Finally someone is standing up to the FDA
20 Mar 2007
Showdown, Moms Against Mercury v. FDA:
US Ct of App. to hear oral argument Mar. 27
Dear friends -- The case of Moms Against Mercury, et al., v. FDA heads to a showdown next Tuesday morning, March 27. I will argue the case against the government before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
- Our case, filed April 27, 2006, by 9 petitioners (names below)* charges FDA with illegally allowing the sale of mercury fillings. For thirty years, FDA has defiantly refused to classify amalgam -- even though this step is required as the legal prerequisite to sale of any implants. Even the repudiation of its pseudo-science by two FDA Scientific Panels on September 7, 2006 has not deterred FDA, who is making false and deceptive claims to mask the vote of these Panels.
- Faced with standing before a federal court, FDA now departs from its role as chief cheerleader for mercury fillings. In its brief, FDA admits, five times, that it does not know if mercury amalgam is safe or unsafe!
This is a breakthrough not thought possible a year ago. To repeat, FDA now admits that the evidence is “changing,” thus the safety of mercury fillings is not “definitive” and is “the subject of intense disagreement.” Quotations from FDA’s brief, containing those admissions, are below.**
- The question we have put to the Court, then, is: Since FDA no longer knows, shouldn’t sales of this mercury device be stopped?
- FDA’s defense is procedural and technical -- claiming our petitioners don’t have standing, and claiming that the Court lacks jurisdiction.
Charlie Brown, 3/19/07
* The nine petitioners who sued FDA!: Four organizations: Moms Against Mercury (Amy Carson, Angela Medlin), Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice (Mark Mitchell, M.D.), Oregonians for Life (Mary Starrett), and California Citizens for Health Freedom (Frank Cuny); two state officials: California Dental Board Public Member Kevin J.Biggers, and Arizona State Senator Karen Johnson; three individuals: Dr. Andy Landerman, Linda Brocato, and Anita Vazquez Tibau.
** FDA’s admissions in its brief to the US Court of Appeals: “there is a lack of conclusive evidence regarding the health effects of mercury fillings”; “constantly changing scientific evidence” exists on mercury amalgam; “complex issues and intense disagreement [exist] about the scientific evidence regarding mercury and its potential health effects”; “the complexity of the issue and the lack of conclusive scientific evidence on the health effects of dental amalgams”; “the lack of … definitive scientific evidence.”
Charles G. Brown, National Counsel
Consumers for Dental Choice
1725 K St., N.W., Suite 511, WashingtonDC20006
Ph. 202.822-6307; fax 822-6309