33
“Stay Healthy, Stop Mercury” campaign
4. Conclusion and recommendations
Health effects from low doses of mercury, especially on the
developing nervous system of the foetus and in young chil-
dren, are causing concern among scientists and authorities.
Mercury should not be in our bodies, nor our children’s, even
at low levels.
The existing research on levels of exposure in some European
populations, while still insuffi cient, nevertheless gives us rea-
son to be concerned about our vulnerable groups. The re-
search also shows that consumption of fi sh is the most impor-
tant source of exposure. Although the risk from low doses of
mercury may be low at an individual level, this does not mean
we should be reluctant to take appropriate action. Devel-
opmental effects on children today will impact on the whole
population in the future.
All sources of mercury emissions need to be addressed system-
atically. In healthcare products, the use of mercury inevitably
leads to its release into the environment and contamination
of the food chain. The relative importance of the healthcare
sector’s contribution will only increase as other sources of mer-
cury are addressed and phased out, unless concerted action is
taken to substitute mercury with safer alternatives. The his-
toric and continuing use of mercury in dental amalgam will be
a growing source of mercury emissions through crematoria.
Regulatory measures adopted so far have begun to make a
difference to the amount of mercury emitted to the environ-
ment in Europe; however, globally emissions may be rising.
There is considerable scope for the reduction of the use and
emission of mercury globally, as well as further scope within
Europe to address remaining sources of mercury.
The proposals by the EU and the possibility of a global legal
instrument on mercury are both positive steps towards re-
ducing man-made sources of mercury into the environment.
However, the action taken must be swift and ultimately phase
out the use of mercury. If we keep using mercury in products
and processes, it will continue to be emitted and added to the
‘global pool’99 where it can re-circulate again and again in the
global environment. Even if all uses and emissions of mercury
were stopped immediately it is not known how long the con-
tamination of the food chain would continue100.
It is therefore essential to take action on two levels; fi rst, to
phase out the use of mercury globally by substituting it with
safer alternatives, and second, to ensure that people are better
informed about how to prevent the build up of mercury in their
bodies, in order to protect the health of future generations.
Specifi c recommendations for future
EU and global action to reduce mercury
use and pollution
Global and regional
Ultimately, the solution is to globally eliminate all uses of mer-
cury, collect and safely store the remaining mercury in a per-
manent fashion and clean up mercury pollution.
The global community should:
▲ Commit to a legally binding instrument that includes a glo-
bal ban on the use of mercury as soon as possible, via UNEP
as a mechanism.
“As a politician, a consumer and a mother I have long been very concerned about the dan-
gerous effects of hazardous chemicals on our children. Recent studies have once again
confi rmed the detrimental and irreversible effects toxic substances like mercury have during
phases of a child’s brain development. A brain is unique and cannot be replaced. It is highly re-
grettable that the new EU-chemicals legislation REACH does not adequately protect humans and
the environment from dangerous chemicals.
I hope that the EU will take the lead for a global ban on mercury, not only at the UNEP confer-
ence in February 2007. This ban is long overdue. This report from the “Stay Healthy, Stop Mercury” campaign
underlines these arguments.”
Hiltrud Breyer, Member of the European Parliament, Greens/EFA, Germany
