State Department Endorses Phase-Down of Amalgam, Keeps It On UNEP List
Filed Under: Health Issues on November 4, 2011
On Monday, October 24, 2011, the US Department of State held a meeting of stakeholders to help define its position on the next phase of negotiations for an international treaty to control trade in mercury and its products.
REPORT FROM DOS MERCURY STAKEHOLDER MEETING 10/24/11
Presented by Freya Koss, IAOMT publicist
On Monday, October 24, 2011, the State Department held the second of two “Mercury NGO Stakeholder Meetings” in Washington, D.C. The meetings were held in preparation for the third session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to prepare a globally legally-binding instrument on mercury (INC3), which will be held by the United Nations Environmental Programme in Nairobi, Kenya from October 31-November 4.
Presiding over this U.S. Department of State (DOS) meeting was Dr. John Thompson, Deputy Special Representative for Global Partnerships, assisted by Daniel Reifsnyder, Department Assistant Secretary.
Dr. Thompson delivered the DOS decision, and it was simple and direct: Dental amalgam fillings containing approximately 50% mercury will remain in Annex C, the list of products whose trade will be limited or banned, of the UNEP Intergovernmental Committee (INC) Treaty. This decision means that dental amalgam fillings will be “PHASED DOWN,” not PHASED OUT.
He also noted that the DOS was appreciative of the views and input presented by attendees at the Stakeholder meetings and that the decision to keep amalgam in Annex C was in part based on listening to Stakeholders at previous meetings, as well as the documentation provided.
I have always sensed respect and appreciation for our assistance from Dr. Thompson, Deputy Secretary Reifsndyer, and Andrew Clark, administrator, DOS, Office of Environmental Policy, who has been my contact person.
After the DOS announcement that vaccines were not included in Annex C but amalgams were, a representative I believe was from Dentsply’s materials division questioned:
“What is the difference between dental amalgam and vaccines? (The individual was clearly upset by the decision to include amalgams in Annex C, and was concerned as to why would amalgams be considered more dangerous than vaccines.)
Dr. Thompson’s response was, “There is enough evidence about ‘this issue to phase it down.’ By that, we don’t mean ‘phase out.’” (The referral to “this issue” was mercury silver amalgam dental fillings.)
Both health and environmental risks were discussed in the meetings and considered in the State Department’s decision. In our discussions, we presented the fact that Sweden, Denmark, and Norway abolished mercury amalgams based on the environmental hazards. We also noted that Sweden’s peer-reviewed studies have shown that amalgam removal has led to improved health, and documented research has shown that governmental expenses have been reduced for healthcare , disability and environmental mercury remediation.
When Dr. Thompson was asked to explain the meaning of “phase down”, his said it would be a slow process, not knowing the length of time it would take. He also explained that there are difficulties in getting all of the countries to agree and facilitate the “phase down”. In noted that these lengthy deliberations are common when negotiating Treaties of this sort.
I expressed my concern about the timeline because of the thousands of people who will continually be harmed, noting the scientific evidence of harm. I reiterated Charlie Brown’s (of Consumers for Dental Choice and the World Alliance for Mercury Free Dentistry) input about safe alternatives, specifically the ART technique, as well as the issue of insurance not covering white alternative fillings, which Charlie also addressed. I shared my own experience when my dentist offered me a “white filling” or “silver filling”, and when I asked what the difference was, he said, “Insurance covers the silver one”, no mention of “mercury”.
Regarding environmental precautions, Dr. Thompson emphasized the need for amalgam separators in all dental offices and the need to follow safe practices of disposal of amalgam in the dental office.
Dr. Thompson further explained that it was necessary to educate the public and do research. I questioned the necessity for research when the scientific documentation has already proven that mercury fillings are a hazard to health and the environment. He responded by saying that the research would ostensibly be about how to facilitate the phase down for the entire world, and that they had no control of that element of the phase down. I felt that his answer was sincere!
The reason given for not including vaccines in Annex C was based on the need to prevent childhood illnesses, especially in developing countries. Further, DOS stated that there was insufficient evidence of harm from vaccines. They relied on studies by CDC and other academic institutions. In addition, they said that Thimerosal in vaccines was not causing environmental pollution.
Pro-vaccine attendees said that vaccines save the lives of millions of children in developing countries, and without them, it would be a disastrous situation. As such, they hoped to substantially increase the volume of vaccines to these countries. Their mantra was that there is no scientific proof that autism or any childhood diseases resulted from mercury containing vaccines.
Following the meeting we were interviewed for coverage of the State Department meeting by Fox news 17 in Nashville, TN.:
U. S. Government Takes Controversial Stand on Silver Amalgam Dental Fillings
http://www.fox17.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wztv_vid_9687.shtml?wap=0&
