fda MUST CLASSIFY MERCURY FILINGS

We Win -- FDA Must Classify Mercury Fillings
>
>            We have won our ten-year battle to get the Food and Drug
> Administration to comply with the law and set a date to classify mercury
> amalgam.
>
>            On Monday, we settled our lawsuit, Moms Against Mercury et al.
> v. Von Eschenbach, Commissioner, et al.  FDA will finish classifying
> within one year of the close of the public comment period on its amalgam
> policy, that is, by July 28, 2009.
>
>            There's more good news.  During a several hour negotiation
> session, FDA agreed to change its website on amalgam -- dramatically.
> Gone, gone, gone are all of FDA's claims that no science exists that
> amalgam is unsafe, or that other countries have acted for environmental
> reasons only, or that the 2006 Scientific Panel vote affirmed amalgamÕs
> safety.  Instead -- see http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/consumer/amalgams.html -- 
> FDA has moved to a neutral course, while recognizing the serious health
> concerns posed by amalgam in particular for children and unborn children,
> for pregnant women, for those with mercury immuno-sensitivity or high
> mercury body burdens.  FDA now states, for example:
>
> Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the
> nervous systems of developing children and fetus.
>
> Pregnant women and persons who may have a health condition that makes them
> more sensitive to mercury exposure, including individuals with existing
> high levels of mercury bioburden, should not avoid seeking dental care,
> but should discuss options with their health practitioner.
>
> Perfect?  No.  A 180-degree reversal from FDA's 30-year policy of
> protecting mercury fillings?  Absolutely.
>
>            To change FDA policy, we tried petitions, Congressional
> hearings, state fact sheet laws, Scientific Advisory Committee hearings,
> and letters galore -- to no avail.  So in the great American tradition, we
> sued.  The case came to a head this spring.  On April 22, working with
> Johann Wehrle and Gwen Smith, I filed a motion for an injunction before
> Judge Ellen Huvelle.  Three sets of briefs later, the government and I
> presented our oral arguments on May 16.  In a crucial ruling, Judge
> Huvelle ruled that our 11 plaintiffs -- the diverse group listed below -- 
> have standing.  She said FDA should classify, and invited the two sides to
> mediate.  On May 30, before Magistrate Judge John Facciola, Bob Reeves
> (who flew in from Lexington KY) and I hammered out an agreement with FDA
> officials and lawyers.
>
>            The impact of the re-writing of its position on amalgam can
> hardly be understated.  FDA's website will no longer be cited by the
> American Dental Association in public hearings.  FDA shows awareness of
> the key issues involved.  As it prepares to classify amalgam, FDA has
> moved to a position of neutrality.  Indeed, having repeatedly raised the
> question of amalgam's risk to children, young women, and the
> immuno-sensitive persons in its website, I find it inconceivable that FDA
> will not in some way protect them in its upcoming rule.
>
> Charlie Brown
> 3 June 2008
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> There has been a lot of press coverage on this! You can check on Google,
> type in mercury, dental and find these articles. We urge you to leave your
> comments on as many as possible. Also, check with your local papers, and
> leave comments with them as well. We all need to keep this going, and make
> our voices be heard. We appreciate the time and effort you will put into
> this.
> Have a great weekend!
>