TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS & WELLNESS

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES -- SEPTEMBER 8, 2004

Dental amalgam ("silver" mercury) fillings contain 50% mercury, which is
more toxic than lead, cadmium, or even arsenic. These dental fillings
contribute more mercury to the body burden in humans than all other
sources (*e.g.* dietary, air, water and vaccines) combined (1,2,3). In
fact the amount of mercury contained in one average filling exceeds the
U.S. EPA standard for human exposure for over 100 years.

Mercury vapor which escapes from these fillings is readily absorbed into
the body, accumulates within all body tissues, and has been shown to
cause pathophysiology. In the case of pregnant women with mercury
fillings, the mercury readily passes from her fillings into her lungs,
through her blood stream, through the placental barrier and into the
developing child, whose central nervous system and immune system are
especially vulnerable to this poison. The fetus developing in the
average American mother will be born into this world with more mercury
-- from its mother's dental fillings alone -- than it will receive from
all the vaccinations it receives during its first 5 years of childhood.
Scientists around the world have come to realize that even minute
amounts of mercury can cause permanent neurological harm to young
children and developing fetuses.

The EPA recently announced that 630,000 babies are born each year with
too much mercury in their bodies, and that one woman of childbearing age
in 12 has enough mercury in her system to put her at risk of giving
birth to a retarded child. In response the FDA has issued advisories to
pregnant women and women of childbearing age to reduce their dietary
intake of those fish, which are known to contain elevated levels of
mercury, such as tuna, swordfish and shark. But according to leading
toxicologists, including the World Health Organization, only 20% of
mercury body burden in adults is derived from diet. In contrast 80% is
derived from dental fillings.

As of today the FDA has yet to advise these same women whom they warned
against eating fish to avoid having mercury fillings placed into their
mouths. If 20% is a problem, then why isn't 80% a bigger problem?

In 1976 the President and Congress directed the FDA to evaluate all
medical devices intended for human use and to classify them according to
their **safety and effectiveness**. The FDA was also directed to "assure
the safety and effectiveness of medical devices intended for human use."
Dental amalgam has been the most widely used dental device for over 150
years. Yet, to date, the FDA has never accepted or classified mixed
dental amalgam. I ask why?

In 1987 upon the advice of the FDA Dental Device Panel, the FDA accepted
not dental amalgam but its pre-mixed and separate components, "Amalgam
Alloy" as Class II and "Dental Mercury" as Class I. (Class I is for
devices that present no risk of harm, and therefore are subject only to
"General Controls" for good manufacturing procedures.) That's right. The
FDA classifies mercury, the most neurotoxic element on the planet, to be
of equal risk to humans as toothbrushes and dental floss.

Neither "Amalgam Alloy" nor "Dental Mercury' can be placed into a tooth
until they have first been mixed together. Forgetting the safety issue
for a moment, why does the FDA classify them as devices when neither is
effective? They cannot become an "effective' device until mixed
together. One cannot put mercury into a cavity -- it will immediately
drip out. Neither can one place the powdered alloy into a cavity -- it
will immediately wash away.

In 1991 the FDA director of Dental Devices declared that the reason the
FDA cannot regulate mixed dental amalgam is because it is prepared by
the dental clinician. Yet at the same time they do classify dental
resins (composite fillings) and dental cements, which must also be
prepared by the dental clinician.

In 1998 the FDA ruled that mercury is not Generally Recognized as Safe
(GRAS). However it left "Dental Mercury" as a safe and effective Class I
Dental Device. Since all other medical uses of mercury have been banned,
why should we assume that the only safe place to implant it is the human
mouth?

Scrap amalgam, that unused portion of the filling material remaining
after the filling is placed into a patient's tooth, must be handled as a
toxic waste disposal hazard (4). It cannot be thrown in the trash,
buried in the ground or incinerated. It must be stored in an airtight
vessel until properly disposed of. How can we justify storing this same
mixture inches from a child's brainstem and declare it harmless?

The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology applauds the
efforts of this subcommittee in urging the Dental Profession to join the
rest of the Medical Profession and abandon the use of mercury.

Respectfully submitted,

Richard D. Fischer, DDS, FAGD

Past President, International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology

References:

1)  World Health Organization (WHO) Environmental Health Criteria 118
    document on inorganic mercury, p. 36.

2)  Aposhian *et. al.,* FASEB J. 6:2472-2476, 1992

3)  Clarkson & Friberg -- Biological Monitoring of Toxic Metals. Plenum
    Press, N.Y. 1988.

4)  Council on Dental Materials. Instruments and Equipment.
    Recommendations in dental mercury hygiene. 1984 JADA 109:617-9,
    October 1984.