CONTACT: Stephen Rivers, 310.395.2993,
stephen@...<br><br>Los Angeles, California, 06/12/01 -- The American
Dental Association and its California affiliate were
sued today in California Superior Court for their
unlawful practice of deceiving patients about the presence
of mercury in the most widely used type of dental
fillings. The case charges the ADA and its largest state
affiliate with deceiving consumers into thinking amalgam
fillings are made of silver, when in fact the major
component (about 50%) is mercury (see attached ADA
brochure, "Answers to your questions about Silver
Fillings"). Only about 25% of a mercury amalgam filling is
composed of silver.<br><br>The lawsuits were filed this
morning by public interest attorneys Shawn Khorrami of
Los Angeles and Charles G. Brown of Washington, D.C.
on behalf of organizations and individuals active in
the effort to end the use of mercury in dental
amalgam fillings (see list below).<br><br>In addition to
filing the lawsuits, the attorneys served 60 days notice
(as required by law), that they intend to sue the ADA
under the provisions of Proposition 65, the anti-toxics
measure passed by California voters in 1986. Under Prop.
65, the State of California has identified mercury as
a chemical known to be a reproductive and/or
developmental toxin.<br><br>"It is long past time for the ADA
and the CDA to "open wide" and start using the "M"
word," said Brown, the former West Virginia state
Attorney General who is the lead attorney for the national
legal battle against mercury in dental fillings.
"Mercury is universally recognized as an extremely
dangerous toxin. One filling contains 750 milligrams of
mercury, enough to contaminate a small lake. The ADA is
out of the medical mainstream in claiming that
mercury is safe for use in human beings. The rest of the
medical world is eliminating the use of mercury in all
other circumstances [see attached backgrounder]. People
have the right to know the truth from the dental
establishment about the dangers of mercury."<br><br>"The ADA
and CDA are out of step not only with the rest of the
medical community, but with California law," said
Khorrami. "The State of California identifies mercury as a
toxic substance, and under Prop. 65, therefore,
dentists are required to warn their patients about it. Our
complaint is not with individual dentists, many of whom
share our concern about the use of mercury, but with
the ADA, which has a vested economic interest in the
continued use of mercury and which has exercised undue and
unfair pressure on dentists not to warn their patients
of the dangers of
mercury."<br><br><br><br><br><a href=http://www.toxicteeth.net/pressrelease.html
target=new>http://www.toxicteeth.net/pressrelease.html</a>