CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY VOTES TO
DISBAND DENTAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA
by Paul Connett

September 16, 2001.

One of the shocks that citizens discover when they get involved in the fluoridation debate is how poor and unprofessional the American Dental Association (ADA) is when it comes to dealing with the toxic substances that are used in dentistry. For example, the ADA, which has promoted fluoridation for over 50 years using the mantra "safe and effective, safe and effective", has used the very same mantra for its promotion of mercury amalgam dental fillings, for over 150 years! The ADA and State Dental Boards (which are dominated by ADA members) have kept this mantra going long after animal and human studies have indicated that there were serious health risks involved in both these practices. As Mark Twain once said, " History may not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme".

However, this track record of poor professionalism is catching up with the Dental Board of California (DBC) on the issue of mercury amalgams. For many years the DBC has failed to provide consumers with information concerning the health risks of mercury exposure. As a result, many Californians receiving "silver" fillings from their dentist have had little idea that approximately half of a silver filling is comprised of mercury - a highly toxic element that has been linked to severe neurological damage.

However, the DBC's reluctance to inform consumers on mercury risks has backfired on them. On September 13, 2001, the California Assembly voted 74-0 (!) to disband the entire Dental Board and transfer its duties, on an interim basis, to California's Department of Consumer Affairs.

This bill that passed the Assembly is now going to the Senate. According to Charlie Brown, an attorney for Consumers for Dental Choice, Senate Bill 134 (introduced by Senator Liz Figueroa) would:

1. Create an entirely new Dental Board, with all new Board members and a new executive director.

2. Require that the dental materials Fact Sheet be given to all patients before they get a filling.

3. The Dental Board will no longer have carte blanche to control the executive director position. The new executive director must be approved by the Director of Consumers Affairs.

Earlier in the summer, the California Senate had voted 27 to 10 in favor of a similar bill (SB 26). SB-26 had stated that the "Dental Board of California has failed to administer and implement the provisions of the Dental Practice Act in an effective, efficient and timely manner, and therefore the Legislature finds that it is necessary for DCA (Department of Consumer Affairs) to administer the provisions of the Dental Practice Act on an interim basis until such time as a new dental board can be reconstituted."

Further S.B. 26, instructs the Board to make "protection of the public" as its "highest priority," that it must be "paramount" to any other interest.

According to Charlie Brown, a Sacramento insider called such language a "stunning rebuke to the Dental Board." After all, if you have to tell a state agency to regulate in the public interest, then it's clear they aren't doing so.

Further historical background on the events leading to these California Bills can be found in the newstracker at our web page http://www.fluoridealert.org (make sure you get the "org" correct, because the ADA has commandeered the "com" site and tells enquirers what a great thing fluoridation is and steers them to the ADA site. Perhaps its time to dismantle the ADA!)

The irony in all this is the same state of California has a mandatory fluoridation bill in place. How is it possible for these State representatives to be so insistent on patients' right to "informed consent" on mercury exposure but ignore their citizens' rights to "informed consent" on fluoride exposure?

Shared by: Citizens For Safe Water in Habitats in Modesto, grassroots Volunteers for Modesto-California /Stanislaus County /USA

P.O. Box 578093 Modesto, CA 95357-8093 http://www.esavenow.org/
Tel. (209) 765-3554