Today the Natural Resources Committee will have another opportunity to revisit two held- over bills that are calling for a ban on mercury amalgam dental fillings, LD 1327 and LD 1338.

This issue was first brought to the Legislature in 1998. In 2001, the Legislature passed legislation to create an informational brochure on mercury amalgam that has become the model for the nation, although questions remain about how many dentists are using the brochures.

Along with being one of the first states to enforce a mercury amalgam separator law, to force Maine dentists to trap excess mercury scrap that is considered hazardous waste, Maine has been a national leader on issues concerning mercury in dentistry. But we still have one more challenge and that is to be the first state in the nation to ban mercury dental fillings.

It’s time to question the authority of agencies like the American Dental Association for testifying in Maine and before Congress that mercury and dental amalgam are not the same and that their properties are not interchangeable. This statement is false and a deceptive play on words. To quote an internationally acclaimed scientist and chairman of the chemistry department at the University of Kentucky, Boyd Haley, “The mercury vapor that is emitted from dental amalgams is indistinguishable from pure liquid mercury and is just as toxic to the human body.”

A 128-page report by the Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate concluded there “are strong grounds for banning amalgam for environmental reasons. … There are other dental filling materials available on the market which meet the needs encountered in normal dental care for children and adults. To restrict the supply of mercury to society, and thereby take care of the problem at the source, is an effective way to reduce the risks to human health and the environment instead of using pollution control measures and collecting and taking hazardous waste into safekeeping.”

LD 1327 and LD 1338, when passed, will ban mercury amalgam, one of the largest sources of mercury pollution in the environment.

Pamela J. Anderson

Houlton