Quartz and Engineered Stone: A Debate on Banning in the US

Frederick M Hueston  StoneForensics.com

The use of quartz, particularly in its engineered stone form, has become a subject of intense debate in the United States. This debate has been fueled by recent developments in Australia, where a ban on engineered stone is being considered due to health concerns, and by the implementation of stricter regulations in California. In this context, a comparison with natural granite, which contains less quartz, becomes relevant.

Background

Engineered stone is a composite material made of crushed quartz crystals bound together by resin. It’s admired for its hardness, aesthetic appeal, and versatility. However, its manufacturing process releases silica dust, which poses serious health risks, leading to diseases like silicosis. In contrast, natural granite contains less quartz and consequently, releases less silica during cutting or shaping.

Quartz Content: Engineered Stone vs. Granite

Engineered Stone: Typically contains over 90% quartz, making it highly durable but also a significant source of silica dust.

Granite: A natural stone, granite contains between 20% to 60% quartz, depending on the variety. This lower quartz content results in less silica exposure during processing.

The Australian Ban and California’s Regulations

Australia’s impending ban on engineered stone is a response to the health risks associated with high silica exposure among workers. In the United States, California has taken a proactive stance by imposing stricter regulations on engineered stone usage, focusing on worker safety and environmental impact.

Arguments for Banning Quartz in the US

Health Risks: The high quartz content in engineered stone directly correlates with increased health risks due to silica inhalation.

Environmental Concerns: The production of engineered stone is not only energy-intensive but also has a significant environmental footprint.

Worker Safety: A ban would necessitate a shift to safer materials, directly benefiting workers in the industry.

Arguments Against Banning Quartz

Economic Considerations: The engineered stone industry is a vital part of the economy, providing numerous jobs and contributing to economic growth.

Technological Advances: Investing in improved safety measures and technologies could mitigate the health risks without necessitating a ban.

Consumer Choice: Engineered stone is a popular choice for many consumers, and a ban would limit these options.

California as a Model

California’s approach offers a potential compromise, focusing on stringent safety measures and regulations instead of an outright ban. This model could be adopted nationally, balancing economic and consumer interests with health and safety concerns.

The debate on whether to ban quartz and engineered stone in the US is multifaceted, involving health, economic, and environmental considerations. While the health risks, especially in light of the high quartz content in engineered stone, are significant, an outright ban may not be the most feasible solution. Approaches like California’s, which emphasize regulation and safety, could offer a viable path forward. This discussion is particularly relevant in the context of global efforts to harmonize industrial practices with health and environmental sustainability.