REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the reviews required under Article 19 (1) of Regulation 2017/852 on the use of mercury in dental amalgam and products
Date: 2020-08-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: dental medicine, environmental protection, international convention, market approval, mercury, metal pollution, prevention of pollution, public health, toxic substance, trade restriction

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 17.8.2020  COM(2020) 378 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the reviews required under Article 19 (1) of Regulation 2017/852 on the use of mercury in dental amalgam and products       
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
AND THE COUNCIL on the reviews required under Article 19 (1) of Regulation 
2017/852 on the use of mercury in dental amalgam and products 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Mercury  is  a  toxic element  and  a major risk to the environment and human health.  Human 
exposure  to  mercury  occurs  mainly  through  intake  of  seafood.  It  is  a  potent  neurotoxin 
inducing  permanent  brain  and  kidney  damage  in  adults  and  affecting  foetal  and  early 
childhood  development.  It  is  bio-accumulative  and,  via  the  food-webs  and  transboundary 
transport of air pollution, travels  around the  globe. Mercury in  the air deposits  on land and 
water bodies. 

The  international  community  has  therefore  recognised  mercury  as  a  substance  of  global 
concern. 

Over  the  past  fifteen  years,  the  EU  has  developed  a  far-reaching  policy1  and  legislative 
framework  to  control,  eliminate  and,  where  this  is  not  feasible,  reduce  use  and  exposure, 
thereby  reducing  the  risks  posed  by  mercury.  One  important  EU  instrument  is  Regulation 
(EU)  2017/852  on  mercury  (the  Regulation)2,  which  addresses  the  whole  life-cycle  of 
mercury from primary mining to its final disposal as waste.      

This  reports  concerns  two  assessments  undertaken  by  the  Commission  in  accordance  with 
Article 19(1) of the Regulation, which requires the Commission to assess and report, by 30 
June 2020, to the European Parliament and to the Council on: 

a)  ‘the  need  for  the  Union  to  regulate  emissions  of  mercury  and  mercury  compounds 

from crematoria’; 

b)  ‘the  feasibility  of  a  phase  out  of  the  use  of  dental  amalgam  in  the  long  term,    and 
preferably by 2030, taking into account the national plans referred to in Article 10(3) 
and  whilst  fully  respecting  Member  States'  competence  for  the  organisation  and 
delivery of health services and medical care;’ 

c)  ‘the environmental benefits and the feasibility of a further alignment of Annex II with 
relevant  Union  legislation  regulating  the  placing  on  the  market  of  mercury-added 
products.’ 

Dental  amalgam  is  the  largest  mercury  use  remaining  in  the  EU.  The  Regulation  already 
prohibits its use, as from 1 July 2018, for dental treatment of deciduous teeth and for dental 
treatment of vulnerable members of the population, i.e. children under 15 years and pregnant 
or  breastfeeding  women.  In  accordance  with  Article  19(1)(b)  of  the  Regulation,  this  report 
informs on the feasibility of phasing out the use of dental amalgam in the EU for all members 
of  the  population.  In  doing  so,  the  Commission  has  concomitantly  covered  emissions  of 
mercury and mercury compounds from crematoria. 

1 COM/2005/20 and COM/2010/723. 
2 Regulation (EU) 2017/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on mercury, and 
repealing Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 (OJ L 137, 24.05.2017, p. 1). 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
EU  internal  market  law  prohibits  the  placing  on  the  EU  market  (including  the  import)3  of 
many mercury-added products.  For  a selection of these, but  not  for all, the Regulation  also 
prohibits  manufacturing  and  export.  This  differentiated  legal  treatment  of  various  mercury-
added  products  results  from  the  international  policy  context,  in  which  the  Regulation  has 
been adopted, i.e. the Minamata Convention on Mercury (the Convention)4. This Convention, 
which  has  been  ratified  by  the  EU5  and  the  vast  majority  of  Member  States,  prohibits  the 
manufacture, export and import of a range of mercury-added products.  Hence, as  a  general 
principle, where mercury-added products are regulated under the Convention, the prohibition 
under EU law to place them on the EU internal market is widened to include manufacture and 
export, in order to comply with requirements of international law. In accordance with Article 
19(1)(c),  this  report  informs  on  the  feasibility  and  possible  environmental  benefits  of 
applying  the  manufacturing  and  export  prohibition  under  the  Regulation  to  all  products 
whose  placing  on  the  market  is  prohibited  under  other  instruments  of  EU  law,  even  if  the 
Convention does not prohibit them.  

The  reviews  contribute  to  the  Zero  Pollution  ambition  for  a  toxic-free  environment 
announced in the European Green Deal.6 

2.  REVIEWS  

2.1.  Dental amalgam and mercury emissions associated to its use  

Review process and consultation 

Dental amalgam has been used as a restorative material for centuries, in order to fill cavities 
caused by tooth decay and to repair tooth surfaces. It is an alloy of mercury and other metals 
(e.g. silver, tin, copper). 

The Commission contracted a consultant to perform a study on the use of dental amalgam in 
the EU. The final report of the study7 provides the basis for the assessment of the technical 
and economic feasibility of a phase out of dental amalgam and documents its environmental 
implications. 

The study collected information on the use of dental amalgam and mercury-free alternatives, 
implications  for  the  organisation  of  health  services  in  Member  States  and  dental  amalgam 
phase  down  plans  established  by  Member  States  under  Article  10(3)  of  the  Regulation. 
Extensive data collection included the review of scientific articles and reports, EU-wide data 
collection  through  an  online  survey  and  interviews.  A  workshop  gathering  experts  from 
Member States and stakeholders (dentistry organisations, NGOs) organised in January 2020 

3 For the purpose of this report and in accordance with the provisions of the relevant EU instruments: ‘placing 
on the market’ means supplying or making available, whether in return for payment or free of charge, to a third 
party. Import shall be deemed to be placing on the market. 
4 Text of the Minamata Convention. 
5 Council Decision (EU) 2017/939 of 11 May 2017 on the conclusion on behalf of the European Union of the 
Minamata Convention on Mercury (OJ L 142, 02.06.2017, p. 4). 
6 Communication from the Commission of 11.12.219, The European Green Deal, COM(2019) 640 final.  
7 Link to Study on assessment of the feasibility of phasing out dental amalgam. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
validated the preliminary findings of the study, whilst providing additional input to improve 
the modelling and conclusions. 

Trends of the use of dental amalgam 

Dental  amalgam  is  the  largest  remaining  use  of  mercury  in  the  EU.  The  estimated  annual 
demand for dental amalgam (EU28) amounted to 27-58 t of mercury in 2018. This represents 
a significant decrease, by approximately 43%, compared to the previous estimate 55-95 t of 
mercury  a  year  in  20108.  It  is  estimated  that  in  2018,  approximately  372  million  dental 
restorations were carried out in EU28. Of these, only between 10% and 19% would have used 
dental amalgam. This share however varies significantly among Member States, as shown in 
Figure 19. 

indirect 

Increasing consumer awareness 
and 
the  environmental 
of 
associated 
health 
effects  of  dental  amalgam,  as 
desirable 
well 
alternative 
of 
aesthetics 
materials,  appear  to  be  main 
drivers  for  the  decreasing  use 
of dental amalgam. 

as  more 

In  the  absence  of  additional 
policy  measures  at  EU  and 
Member  State  levels,  dental 
amalgam  use  is  expected  to 
decrease  by 
approximately 
70%  between  2018  and  2030. 
the  resulting  use 
However, 
would  still  be  substantial,  at 
approximately 
of 
mercury in 2030. 

8-17 

t 

Economic feasibility  

The progressive substitution of 
dental  amalgam  with  mercury-
free  materials  (such  as  e.g. 
composite resins, ceramics, and 
is 
glass 
already 
taking  place.  The 
overwhelming  majority  of  EU 
manufacturers  (95%)  produce 

ionomer  cements) 

Figure 1: Number of restorations per filling material per Member State with an 
average use of dental amalgam (million, 2018) 

8 Bio Intelligence Service (2012), Study on the potential for reducing mercury pollution from dental amalgam 
and batteries. 
9 See footnote n˚7 for information on inter alia the calculation of number of restorations per filling material per 
Member State, prices of mercury-free alternative materials etc. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
mercury-free  materials,  which  represent  a  major  share  of  the  market.  A  regulatory 
requirement  to  phase  out  dental  amalgam  would  accelerate  the  reducing  trend  and  require 
manufacturers to increase production of alternative materials.  

The  difference  between  the  prices  of  dental  restorations  per  type  of  material  is  relatively 
small  due  to  improvements  in  mercury-free  restoration  techniques.    Furthermore,  the  price 
difference between dental amalgam and mercury-free materials has decreased. This limits the 
socio-economic impact of an accelerated shift to mercury-free fillings on the costs of dental 
care,  and  hence  the  distributed  economic  impact  on  dentists,  patients  and  healthcare 
reimbursement schemes. 

In  most  Member  States,  the  difference  in  the  coverage  of  national  health  insurance 
reimbursement schemes for different materials is limited. 

In  conclusion,  an  accelerated  shift  to  mercury-free  fillings  would  not  imply  significant 
negative  impacts  on  patients,  dentists  or  dental  filling  manufacturers.  It  might  however 
require adjustments of national reimbursement systems in Member States where the variation 
per material used is high. 

Technical feasibility 

Given the high use of mercury-free materials across the EU, it can be assumed that the vast 
majority of dental facilities in the EU already have the equipment required for mercury-free 
restorations and that most, if not all dentists, master the necessary techniques. 

Evidence  has  shown  that  mercury-free  materials  exhibit  satisfactory  mechanical  properties, 
with  a  lower  cavity  preparation  requirement  for  composites10  as  well  as  better  aesthetics11. 
Four main factors influence the longevity of a filling: the material, the method of restoration, 
the dentist’s skills and the patient’s dental hygiene. Mercury free materials are nowadays of 
good  quality,  effective  restoration  methods  are  widely  available  and  dental  schools  are 
increasingly teaching the necessary skills. Dental hygiene should continue improving thanks 
to public health communication. Hence, the longevity of restorations should further improve. 

Dentist  representative  organisations  have  however  expressed  concerns  regarding  a  lack  of 
available  information  on  mercury-free  materials,  as  well  as  the  safety  profile  and 
biocompatibility of certain materials, some of which contain Bisphenol A (BPA)  and nano-
sized  particles.  Available  scientific  reviews  concluded  that  release  of  BPA  from  certain 
dental  materials  was  associated  with  only  negligible  health  risks12  and  exposure  to  BPA  is 
within the Tolerable Daily Intake13. However, these conclusions are based on the 2015 BPA 
risk assessment by the European Food Safety Authority, which is currently under review. 

10  Mulligan,  S.,  et  al.  "The  environmental  impact  of  dental  amalgam  and  resin-based  composite  materials." 
British Dental Journal 224.7 (2018): 542. 
11 Milosevic, Milos. "Polymerization mechanics of dental composites–advantages and disadvantages." Procedia 
Engineering 149 (2016): 313-320. 
12  SCENIHR,  2015.  Scientific  opinion  on  the  Safety  of  Dental  Amalgam  and  Alternative  Dental  Restoration 
Materials for Patients and Users. 
13 Bisfenol a i dentala material socialstyrelsen, 2015. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Environmental aspects 

Dental amalgam causes significant emissions of mercury to air, water and soil. 

Emissions  to  air  were  estimated14  to  be  19  t  over  the  dental  amalgam  life  cycle  (2012, 
EU2715). Emissions to water16 by dental clinics were estimated to be 3 t (2010, EU27), which 
will  reduce  as  the  Regulation  mandates  dental  practices  to  be  equipped  with  high  level 
retention dental amalgam separators. 

The presence of mercury in wastewaters is problematic for the residues (sludge) from urban 
wastewater  treatment  plants.  Depending  on  the  type  of  wastewater  treatment,  mercury  may 
end  up  in  sludge  from  wastewater  plants.  Mercury  emissions  from  dental  amalgam  to  soil, 
estimated  at  8  t  (2010,  EU27),  are  primarily  due  to  the  spreading  on  land  of  such  sludge.  
Directive 86/278/EEC on the use of sewage sludge in agriculture17 sets limit values for heavy 
metal concentrations, including for mercury.  

A  phase  out  of  dental  amalgam  would  eventually  eliminate  these  emissions  and  thus  their 
contribution  to  the  amounts  of  mercury  in  the  environment,  which  would  result  in 
incremental environmental and health benefits.  This would also contribute to the EU Circular 
Economy Action Plan18 that calls for better wastewater treatment and revision of the Sewage 
Sludge  Directives,  in  order  to  apply  circular  economy  practices  to  wastewater  and  sludge 
management.  

Emissions of mercury and mercury compounds from crematoria 

Emissions  of  mercury  and  mercury  compounds  from  crematoria  are  a  lasting  source  of 
emissions  to  air  stemming  from  the  use  of  dental  amalgam.  They  were  estimated  at 
approximately 1.6 t in 2018. It is expected that these emissions will remain at a similar level 
until about 2025 and then decrease. However, the evidence base is tenuous and further work 
is needed to improve these estimations, also to factor in the dramatic impacts, in terms of lost 
lives, due to the COVID-19 crisis. 

There  is  currently  no  EU  requirement  to  install  mercury  abatement  technologies  in 
crematoria.  Only the Oslo-Paris Convention19, to which the EU and 11 of its Member States 
are  Parties,  refers  to  best  available  techniques  to  prevent  and  control  emissions  of  mercury 
from crematoria under its non-legally binding Recommendation 2003/4.  

14 BIO Intelligence Service (2012), Study on the potential for reducing mercury pollution from dental amalgam 
and batteries. 
15 Does not include Croatia that joined the EU in 2013. 
16  Mercury  passes  from  the  dental  clinics  through  waste  water  treatment  plants.  Treatment  technologies 
employed  reach  different  removal  efficiencies,  and  mercury,  as  other  heavy  metals  tend  not  degrade  but  to 
adsorb in sludge. (Pistocchi et al. 2019; Hargraeves et al. 2016). 
17 Council Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the 
soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture (OJ L 181, 04.07.1986, p. 6). 
18  Communication  from  the  Commission:  A  new  Circular  Economy  Action  Plan  -  For  a  cleaner  and  more 
competitive Europe, COM(2020) 98 final of 11.03.2020. 
19 Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, OSPAR. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Way forward 

Progressive substitution of dental amalgam with mercury-free materials is occurring without 
policy  intervention  as  patients,  in  general,  and  increasingly  dentists,  prefer  mercury-free 
fillings. Nevertheless, without legislative action, significant  amounts of dental amalgam  are 
still  expected  to  be  used  in  the  coming  years.  This  would  prolong  the  associated 
environmental and health issues associated with the current use of dental amalgam, including 
significant emissions of mercury to air. 

Both  phase  down  and  phase  out  of  dental  amalgam  require  addressing  a  number  of  issues, 
including improving the understanding of specific medical conditions where dental amalgam 
should continue to be allowed, increasing the information on available mercury-free materials 
and gathering further data on emissions of mercury, associated to the use of dental amalgam. 

2.2 Mercury-added products  

EU and international law on placing on the market and trading of mercury-added products 

The  EU  has  enacted  one  of  the  most  comprehensive  bodies  of  legislation  worldwide 
regulating  the  content  in  mercury  in  products  placed  on  the  market,  including  imported 
products.20 The objective has been two-fold, i.e. to protect human health and the environment 
and to ensure the good functioning of the internal market.  

This  includes  Directive  2011/65/EU  that  limits  mercury  content  in  electric  and  electronic 
equipment,21  Directive  2006/66/EC  that  regulates  the  mercury  content  in  batteries22  and 
Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 that prohibits the placing on the EU internal market of certain 
mercury-added non-electronic measuring devices irrespectively of the mercury content23. The 
full  list  of  legislation  concerned  is  available  in  the  impact  assessment  report24,  which  the 
European  Commission  finalized  in  2016,  in  preparation  of  its  legislative  proposal  for  the 
Regulation. 

At  international  level,  the  Convention  prohibits  the  manufacture,  import  and  export  of  the 
mercury-added products listed in its Annex A (Part I).   

Hence,  whereas  EU  internal  market  law  generally  only  prohibits  the  placing  on  the  EU 
market  of  mercury-added  products,  the  Convention  prohibits  their  manufacture,  import  and 
export. Therefore, for the EU to  comply  with  the Convention, the Regulation complements 

20 See footnote n˚3. 
21 Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on the restriction of the 
use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (OJ L 174, 01.07.2011, p. 88). 
22 Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and 
accumulators  and  waste  batteries  and  accumulators  and  repealing  Directive  91/157/EEC  (OJ  L  266  of 
26.09.2006, p.1). 
23  Regulation  (EC)  No  1907/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  18  December  2006 
concerning the  Registration, Evaluation,  Authorisation and Restriction of  Chemicals (REACH), establishing a 
European  Chemicals  Agency,  amending  Directive  1999/45/EC  and  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No 
793/93  and  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  1488/94  as  well  as  Council  Directive  76/769/EEC  and 
Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ L 396 of 30.12.2006, p. 1). 
24 SWD(2016) 17, see Annex VI.   

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
EUROPEAN   

COMMISSION   

Brussels,  XXX     

[…] (2020)  XXX   draft   

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL 

on the reviews required under Article 19 (1) of Regulation 2017/852 on the use of 

- 

mercury in dental amalgam and products 

EU internal market legislation by prohibiting also the manufacture and export of the products 
listed in the Convention. 

This  different  treatment  of  mercury-added  products  under  EU  and  international  law  is  the 
reason why the EU legislator required the Commission to undertake the present review. 

Objective of the review 

This review seeks to identify the most environmentally and economically effective manner of 
reducing and eliminating the presence on the international market of mercury-added products.  
Two main approaches are available: 

(a)  Unilaterally  prohibiting  the  manufacturing  and  export  from  the  EU  of  all  mercury-
added products that are prohibited from being placed on the EU market. This would 
be achieved by adding those products to Annex II to the Regulation;  

(b) Agreeing  at  global  level  on  the  prohibition  of  further  products.  This  would  be 
achieved in two steps by (i) extending the list of mercury-added products contained in 
Annex A to the Convention, and (ii) implementing such extension in Annex II to the 
Regulation.   

The potential environmental benefits of these approaches are considered below.    

Unilateral EU manufacturing and export prohibition 

The  potential  impacts  of  a  wider  unilateral  EU  manufacturing  and  export  prohibition  was 
discussed during the co-decision procedure on the Regulation. The Commission provided an 
initial  assessment  in  the  above-mentioned  impact  assessment  report  accompanying  its 
proposal.  This  was  complemented  during  the  co-decision  procedure  with  an  information 
paper  summarising  a  further  assessment  undertaken  with  the  support  of  a  consultant25  for 
certain batteries, non-electronic measuring devices and lamps. The Commission provided this 
information  paper  to  the  European  Parliament  and  to  the  Council  and  made  it  publicly 
available. The conclusions were as follows: 

(a)  In the case of batteries and non-electronic measuring devices not allowed on the EU 
internal market, there is limited, if any, production in the EU. Therefore, applying the 
proposed manufacture and export prohibition to those products would not have direct 
environmental benefits nor economic impacts; 

(b)  The  situation  is  different  for  certain  mercury  lamps  manufactured  in  and  exported 
from  the  EU,  in  particular  halophosphate  lamps.  In  the  absence  of  EU  exports,  the 
demand in third countries would remain unchanged due to price differences between 
mercury lamps and mercury-free alternatives. Furthermore, manufacturers located in 
third countries would increase their supply to meet that demand. Hence, applying the 
proposed export prohibition to those mercury lamps (1) may result in adverse impacts 
on  the  environment  due  to  increased  global  emissions  of  mercury  by  third  country 
manufacturers  who  would  not  be  subject  to  as  stringent  pollution  controls  as  in  the 

25 COWI & ICF (2017) 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
EU, and (2) would have affected about 8% of EU's lamps industry with  impacts  on 
jobs and revenue.  

Based  on  this  assessment,  the  legislator  included  in  the  Regulation  an  export  prohibition 
applicable to the concerned batteries, non-electronic measuring devices and several types of 
lamps,  with  the  exclusion  of  halophosphate  lamps.  The  Commission  contracted  a  study  on 
mercury-added products and their alternatives26. 

A  major  challenge  the  contractor  faced  was  the  scarcity  of  information  on  the  markets  of 
mercury-added products in third countries. This limits this review to a qualitative assessment 
of  environment  benefits,  based  on  the  same  considerations  as  the  above-mentioned 
Commission information paper. As long as there is international demand, it is likely that third 
country manufacturers would increase production to meet any demand not anymore satisfied 
by EU exports. Hence, the environmental impacts of a unilateral EU export ban are uncertain. 
It could be positive if it would result in reduced use of mercury worldwide. However, impact 
could be negative if emissions from possibly less-controlled manufacturing plants located in 
third countries would increase.  

Global prohibition under the Convention and way forward 

At  the  time  of  adoption  of  the  Regulation,  the  Commission  stated  that  it  ‘is  committed  to 
supporting  continued  cooperation,  in  accordance  with  the  Convention  and  subject  to 
applicable EU policies, rules and procedures, with a view to narrowing the gap between EU 
law and the provisions of the Convention.’ 

The  Commission  has  since  advanced  negotiations  on  the  review  of  the  list  of  products 
regulated by the Convention.  Article 4(8) of the Convention requires the Conference of the 
Parties (COP) to review its Annex A by August 2022. The COP launched this review at its 
third meeting27  and has  invited Parties to  submit information,  to  be analysed by  a  group of 
experts.  This  will  be  the  basis  for  Parties  to  propose  amendments  to  Annex  A  for 
consideration at the fourth meeting of the COP (November 2021). 

The  EU  is  playing  a  leading  role  in  this  review.  Based  on  the  aforementioned  study  on 
mercury-added products  and their alternatives,  the EU provided an  extensive submission  to 
the  Convention  Secretariat  to  feed  the  review  process28.  The  Commission  will  prepare  in 
early 2021 draft amendments to Annex A to the Convention, to be proposed by the EU. This 
will aim primarily at narrowing the gap between the EU acquis and the Convention. 
This  additional  information,  expected  to  become  available  as  part  of  the  work  of  an 
international group of experts, will not only allow a better assessment of the feasibility of a 
prohibition under international law, but also will improve the understanding of the impacts of 
a potential unilateral EU manufacture and export prohibition of those products. 

26 Link to final report 
27 Decision MC-3/1  
28 EU submission on Annexes A and B for COP4 (2020) 
8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
4.  CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS 

Mercury is still used and causes continued pollution affecting globally human health and the 
environment, in particular by contaminating the food chain. The EU is therefore successfully 
pursuing, since more than a decade, at EU and international levels, the discontinuation of its 
use and the reduction of emissions of mercury to the environment. 

The review undertaken makes clear that the phase out of the largest remaining use of mercury 
in  the  EU  -  dental  amalgam  -  is  technically  and  economically  feasible,  before  2030. 
Therefore, the Commission will present to the European Parliament and the Council in 2022 
a  legislative  proposal  to  phase  out  the  use  of  dental  amalgam.  The  preparatory  work  will 
include the assessment of the need for accompanying measures, such as reducing emissions 
of  mercury  associated  to  the  use  of  dental  amalgam  and  enhancing  the  availability  of 
information on mercury-free dental fillings. 

In addition to continued work to phase out the placing of mercury-added products on the EU 
internal market, the EU will actively participate in the international negotiations to extend the 
list of mercury-added products regulated under the Convention. The principal aim will be to 
add  to  its  Annex  A  mercury-added  products  whose  placing  on  the  EU  internal  market  is 
prohibited.  In  light  of  the  progress  made,  the  Commission  will  assess  the  need  for  further 
work at EU level to prohibit not only the placing on the market, but also the manufacture and 
export  of  certain  mercury-added  products  through  an  amendment  to  Annex  II  of  the 
Regulation. 

These  initiatives  will  contribute  to  the  European  Green  Deal  Zero  Pollution  ambition  for  a 
toxic-free environment. 

9