Heavy Metals:

Mercury:

Just like POPs, mercury is truly a poison without a passport. Like POPs, mercury does not respect national borders and no country, whether rich or poor can address this problem on its own. Mercury is not only a serious threat to human health and the environment, it is essentially an issue of social and environmental justice.

"How can we move towards a more equitable world when the sole protein source (fish) for hundreds of millions of people is so contaminated that it often cannot be consumed by pregnant women or children ? How can the global community not act when poor itinerate miners in a desperate bid to feed their families, poison themselves, their families and their environment?" - Dr Lloyd-Smith, IPEN CoChair

Mercury is a priority issue for IPEN Participating Organizations, noting methyl mercury is considered a POP. By mid-2009 IPEN officially established the IPEN Heavy Metals Working Group to advance IPEN's efforts to continue to develop policy papers, interventions and awareness raising material related to eliminating the threat of mercury and to push for a strong and robust Mercury Treaty as well as work on other toxic heavy metals such as lead.

IPEN Views on a Global Mercury Treaty - February 12, 2010

In 2009, governments of the world agreed to start negotiations on a global mercury treaty with the goal of finishing by 2013. After consultations and input from NGOs in all regions of the world, IPEN has adopted the following policy statement that explains why a global treaty on mercury is needed and that puts forward a civil society vision for the treaty.

 IPEN Views on a Global Mercury Treaty    in English as a .pdf 262KB.

 IPEN Views on a Global Mercury Treaty    in Spanish as a .pdf 156 KB.

Preparing for the first Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee for the Mercury Treaty:

Post-Bangkok, Thailand Debrief

Numerous IPEN representatives participated in the recently concluded Ad-Hoc Open Ended Working Group (AHOEWG) meeting on mercury in Bangkok, Thailand. This meeting helped to prepare all stakeholders for the upcoming first session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC1) to prepare a globally binding instrument on mercury, which will take place in June 2010 in Stockholm, Sweden.

Prior to the AHOEWG meeting on mercury in Bangkok, IPEN produced a vision document called the "IPEN Views on a Global Mercury Treaty" Links. This working document will be finalized shortly.

One key outcome from the AHOEWG was recommendations for rules of procedure, which will ensure NGO participation in the crafting and implementation of the forthcoming mercury treaty. Additionally, governments suggested that regional representatives be selected to contribute to the process.

Mercury is a toxic substance of global concern that causes significant harm to human health and ecosystems. When mercury is released to the environment, it travels with air currents and then falls back to earth, sometimes nearby the original source and sometimes very far away. Mercury can drain from soils to streams, rivers, lakes and oceans, and it can also be transported by ocean currents and migratory species. When mercury enters the aquatic environment, it is transformed by micro-organisms into a more toxic form, methylmercury. In this form, mercury enters the food chain and accumulates and bio-magnifies in aquatic organisms including fish and shellfish, and also in the birds, mammals and people who eat them.

"Fish is a staple food for many of the cultures of the Pacific Islands, as well as for coastal people more globally. In fact, eating fish is the only source of protein for many subsistence fishermen. Because mercury has and continues to contaminate fish around the world, our traditional food sources are being negatively impacted in ways that are beyond our control. We look forward to a global mercury treaty that will protect our cultural heritage and food supply." - Imogen Pua Ingram, Island Sustainability Alliance, Cook Islands

Mercury, especially when it is in the form of methylmercury, is highly toxic to humans. Human embryos, fetuses, infants, and children are particularly vulnerable because mercury interferes with neurological development. This exposure can diminish the child's cognitive and thinking abilities, memory, attention, language acquisition, fine motor skills and visual spatial skills.

"Recently, in the opening ceremony at a National Meeting on Mercury Substitution in Hospitals in Mexico, Dr Armando Ahued, from the Health Secretariat of Mexico City, confirmed their commitment to substitute mercury thermometers and sphygmomanometers in the Mexico City Public Health System. This system includes 29 hospitals and several public health centers, and is a great step forward for safer healthcare in Mexico. We hope it will be used as a model for mercury substitution for all products containing mercury around the world. " - Fernando Bejarano G., Center for Analyses and Action on Toxics and their Alternatives and coordinator of a Health Care Without Harm project in Mexico

Mercury is released to the environment from mercury-containing products, industrial processes, mining activities, combustion, wastes and other sources.

"Mercury in products has become a major threat, particularly as products reach the end of their life cycles and become waste. We look forward to a treaty to address this issue and potentially other heavy metal issues."- Ravi Agarwal, Toxics Link, India

IPEN's main focus in the run-up to the INC1 to prepare a globally binding instrument on mercury is:

To educate and engage the general public, including affected communities, workers and their families, about the toxic threats posed by mercury and the importance of the treaty;

Build the base of NGOs around the world and facilitate their active engagement in the negotiating process both internationally and nationally and

Collaborate with our sister organizations in the health, climate, waste and labour sectors, as well as our indigenous colleagues.

IPEN views the Mercury Treaty as an opportunity to highlight the menace of toxic heavy metals. For us, mercury is a priority issue. It is not only a serious threat to human health and the health of our planet, it is essentially an issue of social and environmental justice and intergenerational equity and we are here for the long haul.

Market analysis of some mercury-containing products and their mercury-free alternatives in selected regions

Executive Summary

October 2009

Executive Summary - pdf 56KB

The work has been funded by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) under the support code UM08 67 720.

The work has been conducted by the International POPs Elimination network (IPEN) and the Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) mbH.

The authors are responsible for the content of this report.

Objectives of the study

The goal of this project was to gather and analyze information related to the availability, suitability and cost of mercury-containing versus mercury-free mass products in developing countries (DCs) and countries with economies in transition (CiTs).

Methodology

In order to have a broad picture of the global situation, two countries were selected to represent each of four UN regions.

Tab. 1 Countries Involved in Surveys

Africa - Kenya, Senegal
Asia - China, India
Eastern Europe - Kyrgyzstan, Russia
Latin America - Brazil, Mexico

In each of these countries local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) carried out the survey in two or more selected major cities according to prepared questionnaires.

The study gives an overview about selected mercury-containing products and their mercuryfree alternatives in the above specified countries. The following widely-used consumer products were considered under this approach:

thermometers and blood pressure meters used in hospitals and medical practices,

thermometers for use in the home,

skin-lightening products,

common batteries and

dental materials used for restoring teeth.

Information was gathered via interviews with local retailers, health care workers, professionals and consumers. Because of the rather limited number of interview partners per country (mostly between 10 and 25) the survey does not claim to give a representative picture of the individual countries. It should be understood as a first impression that allow for the identification of general challenges related to mercury-containing products.

Results were tallied and in addition, samples of batteries and skin-lightening products were collected and sent to GRS for further analysis.

Awareness

From the surveys, respondents offered a wide range of reactions regarding awareness about, and the availability of, products that traditionally - or continue to - contain mercury. In addition, the survey identified a wide variability among the countries in their efforts to address the production, sale, and use of those products.

Dental and health care professionals, some of the most highly-educated individuals in any country, are well-respected by the public as a source of information on public health issues. In every country surveyed, they were extremely knowledgeable about mercury’s toxicity and potential impacts on health. The survey found virtually total awareness and understanding among dental and medical professionals (90 % - 100 %) on mercury’s toxicity with very little belief that mercury’s threat was overstated. The only exception was one Asian country where all interviewed dentists know that mercury is toxic, but only slightly more than 50 % were aware of the risks posed by it to human health an the environment. In most instances, the ability of dentists and doctors to speak about mercury issues was compromised by their use of mercury in their everyday practices.

Consumer knowledge about mercury often paralleled the strength of policies present for addressing its use. In countries where mercury content restrictions were placed on products and/or the government either certified mercury-free or required mercury-free, citizens and merchants showed often greater awareness about mercury’s threat and the presence or absence of mercury in consumer products when making their choices for purchase.

Another segment of the population that regularly interacts with consumers, retail merchants, were only aware of mercury’s presence or threat where the presence of either a regulation, government instituted seal or an implied mercury-free production credential was given to manufacturers of a of well-renowned product label. In these communities, the merchants were quick to claim mercury-free benefit and tout the benefits of a safe and healthy product.

Thermometers

While mercury-containing thermometers were still used more often, mercury-free thermometers were in wide use in hospitals and doctor offices in most countries surveyed. Especially in Asian countries mercury-free thermometers were in use in only about 25 - 30 % of all visited hospitals and doctors practices, in one country there was found no substitution at all. Ease of use, durability and safety issues were the greatest attributes recognized for mercury-free thermometers. On the other hand, they were criticized for their high cost and lack of consistent and/or accurate readings. Health care professionals cited budget restrictions as the barrier to wider procurement and adoption for use in major hospitals. For lower-end mercury-free clinical thermometers health care professionals stated prices of mostly 3 - 5 times the price of cheap mercury-containing thermometers, but in some countries the prices given were 9 to 20 times higher for the mercury-free alternative. Purchases of low-cost items may have initiated backlash against their adoption. Availability also hampered wider adoption in some countries.

Also noted in a significant number of the responses was the vast number of mercurycontaining thermometers that were broken in the course of daily routines in hospitals. One survey indicated over 4700 thermometers were broken in one year at a 250 bed hospital. Clean-up and management of broken mercury fever thermometers were also cited as a major issue in another country where these were still used.

Mercury-free thermometers for the home were readily available in 45 to 100 % of the surveyed retail outlets, depending on the country. But cost was a major barrier to adoption here as well. Depending on the country, for the cheapest mercury-free thermometer, costs ranged from about twice to 5 times the price of a mercury-containing thermometer, for the more expensive offerings, price ranged up to 70 times the cost of the most expensive mercury-containing fever thermometers. Merchants were indicated to stock these items due to their high price knowing some would be purchased and give them greater profit. Even in areas where hospitals had problems getting mercury-free thermometers, merchants were able to stock these items on their shelves.

Sphygmomanometers

Mercury-free blood pressure meters were generally available in all countries (100 %), but in one country it was stated that the alternatives are only stocked at few places. The major concerns raised about them related to accuracy. Least expensive offerings were similar in price or slightly more. In two countries, where mercury-containing meters had been banned for many years, no physicians cited cost or accuracy issues as a problem.

Batteries

Mercury-free batteries (at least cylindrical batteries) were also available in all countries (100 %). Most were either imported from countries restricting mercury use or from manufacturers in developed countries. No sign of increased price for mercury-free batteries was present in any country, but often only mercury-free (cylindrical or button) batteries or batteries with mercury could be found in one country besides unlabeled batteries. In some countries selection and/or labelling was limited, but not for most. Regarding consumer awareness through product statements, only about 40 % of all batteries made mention on the batteries or packaging that they were mercury-free, an additional 15 % indicated they contained mercury. Overall, more cylindrical batteries (~ 60 % of D-cell) had statements about mercury content than button (~ 25 % of LR-44) batteries.

Skin lightening products

Mercury-free skin-lightening products were claimed by users and merchants to be present in every market and widely stocked in stores, pharmacies, and cosmetic clinics. Some concern was raised about the time it took to achieve results. Beside very few exceptions products had generally no claims as to mercury content. The surveyors were told in several countries, that illegal sales (black market products) exist, but in spite of local efforts, these products could not be widely procured. In one developing country one of the analyzed products had a very high mercury content (up to 5 wt %). Here, a mercury compound is obviously the main active agent. Another 12 % of all samples collected worldwide showed mercury concentrations between 0.13 and 7.5 ppm. The presence of government seals and the implied manufacturer code of conduct for well-known products were reasons merchants claimed the products they offered were all mercury-free. Consumers gravitated to known mercury-free choices in countries that had government seals and/or regulation about mercury content. They also trusted retailers to provide them with accurate advice.

Dental amalgam

Mercury-free dental restorative materials were present in all markets (100 %). Shortcomings mentioned included reduced durability and strength as well as high cost. In the countries selected for Eastern Europe, no dental amalgam has been used since a prohibition had been instituted. One surveyor indicated this ban had been in existence for 20 years or more. Tooth preparation was indicated as similar and many cited similarities in the equipment used. In some countries, increased costs were incurred from either additional training or additional equipment for placing alternative filling materials. In most cases, the actual alternative materials were indicated to incur greater cost than amalgam to the dentist, and therefore were passed along to the patient. The use of alternative materials was also indicated to improve aesthetics and increase patient safety from mercury exposure.

Global Action on Mercury IPEN Views - February 2009

In February 2007, the Governing Council (GC) of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) debated the need for global action to protect human health and the environment from exposure to mercury. The UNEP GC recognized that “current efforts to reduce risks from mercury are not sufficient to address the global challenges posed by mercury,” and it concluded that “further long-term international action is required.”

IPEN views mercury as a significant global pollutant. Mercury can travel long distances on air and water currents and in the bodies of migratory species. It can then cause injury to human health and the environment at locations far from where it was originally released.

Please read the IPEN document provided in the following languages:

     English
     Arabic
     French
     Portuguese
     Russian
     Spanish

International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN)

---

Health concerns over contaminated fish trigger international decision
World governments decide to pursue a global mercury treaty

[Nairobi, Kenya 20 February 2009] - After raising concerns for years about mercury contamination of fish, IPEN NGOs in developing and transition countries welcomed the international agreement to finally take action.

"Fish is a vital protein source for many of the world's peoples and its global contamination with mercury requires urgent coordinated action," said Professor Jamidu Katima, IPEN Co-Chair based in Tanzania.

More than 140 countries decided to pursue a global treaty on mercury at the 25th United Nations Environment Programme Governing Council meeting. The decision noted the urgent need for international action due to "the serious adverse effects of mercury on human health and the environment." Negotiations will start later this year.

"After many years of delay, the world community has finally committed to take global action," said Prashant Pastore of Toxics Link. "Public interest NGOs will actively participate in the negotiations to push for a comprehensive agreement that addresses all aspects of mercury pollution."

The decision calls for a treaty that will reduce mercury emissions, supply and trade; its use in products and processes; and one that addresses wastes and contaminated sites. The decision also notes the need for capacity building and financial and technical assistance in developing and transition countries.

"Developing and transition countries will need adequate new and additional resources to identify their mercury problems and make a plan to deal with them," said Jindrich Petrlik of Arnika Association.

The African, Latin American and Caribbean, Central and Eastern Europe, regions all supported a treaty along with the EU and many Asia - Pacific countries. After many years of opposition, China, India, and the USA shifted their positions to support a legally binding instrument at the meeting.

"These countries can now join the world community in developing global measures to reduce and eliminate mercury," said Professor Jamidu Katima, IPEN Co-Chair based in Tanzania.

Final draft text: UNEP Governing Council Decision 25/X Chemicals management including mercury http://www.eeb.org/activities/chemicals/Chemicals_management_including_mercury- COWdraft190209.pdf

Contact:
Jamidu Katima, IPEN Co-chair, AGENDA, Tanzania + 255 2410 024
Prashant Pastore, Toxics Link, India +91-11-24328006, 24320711
Jindrich Petrlik, Arnika Association, Czech Republic +420 (603) 582 984
Bjorn Beeler, IPEN International Coordinator, USA +1-510-704-1962

The International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN) is a global network of more than 600 public interest non-governmental organizations working together for the elimination of persistent organic pollutants, on an expedited yet socially equitable basis. This mission includes achieving a world in which all chemicals are produced and used in ways that eliminate significant adverse effects on human health and the environment, and where persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and chemicals of equivalent concern no longer pollute our local and global environments, and no longer contaminate our communities, our food, our bodies, or the bodies of our children and future generations.

[Nairobi, 10 October 2008] Public interest advocates¹ welcomed the results of a global meeting convened to take decisions on the threats posed by mercury to human health and the environment. On 6-10 October 2008, the 2nd UNEP² Open Ended Working Group (OEWG2) on Mercury, completed its work, in preparation for the UNEP Governing Council (GC) in February 2009, where it will be decided whether a global legally binding instrument on mercury will be developed.

"An overwhelming majority of the more than 90 governments attending the meeting supported a free standing legally binding instrument , said Elena Lymberidi - Settimo, from the Zero Mercury Working Group"."Now it is time for the GC to finish the work that it started and begin actions to establish a global treaty on mercury. Only through a treaty will we see sufficient reductions in global mercury emissions, supply and demand."

The UNEP GC had given the mandate to the OEWG to review and assess options for enhanced voluntary measures and new or existing international legal instruments. The OEWG2 completed its work, and will send a report to the GC including:
- A comprehensive set of elements, agreed to by a broad consensus, to be part of a global framework
- Two options for global frameworks on mercury - a legal and a voluntary one.
- The legal option endorses a new free-standing instrument.

"The outcome of the OEWG has helped shape future global action," said Richard Gutierrez, of the Philippine NGO, Ban Toxics. "We are optimistic that the global community is well on its way towards establishing a treaty to control mercury pollution and effectively safeguard the fish we eat from this poison."

For further information:
Elena Lymberidi-Settimo, Project Coordinator, Zero Mercury Campaign, European Environmental
Bureau: www.zeromercury.org, www.eeb.org; elena.lymberidi@eeb.org; Tel: +32 2 2891301; Mobile: +32 496 532 818

 

_{¹ Environmental NGOS include The European Environmental Bureau, (EEB), www.eeb.org, is a federation of over 140 environmental citizens' organisations based in all EU Member States as well as in neighbouring countries. These organisations range from local and national, to European and international. The aim of the EEB is to protect and improve the environment of Europe and to enable the citizens of Europe to play their part in achieving that goal. The Zero Mercury Working Group, www.zeromercury.org, is an international coalition of over 60 public-interest non-governmental organisations worldwide formed in 2005 by the European Environmental Bureau and the Mercury Policy Project/Ban Mercury Working Group. The group's aim is to reach "Zero emissions, demand and supply of mercury, from all sources we can control, towards eliminating mercury in the environment at EU level and globally." International POPs Eliminations Network (IPEN), www.ipen.org, is a global network of health and environmental organizations in more than 80 countries working together for a Toxics-Free Future. ² United Nations Environment Programme}

  Version: February 2010