Market analysis of some mercury-containing products and their ...
Market analysis of some mercury-containing products and their ... Market analysis of some mercury-containing products and their ...
With most of the mercury-free creams, the information regarding mercury con- tent was based on a product statement or Kenya Bureau of Standards seal that indicated “no mercury.” In some shops the merchants were aware that mercurycontaining creams were banned nationally, implying that all products legally sold in their stores must be mercury-free. Yet, to satisfy customer demand, merchants indicated mercury-containing products were stocked, when possible. Therefore about half of the sellers stated, that mercury containing products are more difficult to get. Like consumers, merchants were aware of mercury’s toxicity. Most merchants (90%) indicated awareness about mercury’s toxicity in creams. Customers indicated duration of results from products varied. According to some merchants, customers’ experiences indicated there was no difference between results from mercury-containing and mercury-free creams on duration of the results. The rest could not say if customers indicated a difference. On time-to-results, half of merchants (50%) said that mercury containing skin lightening products are still used because faster results were obtained. Demand for mercury-containing products continues. Continuing demand for mercury-containing face creams force some shops to continue stocking the banned creams and sell them illegally to these regular consumers. Some consumers said that mercury containing products were often found in backstreet shops and sold illegally – mainly to recognized customers. Most merchants stated mercury-containing soaps were more difficult to get because of the ban. One third of the merchants said mercury-containing products were still used because customers indicated they got faster results. Analysis of the purchased products (only those without a government seal were purchased) found two (16%) contained mercury, but below 0.07 ppm. It is presumed, that mercury at these concentrations would be due to ingredient contamination rather than purposeful addition as an active ingredient (Tab. B.1). One product that merchants reported to be mecury containg was indeed mercury free (probably due to a changed formula). Sources of the products were generally other African nations, but included domestic products and imports from England and Germany. Products manufactured in Dubai and Kenya contained mercury. Prices ranged from 0.40 KES to 6.78 KES, no relationship was seen with price or other attributes. 22
3.1.5 Status of availability and use of dental amalgam and mercury-free al- ternatives for dental restorations in Nairobi, Kenya Participants. The Amalgam Survey was done with six (6) dentistries in Nairobi, Kenya. Dentists indicated materials for mercury-free tooth restorations were readily available. All dentists (100%) used mercury amalgam as a tooth filling, most (83%) use both, and none (0%) used alternatives exclusively. Dentists indicated alternative materials were affordable to their patients. Accord- ing to the dentists, dental restorations were affordable to most – ranging from the aver- age patient to all patients. According to the survey, the average patient could afford restorations. Dentists indicated their patients requested alternative materials. All dentists interviewed (100%) said their patients requested alternative filling materials. At the hospital where patients could only get amalgam, dentists justified it as more permanent and indicated patient preference for long-lasting restorations. Many types of alternative materials were available and in demand. Of the dentists interviewed, the five (5) using alternatives listed composite materials, temporary materials, zinc engenol, zinc phosphate, and glass ionomer (fujir,vitmor) as those alternatives in use. The main materials used by dentists who use both mercury amalgam and non-amalgam were composites and temporary fillings (zinc oxide engemol). The costs for the amalgam option is not low compared to the cost for mercuryfree materials. According to the patients, composite fillings were both, more and less expensive than mercury amalgam fillings. Dentists indicated material costs did influence their price to patients. Dentists indicated a difference in material costs of about KES 1,400 for the mercury-free alternatives. According to the dentists, the cost of alternative filling range from KES 2,500 to KES 6,000. The price difference for the patient choosing an amalgam filling compared to an alternative filling was 1,000 KES less than the price for the alternative filling. 23
- Page 1: Market analysis of some mercury-con
- Page 4 and 5: Deskriptoren: Consumer safety, Cosm
- Page 6 and 7: 4 Asia Pacific ....................
- Page 8 and 9: 6.1.2 Current Brazilian status on a
- Page 11 and 12: 1 Executive Summary The goal of thi
- Page 13 and 14: attributes recognized for mercury-f
- Page 15 and 16: 2 Introduction 2.1 Overview Mercury
- Page 17 and 18: mosphere. New, less toxic, durable,
- Page 19 and 20: The survey was conducted by Arnika
- Page 21 and 22: Tab. 2.2 NGO Participants and Local
- Page 23: Tab. 2.3 Comparative Gross Domestic
- Page 26 and 27: were readily available. The remaini
- Page 28 and 29: No additional costs or time were in
- Page 30 and 31: Academics and merchants overwhelmin
- Page 34 and 35: Costs incurred for training and equ
- Page 36 and 37: Mercury-free thermometers were rela
- Page 38 and 39: Mercury-free button cell options (L
- Page 40 and 41: Products were analyzed for mercury
- Page 43 and 44: 4 Asia Pacific 4.1 India, Delhi NCR
- Page 45 and 46: 4.1.1.2 Indian Household Thermomete
- Page 47 and 48: een produced domestically and not i
- Page 49 and 50: fied and were indicated to be displ
- Page 51 and 52: Some dentists claimed prices betwee
- Page 53 and 54: 4.2.1 Current status regarding avai
- Page 55 and 56: Health care professionals preferred
- Page 57 and 58: special places. But that the mercur
- Page 59 and 60: Merchants stated problems existed w
- Page 61: According to the dentists, it took
- Page 64 and 65: 5.1.1 Current status regarding avai
- Page 66 and 67: Family doctors preferred mercury-fr
- Page 68 and 69: mercury-free. Unlabeled batteries p
- Page 70 and 71: Tab. 5.2 Russian Consumer Cosmetic
- Page 72 and 73: listed ingredients. Only two of the
- Page 74 and 75: Staff could not evaluate alternativ
- Page 76 and 77: lood pressure meter, depending on m
- Page 78 and 79: among the lower income occupations
- Page 80 and 81: declared) offerings were submitted
3.1.5 Status <strong>of</strong> availability <strong>and</strong> use <strong>of</strong> dental amalgam <strong>and</strong> <strong>mercury</strong>-free al-<br />
ternatives for dental restorations in Nairobi, Kenya<br />
Participants. The Amalgam Survey was done with six (6) dentistries in Nairobi, Kenya.<br />
Dentists indicated materials for <strong>mercury</strong>-free tooth restorations were readily<br />
available. All dentists (100%) used <strong>mercury</strong> amalgam as a tooth filling, most (83%) use<br />
both, <strong>and</strong> none (0%) used alternatives exclusively.<br />
Dentists indicated alternative materials were affordable to <strong>their</strong> patients. Accord-<br />
ing to the dentists, dental restorations were affordable to most – ranging from the aver-<br />
age patient to all patients. According to the survey, the average patient could afford<br />
restorations.<br />
Dentists indicated <strong>their</strong> patients requested alternative materials. All dentists interviewed<br />
(100%) said <strong>their</strong> patients requested alternative filling materials. At the hospital<br />
where patients could only get amalgam, dentists justified it as more permanent <strong>and</strong> indicated<br />
patient preference for long-lasting restorations.<br />
Many types <strong>of</strong> alternative materials were available <strong>and</strong> in dem<strong>and</strong>. Of the dentists<br />
interviewed, the five (5) using alternatives listed composite materials, temporary materials,<br />
zinc engenol, zinc phosphate, <strong>and</strong> glass ionomer (fujir,vitmor) as those alternatives<br />
in use. The main materials used by dentists who use both <strong>mercury</strong> amalgam <strong>and</strong><br />
non-amalgam were composites <strong>and</strong> temporary fillings (zinc oxide engemol).<br />
The costs for the amalgam option is not low compared to the cost for <strong>mercury</strong>free<br />
materials. According to the patients, composite fillings were both, more <strong>and</strong> less<br />
expensive than <strong>mercury</strong> amalgam fillings.<br />
Dentists indicated material costs did influence <strong>their</strong> price to patients. Dentists indicated<br />
a difference in material costs <strong>of</strong> about KES 1,400 for the <strong>mercury</strong>-free alternatives.<br />
According to the dentists, the cost <strong>of</strong> alternative filling range from KES 2,500 to<br />
KES 6,000. The price difference for the patient choosing an amalgam filling compared<br />
to an alternative filling was 1,000 KES less than the price for the alternative filling.<br />
23
Change language