Journal of Public Health Policy

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 1–13 | Cite as

New mercury treaty exposes health risks

  • Michael Bender
  • Elena Lymberidi-Settimo
  • Edward Groth III


More than a decade in the making, a new, legally binding treaty on mercury will be adopted by governments in the fall of 2013. The treaty’s objective is to protect human health and the environment from anthropogenic mercury emissions through a range of provisions – including an article devoted to reducing exposure to mercury. Global emissions have increased since 2005, with the environmental health burden increasingly shifting to developing countries. Time is of the essence to reduce pollution because (i) exposure risk to mercury is much greater than previously thought and (ii) mercury already in the environment can be re-emitted via processes in the natural cycle, resulting in a longer lag time before pollution reduction can have a demonstrable effect on the food chain. Health professionals can assist in reducing exposure, choosing mercury-free products and urging governments to ratify the treaty as quickly as possible so that it can take effect.


mercury treaty convention health exposure emissions 



  1. Minamata Convention Agreed by Nations, Global Mercury Agreement to Lift Health Threats from Lives of Millions World-Wide. UNEP New Centre,, accessed 19 January 2013.
  2. Maag, J., Maxson, P. and Tuxen, A. (2002) Global Mercury Assessment, United Nations Environment Program, Chemicals Directorate, UNEP Technology, Industry & Environment Division (Geneva, December),
  3. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Global Mercury Partnership,
  4. S. 906 (110th): Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008, 110th Congress, 2007–2009. Passed Congress/Enrolled Bill,, accessed 30 September 2008.
  5. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Diplomatic conference for the signing of the Minamata Convention on Mercury,
  6. Yorifuji, T., Tsuda, T. and Harada, M. Minamata Disease: Catastrophic food poisoning by methylmercury and a challenge for democracy and justice. In: TKTK (eds.) Late Lessons From Early Warnings-2012: Science, Precaution, Innovation, Volume II. European Environment Agency, pp. 63–99,
  7. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2013), Advanced agreed text of the Minamata Convention on Mercury,
  8. Health in all Policies: The Minamata Convention on Mercury, UNEP Side Event. 66th World Health Assembly (23 May 2013).Google Scholar
  9. Advanced agreed text of the Minamata Convention on Mercury (2013)
  10. UNEP Studies Show Rising Mercury Emissions in Developing Countries, Most Comprehensive Assessment Ever of Global Emissions Released Ahead of Final Negotiations on New Mercury Treaty – Binding Treaty Can Deliver Major Health and Environmental Benefits in Developing and Developed Countries, UNEP,, accessed 9 January 2013.
  11. Maag, J., Maxson, P. and Tuxen, A. (2002) Global Mercury Assessment. United Nations Environment Program, Chemicals Directorate, UNEP Technology, Industry & Environment Division. Geneva, Switzerland: UNEP.Google Scholar
  12. Cone, M. Silent Snow. (2005) The Slow Poisoning of the Arctic. New York: Glover Press, pp. 80–45.Google Scholar
  13. WHO, Mercury. International Program on Chemical Safety,
  14. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2013) Global Mercury Assessment: Sources, Emissions, Releases and Environmental Transport. Switzerland: UNEP Chemicals Branch, Geneva,
  15. Veiga, M. and Baker, R. Removal of Barriers to Introduction of Cleaner Artisanal Gold Mining and Extraction Technologies, Protocols for Environmental and Health Assessment of Mercury Released by Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Miners. Global Mercury Project, Project EG/GLO/01/G34, ISBN 92-1-106429-5 UNIDO ID: ID/422.Google Scholar
  16. Telmer, K. Export Bans and Reducing Mercury Consumption in Artisanal and Small Scale Gold Mining, University of Victoria, Canada,; Squeezing Gold from a Stone, Addressing the Toxic Health Risks and Pollution Caused by Mercury Use in the Small Scale and Artisanal Gold Mining Sector, UNEP,
  17. UNEP Global Mercury Assessment (2013) Sources, Emissions, Releases and Environmental Transport. Geneva, Switzerland: Switzerland UNEP Chemicals Branch.Google Scholar
  18. Pirrone, N. et al (2010) Global mercury emissions to the atmosphere from anthropogenic and natural sources. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 10 (13): 5951–5964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Amos, H.M., Jacob, D.J., Streets, D.G. and Sunderland, E.M. (2013) Legacy impacts of all-time anthropogenic emissions on the global mercury cycle. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, DOI: 10.1002/gbc.20040.Google Scholar
  20. Sunderland, E.M., Krabbenhoft, D.P., Moreau, J.W., Strode, S.A. and Landing, W.M. (2009) Mercury sources, distribution, and bioavailability in the North Pacific Ocean: Insights from data and models. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 23: GB2010.Google Scholar
  21. Bakir, F, Damluji, S.F. and Amin-Zaki, L. (1973) Methlymercury poisoning in Iraq. Science 180: 230–241, Julvez J. et al (2012) Epidemiological evidence of methylmercury neurotoxicity, Chapter 2, In: S. Ceccatelli and M. Aschner (eds.) Methylmercury and Neurotoxicity XI, 373, 59, 15 in color., Hardcover, ISBN: 978-1-4614-2382-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Salonen, J.T., Seppänen, K, Lakka, T.A., Salonen, R and Kaplan, G.A. (2000) Mercury accumulation and accelerated progression of carotid atherosclerosis: A population-based prospective 4-year follow-up study in men in eastern Finland. Atherosclerosis 148: 265–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Genuis, S.J. (2009) Toxicant exposure and mental health – individual, social, and public health considerations. Journal of Forensic Science 54 (2): 474–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hightower, J.M. (2009) Diagnosis Mercury: Money, Politics, and Poison. Washington DC: Island Press/Shearwater Books.Google Scholar
  25. Knobeloch, L., Steenport, D., Schrank, C. and Anderson, H. (2006) Methylmercury exposure in Wisconsin: A case study series. Environmental Research 101: 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Korns, F. (1972) The frustrations of Bettye Russow. Nutrition Today 7 (6): 21–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Risher, J.F. (2004) Too much of a good thing (fish): Methlymercury case study. Journal of Environmental Health 67 (1): 9–14, 28.Google Scholar
  28. Carta, P. et al (2003) Sub-clinical neurobehaviorial abnormalities associated with low level of mercury exposure through fish consumption. Neurotoxicology 24 (4–5): 617–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mercury and health, Fact sheet No. 361, WHO (April 2012),
  30. Evers, D. (2012) Report on Mercury in the Global Environment: Patterns of Global Seafood Mercury Concentrations and their Relationship with Humans. Biodiversity Research Institute, December,
  31. Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on the Risks and Benefits of Fish Consumption, (2010). FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report No. 978 FIPM/R978(En).Google Scholar
  32. Morose, G. et al (2011) Economics of Conversion to Mercury-Free Products, Final Draft, UNEP DTIE Chemicals Branch, The Lowell Center for Sustainable Production at the University of Massachusetts Lowell: Lowell, MA,, accessed 26 October.
  33. The Price of Gold (2010) Mercury Use and Current Issues Surrounding Artisanal and Small Scale Gold Mining in the Philippines, Ban Toxics! December,
  34. The Global Environment Facility was established in October 1991 as a US$1 billion pilot program in the World Bank to promote environmental sustainable development. Since 1994, however, the GEF was entrusted to become a financial mechanism for UN conventions.Google Scholar
  35. September, A. (2013) Global Mercury Agreement to lift health threats from lives of millions worldwide, The Global Journal (19 January) 10(15),
  36. GEF support for mercury reduction activities, Global Environment Fund,
  37. Bellanger, M. (2013) Economic benefits of methylmercury exposure control in Europe: Monetary value of neurotoxicity prevention. Environmental Health 12: 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. WHO. Exposure to mercury: A major public health concern, fact sheet,
  39. FAO and WHO (2010). Joint FAO/WHO expert committee on food additives seventy-second meeting: summary and conclusions,
  40. WHO (2003). Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 50. Elemental and Inorganic Mercury Compounds: Human Health Aspects,
  41. US Environmental Protection Agency (2001). Integrated risk information system. Methylmercury (MeHg),
  42. Scientific Opinion on the risk for public health related to the presence of mercury and methylmercury in food, EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM), European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy (2012),
  43. Boucher, O., Jacobson, S.W. and Plusquellec, P. (2012) Prenatal methylmercury, postnatal lead exposure, and evidence of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder among Inuit children in arctic Quebec. Environmental Health Perspective 120: 1456–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Freire, C. et al (2010) Hair mercury levels, fish consumption and cognitive development in preschool children from Granada, Spain. Environmental Research 110 (1): 96–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jedrychowski, W. et al (2006) Effects of prenatal exposure to mercury on cognitive and psychomotor function in one-year-old infants: Epidemiologic cohort study in Poland. Annals of Epidemiology 16 (6): 439–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lederman, S.A. et al (2008) Relation between cord blood mercury levels and early childhood development in a World Trade Center cohort. Environmental Health Perspective 116 (8): 1085–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Murata, K., Weihe, P., Budtz-Jørgensen, E., Jørgensen, P.J. and Grandjean, P. (2004) Delayed brainstem auditory evoked potential latencies in 14-year-old children exposed to methylmercury. Journal of Pediatrics 144: 177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Oken, E. et al (2005) Maternal fish consumption, hair mercury, and infant cognition in a US cohort. Environmental Health Perspective 113: 1376–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Oken, E. et al (2008) Maternal fish intake during pregnancy, blood mercury levels, and child cognition at age 3 years in a US cohort. American Journal of Epidemiology 167: 1171–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sagiv, S., Thurston, S., Bellinger, D., Amarasiriwardena, C. and Korrick, S. (2012) Prenatal exposure to mercury and fish consumption during pregnancy and Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorderrelated behavior in children. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine.  http://doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2012.1286;
  51. Suzuki, K. et al (2010) Neurobehavioral effects of prenatal exposure to methylmercury and PCBs, and seafood intake: Neonatal behavioral assessment scale results of the Tohuku study of child development. Environmental Research 110: 699–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Silbernagel, S.M. et al (2011) Recognizing and preventing overexposure to methylmercury from fish and seafood consumption: Information for physicians. Journal of Toxicology, Vol. 2011, Article ID 983072, p. 7
  53. Shimek, J.M., Emmanuel, J., Orris, P. and Chartier, P. (2011) Replacement of mercury thermometers and sphygmomanometers in health care, Technical guidance, WHO.Google Scholar
  54. Mercury-free Health Care. An initiative to substitute mercury-based medical devices around the world, WHO and HCWH,
  55. Schwartz, J. (2008) Push to replace mercury thermometers is going global. Environmental Health News, 5 December,
  56. Issues Mercury, Website, Health Care Without Harm,, accessed 26 September 2013.
  57. Morose, G. et al (2010) Economics of Conversion to Mercury-Free Products, Toxics Use Reduction Institute, Lowell, MA: University of Lowell
  58. WHO (2008) Children’s health and the environment: WHO training package for the health sector, Mercury, (July).,
  59. Toward the Tipping Point: WHO–HCWH Global Initiative to Substitute Mercury-Based Medical Devices in Health Care: A 2-Year Progress Report (2 June 2010),
  60. UNEP (2013). Diplomatic Conference for the Minamata Treaty.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Bender
    • 1
  • Elena Lymberidi-Settimo
    • 2
  • Edward Groth III
    • 3
  1. 1.Mercury Policy Project, Zero Mercury Working GroupMontpelierUSA
  2. 2.European Environmental Bureau, Zero Mercury Working GroupBrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.PelhamUSA

Personalised recommendations