. These definitions of what is reportable should be strengthened in addition to making data submission tools (like EPA’s CDX) user-friendly and accessible.

Beyond strengthening reporting, national policy should focus on standardized reporting. Many states are in the process of releasing an online asbestos notification system but with little federal oversight, efforts are underfunded and fragmented. Each system operates independently of the others, making it difficult to obtain reliable data. Only 8/50 states have publicly available databases regarding asbestos exposure levels, and among them, many have limited functionality. As of October 2025, only Missouri has a fully comprehensive database as evaluated by standard search query. Having a centralized database that tracks exposures nationwide, such as the Brazilian Datamianto, seems the clearest way forward; however, this will take time. In the meantime, national standards for database monitoring and functionality must be set that apply to all state databases.

Local/state policy

While aggregate data is essential, public decision-making and advocacy benefit greatly when accompanied by human stories and local exposure studies. In the US, programs such as the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) evaluate exposures at specific sites (like natural deposits, old building materials, or contaminated consumer products), and they publish reports capturing both scientific data and community-level effects. While state environmental agencies are often involved, ATSDR should go further and work with local organizations to notify and spread awareness. State initiatives like Massachusetts’s “Healthy Buildings, Healthy Air” look to do this with combine fact-based reporting and educational outreach targeting schools and vulnerable populations. This model should be applied nationwide. Italy, for example, has a system in which regional health surveillance plans for former asbestos-exposed workers have been established by law since 2008.

Addressing institutional capacity

A major obstacle to effective public reporting is lack of capacity—both technical (labs, monitoring equipment, data systems) and human (trained inspectors, analysts, enforcement personnel). Recent reports on public health data reporting highlight that staffing shortages, outdated IT infrastructure, and insufficient, unpredictable funding are among the top barriers (69). To address this, federal and state governments should allocate sustained funding specifically for asbestos reporting and monitoring, support modernization of data systems (automation, real-time or near real-time reporting), and build institutional capacity for verifying and enforcing reports. These investments will ensure that reporting is not just required on paper but works in practice—and that the public has accurate, up-to-date information to demand action.

Conclusions

The history of asbestos regulation in the US reflects a broader struggle between public health interests, industrial influence, and fragmented oversight. Despite growing evidence of its dangers, regulatory action has been slow, inconsistent, and largely reactive. While many other industrialized nations implemented complete bans and streamlined reporting decades ago, the US lagged behind due to lobbying pressure, decentralized agency responsibilities, and a patchwork of enforcement practices. This legacy continues to affect the effectiveness of current monitoring and public reporting systems.

Modern reporting mechanisms remain hindered by lack of standardization, limited public accessibility, and minimal enforcement, particularly for vulnerable communities and smaller corporations. As seen in Libby, Montana and international case studies like Sibatém, Colombia, insufficient public awareness and inadequate data transparency can have fatal consequences. Technological innovations such as SWIR spectroscopy, AI-based fiber classification, and drone-assisted inspections show promise but require broader implementation and oversight to contribute meaningfully to public safety.

Improving asbestos-related public reporting will require more than just policy updates—it demands a cultural and institutional shift toward proactive public health surveillance. This includes a national registry, uniform reporting thresholds, multilingual education campaigns, and stronger collaboration between agencies, healthcare providers, and affected communities. Until these gaps are addressed, asbestos exposure will remain a persistent, silent threat, disproportionately affecting those with the fewest resources and the least power to respond. Only through comprehensive reform can we truly begin to prevent future cases of asbestos-related disease and ensure the safety of all citizens.

Supplementary

The article’s supplementary files as

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.