Investigation of EPA’s Dental Mercury Emissions Estimate

As a result of its findings from a November 14, 2007 hearing at which MPP Director Bender testified, the US House Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is conducting an investigation into the work of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine if EPA has underestimated mercury emissions related to dental use of mercury. The Subcommittee’s hearing revealed significant disparities between the agency’s data for mercury emissions related to dental use of mercury and other estimates. EPA has even expressed a lack of confidence in some of its estimates. Furthermore, there are a number of other emissions pathways for which EPA has failed to develop any estimates, as the attached letter from the Subcommittee to EPA Administrator Steve Johnson outlines. It its letter, Chairman Dennis Kucinich requests that EPA provide specific information to the Committee no later than Feb.29, 2008.

US House Committee to Evaluate Dental Mercury

The U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will hold a hearing on Wednesday, Nov. 14, to discuss FDA’s responsibility to evaluate the harmful environmental impacts of mercury dental fillings and to question why FDA has not finalized a rule proposed in 2002 to classify mercury tooth fillings under the Medical Device regulations. “The Hearing will show that dental uses contribute to high mercury levels in fish Americans consume,” said MPP Director Michael Bender. “Testimony will also show, for the first time, that dental mercury air emissions may be more than five times higher than recent EPA estimates.” Bender’s testimony comprehensively lays out the extent of the problem, and the need to reduce this pollution source.

Two Mercury Bills Approved By VT House Committee

Advocates applauded the work of a Vermont House Committee which passed out two important bills on mercury that will significantly reduce pollution. The first requires dentists to have patients sign a consent form before receiving any procedure involving mercury amalgam, which informs them of the potential hazards to human health. The second requires a $5 cash incentive be provided by the manufacturer to contractors that turn in mercury-containing thermostats for recycling. “Informed consent will empower Vermonters to just say no to mercury amalgam, and in the process this will help reduce mercury pollution,” said MPP director Bender in a statement. “It also provides patients with the same information that many dentists have already received from manufacturers, which states that ‘The use of amalgam in contraindicated…In children 6 and under….(and)…. in expectant mothers‘”. The news was picked up in a Vermont newspaper.

Dental Report Highlights Reasons For Mercury Phase Out

 

Advocates released a report supporting recommendations by the Vermont Air Pollution Control Division and the Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution to phase out the use of mercury dental amalgam. The report outlines the many reasons to phase out mercury in dentistry–ranging from indirect toxic releases into wastewater, landfills and farmers’ fields to more direct releases from dental clinics, human wastes and cremation.

Two years ago, the Vermont Legislature mandated requirements for dental clinics to install pollution control equipment. But advocates maintain that the legislature has not gone far enough, and a growing number of Vermont agencies, officials and committees.

In its “2007 Annual Report to the Governor, General Assembly and Citizens of the State of Vermont,” the Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution stated its support for “an eventual phase-out of mercury-containing dental amalgam…and recommends that the Legislature consider this [in order] to virtually eliminate the release of anthropogenic mercury in Vermont.” In addition, the Committee recommends that the Legislature consider legislation to ban the use of dental amalgams in the two highest risk populations, pregnant women and children under 18. “Mercury tooth fillings are one of the largest pollution sources in Vermont today,” said Michael Bender, Director of Mercury Policy Project in a statement. “While mercury releases from human wastes and cremation may be an uncomfortable topic, most people understand that if they have mercury in their teeth, it will eventually be released into the environment.” Legislation is currently being considered in VT to phase out dental mercury use.

MPP Testifies Before FDA on Dangers of Mercury Fillings

Federal health advisers to the FDA have rejected a government report that mercury tooth fillings are safe, saying that the conclusion is not reasonable. The panel also stated that a large federal review of data fails to clearly and objectively present the current body of knowledge on the subject. During the two day hearing in early September, dozens of people—including activists, citizens, dentists and dental assistants—complained of ill health effects that they attribuuted to mercury fillings. 

Along with others, MPP’s director testified before the 25 Member panel on September 7th. MPP also showed 7 minutes of a documentary from Norway called Mercury Girls which showed historical film of Norwegian dental nurses (assistants) working with amalgam in their bare hands. In 2005 the Norwegian Broadcasting Company examined complaints of dental nurses who had high levels of mercury. The reports of high mercury exposure was shocking. In the study results between the dental nurses and a control group, the results even surprised the scientists. 25% of the dental nurses reported having neurological problems. 36% of the dental nurses had tremors compared to 8% in the control group. 14% of the dental nurses had problems with memory vs the control group having no problems with memory. 18% of the dental nurses were depressed compared to 4% in the control group. 21% of the dental nurses had heart and lung problems, compared to 5 % of the control group. After the dental nurses saw the documentary in Norway and Denmark, they reported that their offspring was affected too, and a second documentary was produced, entitled Mercury Children. Bender’s presentation concluded with recommendations that 1) amalgam placement needs to be banned during pregnancy and 2) dental assistants should be placed on leave during pregnancy.

Advocates Urge Ban on Mercury Fillings in Pregnant Women

As an FDA hearing gets underway regarding the safety of amalgam, advocates are petitioning FDA to ban mercury tooth fillings in pregnant women to protect unborn children from unnecessary exposure to mercury. The groups point out that placement of dental mercury has already been banned in many countries, and amalgam makers warn dentists about putting it in pregnant women and children. “As most everyone knows, the developing fetus is most at risk from mercury.” said Michael Bender, director of the Mercury Policy Project. “So why isn’t FDA joining Health Canada and other countries in banning its placement in pregnant women?”

According to the petition, encapsulated dental amalgam arrives at a dentist’s office with skull and cross bones affixed next to the words “POISON, CONTAINS METALLIC MERCURY.” Mercury, the warning states, is a “potentially hazardous substance” with “neurotoxic/nephrotoxic effects“; “a chemical known to the state of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm.” The two largest amalgam manufacturers – Kerrr and Dentsply advise dentists away from placing amalgam in pregnant women, nursing mothers, children under six, and anyone with kidney disease. Kerr, the largest mercury amalgam manufacturer in the American market, warns dentists:

“The health authorities of the various countries, including Canada, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Norway and Austria have recommended against the placement or removal of an amalgam in certain individuals such as pregnant and nursing women and persons with impaired kidney function.”

Dentsply/Caulk, the second largest mercury amalgam manufacturer, warns:

“Contraindication (N.B.: “Contraindication” is a directive to forbid, not just a “warning.”) “In children 6 and under” and “In expectant mothers.”