AKUT asbl

Kontakt Mitglied werden bei AKUT

Europe and the scandal of dental amalgam

Europe and the scandal of dental amalgam

Europe and the scandal of dental amalgam

• The European strategy to reduce mercury usage

In order to drastically reduce Europeans’ exposure to mercury as well as to limit release of this highly toxic metal into the environment, the European Union is implementing a strategy of reducing the supply and demand for mercury. It is to be congratulated. Thus the EU has decided to rapidly put in place a ban on mercury for its current common uses (i.e. measurement instruments, electrolytic cells, batteries, etc.) and to ban import-export.

• Mercury for dental care is to be treated differently: why this unfathomable difference?

Mercury for dental care, 50% by weight of an average dental filling, is being treated differently. SCENIHR[1] and SCHER[2] have been commissioned by the European Commission to decide on its future, taking into account health and environmental risks. These Committees were to reach a decision by 2007 year-end, after reviewing the international scientific literature on the subject and contributions from Europeans scientists, as well as members of civic society, the latter being essential from our viewpoint.

• Many scientists and members of the general public are calling for a ban of mercury in dental work without delay

The AKUT association in Luxembourg, the IAOMT and scientists specializing in health risks related to mercury have, on the 10th of November 2007, gathered to make the Luxembourg appeal for a ban on mercury in dental amalgam under the patronage of the Luxembourg Minister of Health.

This formal appeal was addressed to the European Commission, the European Parliament, and all national and global health authorities. One notes that so far these bodies have not rushed to deal with this major public health issue.

• Dental fillings peremptorily declared safe by the SCENIHR!

SCENIHR and SCHER’s preliminary reports (strangely only available in English when multilingualism is a principle within the EU) were rendered public in mid-January 2008. SCENIHR[3]’s draft report, which appears more interested in the possible health risks of alternatives to mercury dental fillings (for example composites), concludes without any qualms on the harmlessness of dental amalgams, acknowledging only rare local reactions: « […] Dental amalgam is an efficient material for fillings and can be considered a choice material for a number of restorations […]. One can conclude there is no risk of harmful systemic effects. »

• An « assessment » which we consider open to questioning

SCENIHR’s draft report has been cosigned by four “internal” experts (from SCENIHR and SCHER) and by four European representatives from the dental profession. No independent epidemiologist, toxicologist, or toxic-chemist, specialized in the assessment of the effects of exposure to traces of heavy metals such as mercury, has been enrolled in this work group, contrary to good practice. The bibliography has been most selective: studies contradicting “official” experts’ opinion have not been considered whereas those published in esteemed dental journals represent almost half of the articles chosen (90 out of 199). This assessment did not allow for open debate: thus contributions from European scientists which discuss the actual toxicity of mercury were not taken into account, not surprisingly! This parody of an open assessment does not tally with current knowledge which is rapidly advancing thanks to recent advances in chemistry and molecular biology.

• Mercury use in dental care should cease; according to an independent assessment

Independent official European experts with globally recognised competence in this field have already assessed[4] the risks of dental mercury and concluded in 2003: « [...] mercury is a multi-potent toxin which affects the biochemical dynamics of the cell at several levels; amalgam must [therefore] be considered an unsuitable material for dental restoration. This is especially true since fully adequate and less toxic alternatives are available. […] For medical reasons, amalgam should be eliminated in dental care as soon as possible. »

• Risks linked with dental mercury: an incontestable certainty

Mercury from dental amalgams is scientifically known with absolute certainty to be inhaled for the major part (as vapors) and absorbed (80%), accumulating in the brain where it has neuro-toxic effects lasting many years, crossing through the placenta to accumulate in the embryo and then the fetus’s organs (including the developing brain), later on contaminating breast milk. These effects correlate with the amount of dental amalgams: dental mercury is by far the major source of mercury exposure in developed countries. Currently it does not appear possible to ascertain what level of exposure to mercury is without risk. Moreover, several international scientists have brought to light the fact that mercury released by dental amalgams seems to be one of the main etiologic factors of neuro-degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s, and more, it could lead to aggravation of various auto-immune diseases, certain psychiatric illnesses, and some forms of autism …

• Reactions to the SCENIHR’s report

European citizens were invited to give their opinion on this preliminary report by 22nd February 2008, by responding online. Considering the gravity of this public health issue, several scientists have completed SCENIHR’s questionnaire and some have even submitted very strong criticisms of this European report[5]. Unfortunately, just as what happened at the first call for contributions, responses sent to the SCENIHR (as well as to the SCHER) have not been made public.

It is necessary now to make all citizens, including Europeans policy-makers, aware of the issues surrounding this public health matter, otherwise the European Commission may reach an uninformed decision based upon a biased assessment out-of-line with current scientific knowledge.

The major impact that this decision will have upon Europeans’ health means it should not be left to the good intentions of the dental profession, considered the sole judge and jury in this official assessment contrary to professional ethics: this would be a gross denial of health democracy.