        |
Mercury Dental Amalgams - Analyzing the Debate
Revised May 2001
Note: The information on this
website is not a substitute for
diagnosis and treatment by a qualified, licensed professional.
(Scroll down for Table of Contents)
INTRODUCTION
If you have visited a dental office in California since November 15th, 2000, you may have seen a sign that said:
"WARNING: Amalgam fillings contain a chemical element known to the State of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm."
What is this mysterious chemical element that causes birth defects? And why isn't it identified in this warning sign?
There's really no mystery. The chemical element is mercury, and it's the principal ingredient of those silvery looking fillings that most of us have in our mouths. It's also a toxic heavy metal that can have disastrous health effects on the human body. And the reason this isn't spelled out in the warning sign in your dentist's office is because the California Dental Association, the state's chapter of the American Dental Association, doesn't want it to be. The dental associations don't want you to know or be concerned about the fact that your dentist may be implanting a toxic metal in your mouth. They don't want you to know that that toxic metal leaks out of your fillings 24 hours a day, exposing your body to higher levels of mercury intake than any other source.
How did that warning sign get there? In 1986, California passed the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Proposition 65), Health and Safety Code #25249.5. This act, designed to protect pregnant women and their unborn babies from toxic chemicals, specified that no person or company could expose a person to any substance known to cause birth defects without warning them first. The act lists mercury by name as one of these substances. It has been in place for years, but it was not honored by amalgam manufacturers.
In 1996 the manufacturers, pressed to honor their disclosure requirements under Proposition 65, asserted that they were exempt because their product is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. They claimed that FDA regulation supersedes the requirements of Proposition 65. The courts didn't buy that argument, but still the manufacturers did nothing.
Then Oakland's Environmental Law Foundation, and a Washington, D.C., organization called Consumers for Dental Choice swung into action. These groups brought suit against the state's dental amalgam manufacturers and distributors, demanding that they meet their obligations under Proposition 65 by placing warning labels on their products and in the offices of the dentists who use them. Such warning labels are already in use in many countries, including all those of the European Union.(1) They accused the manufacturers of failing to provide a "clear and reasonable warning" that silver amalgam fillings are 50 percent mercury, and that they may cause birth defects in the babies of women exposed to the product.
"It's time to stop calling it silver amalgam and start calling it what it is -- mercury," said Charles Brown, counsel for the Consumers for Dental Choice. "There is nothing more toxic in a dentist's office than mercury, unless you have some plutonium laying around."(2)
After three years of legal process, on November 15th, 2000, a Judge of the Superior Court of California in San Francisco issued a consent decree requiring California amalgam manufacturers to disclose to their customers the potential for birth defects and reactions to other toxic dental materials.(3)
This is a small step, but a significant one. California is now the first state to require dentists to inform their patients of the possibility of birth defects caused by mercury amalgam fillings.
There have been other positive developments in the so-called amalgam controversy over the past few years. In Colorado in 1997, Governor Roy Romer has signed into law a bill to increase access of the people of the state of Colorado to mercury-free dentistry. House Bill 97-1187 was introduced by Rep. Mark Paschall with the support of Sen. Muntzebaugh to support consumers' rights to choose safe, effective alternatives to conventional dental procedures.(4)
This dental freedom law is the first of its kind to be passed in the United States. It enables patients to choose mercury-free dentistry through dentists licensed in the state. It further assures that trained and licensed dentists can continue to practice mercury-free dentistry without fear of retribution from the Colorado Board of Dental Examiners.(5)
This is a total reversal of Colorado Administrative Law Judge Nancy Connick's 1996 decision which in essence forbade dentists from removing mercury based on the decision to remove toxic substances from the mouth. She also forbade patients from requesting removal of mercury based on its toxicity.(6)
"In the past, conventional and alternative options in dentistry have not been evaluated by the same standards of safety and efficacy prior to adopting them as accepted standard of care," says Susan Haeger, Executive Director of Citizens For Health, an international grassroots advocacy organization committed to protecting and expanding consumer health choices." I see this important law as opening up lines of communication to the consumer about risks and benefits of all treatments, and encouraging more dentists to consider adding safe alternatives to mercury amalgams into their practices."(7)
Over the past few decades, Americans have been besieged by a series of health epidemics with one common denominator: all were man-made. With each of these epidemics, the government and its watchdog agencies routinely assured us that a danger did not exist. Since they would not allow harmful foods, chemicals or drugs on the market, the reasoning went, the very fact that the products were in use assured us of their safety.
When overwhelming evidence proved the contrary, government and industry only begrudgingly removed these products from the shelves. The epidemics in question? Diethylstilbesterol, which harmed millions of Americans; Oraflex, the anti-arthritic drug, DDT, the pesticide; and the Dalkon shield, to name just a few of more than 200 such items that got an official stamp of approval over the years.
Now the battle line has been drawn over yet another "safe" substance, the mercury silver amalgam used in dental fillings. On one side of the battle are the scientists, holistic dentists and health activists who believe mercury amalgams are a biological time bomb ticking away in our mouths. They point to scientific evidence showing that chronic mercury exposure from dental fillings puts most people at risk for serious health disorders.
On the other side stands the dental establishment, led by the American Dental Association, which claims that mercury amalgam has adverse effects only on people who are hypersensitive to it. The ADA pegs this group at 1% of the population. For the rest of us, it says, amalgams pose absolutely no harm.
But the ADA has yet to offer scientific proof of mercury's safety, and leading health advocates to call for a ban on its use. The Toxic Element Research Foundation (TERF) claims that the cumulative effects of mercury amalgam poisoning make it one of the most insidious health hazards facing Americans today.
"The true impact of amalgam poisoning is similar to that of the Chernobyl tragedy," states the organization. "The magnitude of the crisis is not the few who have died from massive exposure, but rather it is the millions whose health will be eroded by the ongoing, small-dose poisoning."(8)
Considering that 19 out of 20 Americans suffer from dental cavities, the stakes are indeed high. More than 200 million people - some 85% of the population - already have at least one cavity filled with mercury amalgam.(9) Little wonder, then, that Americans are demanding a much more persuasive answer to the fundamental question: Are mercury amalgams safe?
CONTENTS
The Dangers of Mercury