US Government Gets a “D” for Handling of Lead in Dental Products
Let’s Not Talk About the Lead in Your Dental Work
As the lead scandal heats up and everyone tries to dodge responsibility, it’s a war between acronyms!
| Lead Scandal Report Card | ||
| Org: | Grade: | Comments: |
| FDA | D- | The FDA is supposed to prevent this |
| CDC | D | “It’s not our problem,” whines the CDC |
| ADA | B+ | They step up while the government stays silent |
| NADL | C | Protecting patients, or protecting labs? |
| WBNS | A | A TV station is the best source of info |
It all started with WBNS-TV. Earlier this year, the Ohio television station broke the story of a woman who allegedly suffered lead poisoning from her dental bridge. After ordering several dental crowns from dental labs in China, the investigative team reported finding levels of lead as high as 210 ppm.
A juicy scandal, the story was picked up nationally. China was already been receiving bad publicity for quality problems with a number of exports. First there was toxic antifreeze in pet food, cough syrup and toothpaste. Next there was lead paint on children’s toys. Most recently, stocks of the pharmaceutical Heparin manufactured in China have been recalled. Contaminants in the blood-thinning drug have killed over a dozen people and seriously injured hundreds more.
So the story has been receiving more and more media attention. The only problem is, no one yet knows the scope of the problem. WBNS has reported finding lead in 10 of the 13 crowns they have tested to date. Right now, any number of organizations are conducting their own tests. However, few results have been released.
The public is left with a number of unanswered questions:
- Is lead-tainted dental work a major problem?
- Who will tell us the scope of this problem?
- Whose job is it to protect the public from this kind of problem?
Such simple questions… such complicated answers!
Let’s take a look at the acronyms involved in this blame game. I’ve also graded each according to how well they’re handling this developing story.
ADA (American Dental Association)
Grade: B+
Though the ADA is conducting their own investigation, the organization has not released any results. (Moreover, it’s rumored that they won’t be released until 2009.)
The ADA has written letters to both the FDA and CDC about this topic. The responses indicate that neither governmental health agency is eager to step into the fray. With no one else willing to step up, the ADA seems to be left holding the bag. (Read more)
FDA (Food and Drug Administration)
Grade: D-
Looking at the FDA’s website, you’d never know there was a lead contamination scandal going on. Their website provides no consumer information whatsoever on this issue.
Inresponse to the initial news report, the FDA said only, “We are reviewing this report and developing a strategy to get additional information on this incident and on all imported dental devices. We will apply resources as needed to move forward with a regulatory strategy consistent with what we find.”
Let’s take a moment to note that it was supposed to be the FDA’s job in the first place to regulate dental products to keep out nasty things like lead.
CDC (Centers for Disease Control)
Grade: D
The CDC’s website is likewise mum on the topic of lead-contaminated dental work. Their correspondence with the ADA suggests that the CDC feels this issue falls under the purview of the FDA, or maybe the ADA:
“The FDA has regulatory authority over dental products,” the CDC wrote to the ADA. “It is our understanding that the FDA is already acting on this information…” The letter continues, “It is our understanding that testing for potential leaching of lead from these products is being conducted in ADA laboratories. CDC would be happy to assist ADA in interpreting the health impact of the testing of dental porcelains/meals that is currently underway. CDC will also provide any support if requested from the FDA, as that agency conducts further testing of these products.”
NADL (National Association of Dental Labs)
Grade: C+
The NADL’s website provides information on this topic only to its members. The dental laboratory organization has created a consumer website,What’s in Your Mouth?, that provides very little actual information.
The NADL raises several points: (1) US dental labs are safe. (2) Most US labs don’t use work manufactured overseas. (3) Plenty of overseas labs are perfectly safe too. (4) The NADL has provided a number of specific suggestions to the FDA regarding improving regulation of dental products and labs.
WBNS-TV (Ohio’s Channel 10)
Grade: A
The station’s investigative team first broke the story, and they have continued to be one of the top sources of information on this developing scandal. No other resource has made public as much scientific data as WBNS-TV: not the government, not the ADA, not the NADL.
On February 28, WBNS reported on their initial tests; the station found high levels of lead in one crown from a Chinese dental lab. The results of theirfollow-up tests, released on April 24, suggest the problem could be even larger than initially suspected. In these tests, high levels of lead were found in crowns manufactured in the US, Thailand and China. Overall, 10 of the 13 crowns (from three different countries of origin) tested positive for lead.
WBNS has informed The Wealthy Dentist that their research shows the problem is with porcelain crowns; the metal does not appear to contain lead. It is still unclear if the lead is contained within the dental porcelain or added via a stain of some sort.
What do you think? Post your comments
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:28 am
I think the ADA will do anything to protect dental product manufacturers who, in turn, reward organized dentistry with grants, advertising, good PR, meeting sponsorship, freebies and more which gives organized dentistry the power and money to get laws passed that benefit dentists not consumers.
So I don’t trust anything coming out of the ADA. It’s incredible that our tax-payer funded employees at the CDC are always letting the ADA take the lead on most oral health issues when the ADA is simply a union whose members come first. The CDC is supposed to be protecting us not the ADA and the corporations who profit from the ADA.
I think we can all save a lot of money without health-robbing consequences if the oral health section of the CDC is shut down. It does no independent research or thought.
Of course, the FDA should be the lead agency on this.
Thank goodness for the few investigative journalists who are still doing the job the media is supposed to do.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
you haven’t done your homework completely. The NADL was proactive at least 2 years ago on this very subject. Dental Labs have never been regulated, and the NADL has worked towards that goal. With regulation the lead story would have never occured. They saw the writing on the wall for potential problems and tried to head them off. You are late to the party. I give you a D.
By the way, thats a nice haircut in your picture. Was your stylist licensed? They say the difference between a good haircut and a bad one is 3 days. Thats on hair which will grow back. Whats the difference between a good crown and a bad one?
The NADL tried to contact the head of the ADA as they initially heard about the story breaking, but was met with a wall of arrogance. They wanted to work with the ADA on this together. The ADA still didn’t have their facts right as of 3 weeks ago. Why are they conducting their own tests? Don’t they believe the impartial testing done by the reputable labs already being used? I’m having a hard time understandingwhy the better grade for them. The Doctor bypassed American labs and sent directly to China on the tainted case.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:08 am
On behalf of the NADL, I appreciate the continued editorial coverage from Dr. Du Molin and his staff on this important subject. Obviously, there are many layers and perspectives to this continued story.
Some of the next key steps in this journey, are:
1) Potential action such as Congressional hearings by the U.S. House Sub Committee on Oversights and Investigations
2) Further review and potential action by the ADA Standards Committee on Dental Products to examine appropriate lead levels in dental work and for other heavy metals
Two states, Florida and South Carolina have already passed state legislation that requires both material and point of origin disclosure to dentists and that such information will be available to the patient. Another ten states are considering such legislation in their state dental practice acts.
It is important to note that the issue of laboratory outsourcing is not exclusive to dental laboratories. Dental schools and large group dental chains also outsource their laboratory work to foreign countries.
The issue at hand is not where a product is made but whether or not the the individual making the prosthesis is competent and properly tranined, the laboratory facility meets accepted and required FDA quality standards and the materials are appropriate and safe for use.
NADL looks forward to continued work with the ADA, and government bodies, at both the state and federal level to foster a process that is beneficial for all parties, with clear vision that the patient be the prime beneficiary.
Thank you for your continued coverage on this topic.
Respectfully,
Bennett Napier,CAE
Co Executive Director
NADL