1st December 2017, Volume 130 Number 1466

William Ivan Glass, Helen Clayson

Recent newspaper reports1,2 of mesothelioma occurring to two women have highlighted a particularly tragic outcome of the asbestos disease epidemic in New Zealand. An epidemic currently generating six or more cases of mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestosis and pleural disease each week. An epidemic which has yet to plateau.

The unique feature of both these cases was that their mesothelioma was a consequence of exposure to asbestos in the home following transfer of the carcinogenic fibres from the workplace on the hair and clothes of family members who worked with asbestos.

Such ‘secondary’ cases usually occur unexpectedly in old age but not infrequently in middle age and predominantly affect women. A latency of 40 or more years after the initial exposure means that not only is the disease unexpected but often—at least initially—inexplicable both to the patient and to the doctor.

Asbestos disease occurring to family members in this manner was first reported in the medical literature in South Africa in 1960,3 in the UK, 1965,4 and later in the US,5–8 Italy9,10 and Denmark.11

In New Zealand, the first case was notified to the National Asbestos Disease Register in 1994. This occurred to a 43 year-old woman whose father and older brother were both employed for eight years at an asbestos cement manufacturing company from the time she was seven years old, thus illustrating a latency of 36 years.

As pointed out in the newspaper articles, these types of exposure do not comply with the New Zealand Accident Compensation Corporation law that requires exposure to have resulted from paid employment in New Zealand within the acceptable latency range. The consequence is that there is no entitlement for cover, lump sum payment, weekly compensation or funding for the most effective treatment. This illustrates both employment and gender discrimination affecting women who do unpaid homework.

While the primary focus of this viewpoint is to highlight the circumstances of transfer of a workplace hazard, asbestos, to the home, it does raise other questions such as “where is the workplace?” and “where are its boundaries?”.

If workplace hazards are transferred from work to home on the person (hair, clothes and boots) of the worker, so that the home becomes contaminated and family members suffer, does not that make the home a physical extension of the workplace? If that is the case, it places on the employer a duty of care to control and contain workplace hazards within the workplace, as well as ensuring the worker’s contaminated work clothes are retained and laundered on site.

Asbestos-related disease is of worldwide concern12 and was first brought to the attention of the medical profession, industry and government over 100 years ago.13 Its history is one of scientific conflict, industry denial, government inaction and inadequate recognition and care of the victims.

However, the immediate question is one of fairness for family members who contract asbestos-related diseases in the manner described. Is this too much to ask of a ‘no fault’ compensation system?


Mesothelioma is a fatal disease resulting from asbestos exposure; such exposure usually occurs at work, however if the asbestos fibres are carried to the home from the workplace on the hair, clothes or boots of the worker, then family members in close contact with the worker can be exposed and may develop the disease. Because the link between work and home is not clear, the family member—usually a female—develops mesothelioma unexpectedly. As the family member did not develop the disease at work, ACC compensation is not available.


Family members, mostly female, can be at risk of asbestos-related disease as a result of the transfer of asbestos from the workplace to the home on the hair, boots and clothes of the worker. It is argued that in these cases the home should be recognised as an extension of the workplace and that the employer has a duty of care to contain and control the asbestos. Given these circumstances, the family member with the disease should be entitled to cover under the Accidence Compensation Legislation.

Author Information

William Ivan Glass, Centre for Public Health Research, Massey University, Wellington, Principle Advisor—Occupational Medicine, Technical Programmes and Support, WorkSafe, New Zealand Government, Wellington; Helen Clayson, General Practitioner, Masterton Medical, Masterton.


To Grace Chen, researching the National Asbestos Disease Register.


William Ivan Glass, Centre for Public Health Research, Massey University, Wallace Street, Wellington.

Correspondence Email


Competing Interests



  1. Cann G. Dad’s deadly embrace - second-hand asbestos case could lead to more claims, in The Dominion Post. 2017, FairFax Media: Wellington.
  2. Cann G. Cancer from husband’s washing - Years of exposure to toxic dust on clothes, in The Dominion Post Weekend. 2017, FairFax Media: Wellington.
  3. Wagner JC, Sleggs CA, Marchand P. Diffuse Pleural Mesothelioma and Asbestos Exposure in the North Western Cape Province. British Journal of Industrial Medicine. 1960; 17(4):260–271.
  4. NewHouse ML, Thompson H. Mesothelioma of pleura and peritoneum following exposure to asbestos in the London area. Br J Ind Med. 1965; 22:261–269.
  5. Kilburn KH, Lilis R, Anderson HA, et al. Asbestos disease in family contacts of shipyard workers. Am J Public Health. 1985; 75(6):615–7.
  6. Kilburn KH, Warshaw R, Thornton JC. Asbestos diseases and pulmonary symptoms and signs in shipyard workers and their families in Los Angeles. Arch Intern Med. 1986; 146(11):2213–20.
  7. Joubert L, Seidman H, Selikoff IJ. Mortality experience of family contacts of asbestos factory workers. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1991; 643:416–8.
  8. Anderson HA, Lilis R, Daum SM, et al. Household-contact asbestos neoplastic risk. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1976; 271(1):311–323.
  9. Magnani C, Terracini B, Ivaldi C, et al. A cohort study on mortality among wives of workers in the asbestos cement industry in Casale Monferrato, Italy. Br J Ind Med. 1993; 50(9):779–84.
  10. Ferrante D, Bertolotti M, Todesco A, et al. Cancer Mortality and Incidence of Mesothelioma in a Cohort of Wives of Asbestos Workers in Casale Monferrato, Italy. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2007; 115(10):1401–1405.
  11. Langhoff MD, Kragh-Thomsen MB, Stanislaus S, Weinreich UM. Almost half of women with malignant mesothelioma were exposed to asbestos at home through their husbands or sons. Dan Med J. 2014; 61(9): A4902.
  12. Takahashi K, Landrigan PJ. The Global Health Dimensions of Asbestos and Asbestos-Related Diseases. Annals of Global Health. 2016; 82(1):209–213.
  13. Anderson AM. Observations published in H.M. Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops. 1898.