- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- AARP Rewards
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- ITA Archive
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Health Tips
- Ask for a Health Tip
- Leave a Health Tip
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Retirement Archive
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Solo Travel
- Home & Family Forums
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Our Front Porch
- The Girlfriend
- Home & Family Archive
- Politics & Society Forums
- Politics, Current Events
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- TV Talk
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Writing & Books
- Entertainment Archive
- Grief & Loss
- Share and Find Caregiving Tips - AARP Online Community
- Ask for a Caregiving Tip
- Leave a Caregiving Tip
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Rewards Tips
- Earn Activities
- AARP Rewards Connect
- AARP Help
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
“The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback, former President of Canadian ADA, Head of Preventive Dentistry at Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council Scientist (2007)
The 2006 National Research Council on Fluoride in Drinking Water commented to the EPA that fluoridation at 1 ppm can be anticipated to be harmful for those with reduced renal function and the elderly. The NRC confirmed that fluoride not excreted by kidneys builds up in bones, resulting in arthritic pain and increased brittleness. However, there were no EPA studies on the whole health impacts of fluoridated water on susceptible population such as kidney patients, children, those with prolonged disease or the elderly. There still aren’t.
However, there is mounting science from other sources that “optimally fluoridated” water, which is known to cause varying degrees of dental fluorosis in 58% of Black American adolescents and 36% of White American adolescents, is causing subtle deficits in ability to remember or focus. That same “optimal level” has also been proved in a 2014 study as being nephrotoxic in rats with chronic kidney disease. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects approximately 15% of Americans, although CKD is quadruple the rate in Black Americans, and predictably worse in older Americans.
Perhaps the most horrifying part of the story of fluoridation is that not only is at least 50% of every drop of fluoride that has passed the lips of a Baby Boomer permanently stored in bones, fluoride isn't the only poison in packages of fluoride that originate as the waste product of aluminum an phosphate industry. 100% of the fluoride sampled in a 2014 study was contaminated with aluminum; arsenic and lead were other common contaminants. In other words, fluoridated water serves as a delivery system for aluminum and lead into our bones and our brains. As we all know, aluminum is associated with Alzheimers in adults, and lead is associated with learning disabilities in children. Approximately 15% of the population who is sensitive to chemicals cite inability to think clearly and overwhelming fatigue as symptoms of exposure to fluoridated water.
Our generation was part of a great human experiment. It may have had noble intentions based on the faulty hypothesis that drinking fluoridated water prevented cavities. It is now known that any perceived benefits of fluoride are from tooth brushing. Our grandchildren are the third generation in this travesty. I suggest we all DEMAND the AARP stand up for us and our grandchildren by issuing a strong position paper calling for the cessation of water fluoridation.
- 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
- 2015 in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study. (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞
- 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405
- 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium);
- 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/
RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)
Here are three Oct 2014 news articles on the content of the Freedom of Information Act documents. Rev. Andrew Young, former UN ambassador has pursued them with the CDC, but to little effect. Civil Rights leaders have been calling for an end to community water fluoridation (CWF) since 2011.
- 1. Black Americans disproportionately harmed: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/19317-feds-blacks-suffer-most-from-fluoride-fl...
- 2. CDC, ADA and Pew inappropriate relationships: http://benswann.com/do-newly-released-emails-reveal-conflict-of-interest-between-the-cdc-and-the-ada...
- 3. Kidneys, Civil Rights & Ralph Nader: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2014/10/428383.shtml
2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY)
There is a legal initiative in Peel, Ontario (pop 1.3m) to remove fluoride from the water supply based on the principle of gross disproportionality, i.e. marginal benefit does not justify great risk of harm. There is also a political effort afoot in Canadian govt to mandate fluoridation and thereby make the legal argument moot. I suggest this document is well-worth printing. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf
- a. The first 19 pages of this document is about the legal strategy. It includes summary of US legal cases that found water fluoridation harmful to the public, but legal under US "police power" mandate.
- b. Starting on page 20 is a devastating affidavit by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NAS/NRC scientist and international expert in risk assessment. Very readable summary of science indicating harm to populations in “optimally” fluoridated communities.
POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD
- In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: http://www.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/committee_documents/gwiandhealthofgwveterans_rac-gwvireport_2008.pdf
- EXCERPT: “It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body.” - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 2008
- Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
- Except: “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms.The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.”
- PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response:
- a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853
- b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
- c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/
- d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
- e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
- f. Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524
AARP - STAND UP on our behalf!
“Nothing I have seen changes my view of the serious hazards occasioned by public fluoridation. To the contrary, what I have read convinces me all the more that in depth, serious, scientific effort should be undertaken before further expanding a questionable practice. Those who belittle critics of fluoridation do the public a mis-service, yet it seems in the face of strong, uncontradicted prima facie evidence, that is the tactic most often employed.” - Judge John P. Flaherty, Justice in the Supreme Court of PA (1988 comment on 1978 decision)
I have to agree that the NZ Supreme Court rulling is more of the same - a mixed lot that doesn't make much of a difference. The New Zealand Supreme Court, without considering the latest evidence from multiple studies and analysis of US data, ruled that fluoridation chemicals were medicine and that fluoridation process is mass medication in violation of their Bill of Rights - but legal under other statutes that exempts them from regulation.
In the 20th century, there were several US court rulings that fluoridation was undoubtedly harmful, but legal under US law. US courts advised that fluoridation decisions rightfully should be left to regulatory agencies and legislators rather than the courts. Sadly, regulatory agencies and politicians have been captured or/and corrupted by the fluoridation lobby who deceives them with Tooth Fairy Tales of magic potions and insists on slavish obedience to dental dogma.
I suggest that if the evidence of harm and dental disagreement are too much for the courts and politicians to consider, then they at least should pay attention to international human rights statutes.
- ”Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.” - UNESCO on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6 (2005)
- ”The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.” - UNESCO documents on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 3 (2005)
- “In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.” - UNESCO documents on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6 (2010)
- “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential ... The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity ... During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible." - Nuremberg Code (1947)
However, there is a pending August 2019 US lawsuit against the EPA in federal court under the TSCA regulations. That lawsuit should consider the most recent findings that prove both an increase in dental fluorosis and a decline in IQ on a dose-resposne trend line plus a correlation between dental fluorosis severity and learning disabilties. God help us all if the law of the land continues to be contorted to make it legal to poison people.
A couple NZ court cases. The Human Rights case is most interesting and you may have only seen one case. The court confirmed that adding fluoride to water is compulsory medical treatment without the option to refuse. May I quote:
" Applying this approach, we find that fluoridation of drinking water is the provision of medical treatment. It involves the provision of a pharmacologically active substance for the purpose of treating those who ingest it for dental decay. We agree with the Courts below that people who live or work in areas where fluoridation occurs have no practical option but to ingest the fluoride added to the water. So the treatment is compulsory. While drinking water from a tap is not an activity that would normally be classified as undergoing medical treatment, we do not consider that ingesting fluoride added to water can be said to be qualitatively different from ingesting a fluoride tablet provided by a health practitioner.
 We conclude that fluoridation of drinking water requires those drinking the water to undergo medical treatment in circumstances where they are unable to refuse to do so. Subject to s 5, therefore, s 11 of the Bill of Rights Act is engaged."
In the USA, the FDA has agreed before Congress fluoride is a drug. However, they sidestep the issue by claiming the EPA regulates the water. EPA kicks the jurisdiction back to the FDA saying they are prevented from adding anything to water for the treatment of humans.
The court cases have something for both sides and I'm sure neither side will call these court cases definitive.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
A former fluoride promoter
No, Karen. The New Zealand Supreme Court did not make any such ruling as you and your New Zealand antifluoridationist counterparts falsely claim. A court ruling is a final decision on specific claims brought before the court to be resolved. The decision dispenses the questions one way or the other, and is enforceable as law.
To what you and your New Zealand counterparts erroneously refer as “rulings” are nothing more than the personal opinions of judges on which they base their final consensus ruling, or decision. In the NZ case, antifluoridationists appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court decision which had gone against them. They based this appeal on 2 points of law. The final ruling by the Supreme Court was that their points did not have merit, that the lower court ruling was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
No court of last resort has ever ruled in favor of the antifluoridationist nonsense of “forced medication”.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
AARP Read this and Please take action- to help STOP Fluoridation!
Below is a press release from Fluoride Free New Zealand on the NZ Supreme Court's recent ruling on fluoridation of the public water supply:
Fluoridation is Mass Medication, New Zealand Supreme Court Rules
Water fluoridation is compulsory mass medication, in breach of human rights, the Supreme Court has ruled by a majority vote. It confirmed that fluoridation is a medical treatment as claimed by opponents for over 60 years. It is not a supplement “just topping up natural levels”, as claimed by the Ministry of Health.
The impracticality of avoiding fluoridated water makes it compulsory in practice, the majority also ruled.
Three judges held that there was conflicting scientific evidence, confirming that the science is NOT settled.
Chief Justice Sian Elias then held that fluoridation was not prescribed by law (i.e. is unlawful), applying section 6 of the Bill of Rights Act. That was the correct decision in Fluoride Free NZ’s view.
The rest of the majority held that it was prescribed by law, and it was then necessary to apply a balancing test to determine if the breach of the right – not to be subject to medical treatment without consent – was justified in the case of fluoridation.
Justice Glazebrook held that it was for a local authority to do this when making its decision, potentially taking into account specific local circumstances.
On the balance of information before the Court – the misinformation promulgated by promoters that water fluoridation measurably reduces tooth decay and presents no real health risk – two judges held that it was justifiable. This is despite the court reiterating that it is now accepted that benefit for fluoride is from topical application, not from ingestion.
The Court did not consider information published since the original High Court case, and the recent US Government multi-million-dollar study by Bashash et al, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, carried out by top scientists and researchers in top North American universities – had not yet been published. This study found that children exposed to fluoride at the same levels as New Zealanders had significantly reduced IQ, which could easily have shifted the Justices’ perception of safety.
Importantly, the Court held that this question of whether fluoridation is justifiable is to be determined on the balance of probabilities. There is no requirement for absolute proof of harm, as long-maintained by the Ministry of Health. As a question of fact, the two judges’ conclusion is not binding on any lower court or any statutory decision maker. With the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence that water fluoridation is ineffective and poses significant health risks, this opens the door to end the practice at any time.
The majority held that tooth decay was a condition in the community that a local council could address (through fluoridation) under section 23 of the Health Act. It necessarily follows that any aspect of health in the community, good or bad, must also fall under section 23. This includes the current IQ level of inhabitants. Therefore a local council is required to protect that condition under section 23. So if, on the balance of probabilities, water fluoridation reduces IQ significantly – and half a standard deviation (5 points on the scale used in recent studies) is significant – a council must not implement fluoridation, and in fact must cease it if it is currently in place. Arguably, this mandatory requirement would override any direction that a District Health Board might give a council under the proposed legislation currently before Parliament.
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled fluoridation is medical treatment without consent, and with the mounting evidence that it is ineffective and carries significant health risks, it is time for politicians and the health sector to rethink the practice. Its days are clearly numbered following this judgment.
Wow!!! I’ve seen a mountain load of misrepresentations by antifluoridationists, but this one by the New Zealand antifluoridationist group has got to go to the top of the list. The NZ Supreme Court did not make any of the rulings claimed by this New Zealand subsidiary of FAN, in its “press release”. The court simply rejected the appeal by another New Zealand antifluoridationist group, New Health, of lower court rulings against the antifluoridationists. While the Supreme Court provided summaries of its discussions and reasoning, the dismissal of the antifluoridationist claims was its only ruling. It most certainly did not rule that fluoridation is mass medication, compulsory, or any of the other egregious claims made in this ridiculous “press release”.
A summary of the NZ Supreme Court ruling against the antifluoridationists was prepared by the Justices. It may be viewed:
Steven D. Slott, DDS
“While four out of five dentists may be enough to pick a gum, all should agree before we force-medicate the public.” - Judge Peter Vallone, Jr., former Chair of the NYC Public Safety Committee (2012)
Thousands of scientists and dentists oppose fluoridation based on 21st century evidence. The IAOMT is a professional organization with a scientific mission. IAOMT membership is dentists, oral medicine doctors & toxicologists. See their 2017 Position Paper Against Fluoride Use for Dental and Medical Practitioners, Dental and Medical Students, Consumers, and Policy Makers. They are one professional organization from over a dozen who openly oppose fluoridation in the 21st century.
Thousands of professionals object, and this thread begun in February 2015 includes quotes from many of them. Moreover, it is an individual human right to choose what substance to take into one's own body. Fluoridation policy is medical treatment without individual medical consent that conveniently ignores those who have medical contraindications, which includes many senior citizens. For a small troop of trolls to insinuate that they are the only experts in an attempt to shut down this conversation in support of fluoridation decrees that poison baby boomers is bullying 101.
- I encourage anyone new to this thread to go to the oldest posts to read science and testimony of senior citizens harmed by fluoridation. Going forward, this thread will be pretty useless, as I stated in my last entry re the troll attack.
See just a couple of pages of those dentists, doctors and scientists with integrity and courage who openly oppose fluoridation based on evidence of harm. More on FluorideAlert.org:
and a page of community leadership quotes from 2017:
In 2014 there were about 175,000 dentist in the US alone. dentists. 341/175000 = 0.2%
It seems the troop of trolls who for the past decade or so has overwhelmed every letter to the editor in small town newspapers across the country with scores of vitriolic personal attacks and reams of copy and paste disinformation in order to bully community members into silence has found this thread about the medical contraindications of fluoride consumption, particularly for senior citizens.
This 'rapid response team' was originally organized by Pew Charitable Trusts as part of their special interest funded fluoridation initiative. The team is sent daily email alerts with sample comments. The media consultant in charge recommends inserting 'outrage and anger' into comments in order to shut down civil dialogue. The North Carolina dentist on this thread once posted 179 vitriolic comments out of 215 comments on a social media thread in Massachusetts. The pro-fluoride machine also employs social media experts and astroturfers for the purpose of 'expanding and protecting community water fluoridation.'
A couple of years ago, the most active trolls founded their own non-profit advocacy group in order to monetize their hobby. Apparently Delta Dental made the first $50,000 donation. I am given to understand the members may contract their services personally to assist pro-fluoridation entitities with political style attacks on fluoridation opponents. Consequently, unless AARP bans Johnny Johnson, Steve Slott, Chuck Haynie and the rest of their gang of gunslingers when they show up, the usefulness of this thread from here on out is ended.
- Therefore, I encourage those who are interested in fluoridation science to go the the oldest posts and read in chronological order so as to get the benefit of the AARP members who have told their personal stories as well as useful scientific information relevant to senior citizens.
Organizations Openly Opposed to Fluoridation include:
- AAEM: American Academy of Environmental Medicine
- ICIM: International College of Integrative Medicine
- IABDM: International Academy of Biological Dentists and Medicine
- IAOMT: International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology
- HDA: Holistic Dental Association
- EWG: Environmental Working Group
- CHEJ: Center for Health, Environment & Justice
- Sierra Club: Environmentalists
- ICA: International Chiropractors Association
- OCA: Organic Consumers Association
- FWW: Food & Water Watch
- CAAP: Coalition of African American Pastors
- LULAC: League of United Latin American Citizens
For the purpose of disclosure, the commenter who hides behind the psedonym “CaryAnne” on this site, and other pseudonyms on other sites all over the internet, is Karen Spencer, a Massachusetts activist who is closely affiliated with the New York antifluoridationist faction, FAN, a group notirious for disseminating large amounts of misinformation about the public health initiative of water fluoridation.
Ideological opposition to water fluoridation has existed amongst small pockets of ultra-conservatives since the post WW II anti-government paranoia of those such as the John Birch Society at the very beginning of this initiative 73 years ago. Current antifluoridation activists are simply the latest generation of those who have attempted to keep this ideology alive through the decades. The advent of the internet has accorded these little groups unfettered and immediate access to a worldwide audience, and constant, collaborative contact with each other to a degree never having before been possible. As Spencer notes, in recent years, this heretofore unfettered dissemination of misinformation has become more and more challenged by those such as the American Fluoridation Society whose members have the knowledge and expertise to fully expose the fallacies and dishonesty of their claims. The result is frustrated personal attacks and libelous claims such as that put forth by Spencer.
There is little, if anything, in Spencer’s personal attack against the American Fluoridation Society and its members which bears any resemblance to the truth. As a non-profit, the organization is fully transparent, with information about the organization and its members readily available on its website:
The members of AFS are all healthcare providers who volunteer their time, efforts knowledge, and expertise for no compensation, to provide evidence-based facts which correct and counter the mountain of false claims and misinformation about fluoridation constantly imposed upon the public by antifluoridation activists such as Spencer and her FAN.
In contrast, in addition to the aforementioned concealing by these activists of their true identities while posting libelous personal attacks and misinformation, the group FAN, with which they are affiliated, cloaks its financial information and activities beneath an umbrella organization, while refusing to disclose the individuals and organizations who drive their funding and agenda. Readers are encouraged to seek underlying information about this group, and discern for themselves the degree to which it is hidden. What is known is that the leaders of FAN are paid for their efforts to disparage fluoridation, that the group has a paid lobbyist, that it receives significant funding from natural food salesmen such as the dubious Joseph Mercola, and that it’s misinformation has been promoted by the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his “Infowars”.
So, the question here is whether AARP members would rather trust evidence-based information on a healthcare issue provided by healthcare providers who are fully open and transparent about who they are, and who rely upon the latest, most up-to-date peer-reviewed science, authoritative information from those such as the US CDC, the US EPA, the American Dental Association, the World Health Organization, and the American Academy of Pediatrics......or upon the unsubstantiated claims, misrepresentations, and misinformation of activists who have no healthcare education, training, or experience, who hide their true identities, who are paid for their services, who are backed by dubious individuals and organizations, who fail to disclose anything whatsoever about themselves or their organization, and who employ name-calling and personal attacks when backed into a corner by facts and evidence?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Hi CA, or Karen Spencer, or whomever is hiding behing this name,
Your list speaks volumes about those opposed to water fluoridation.
Take the IAOMT. The definition of this group from RationalWiki sums it up best:
"The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) is a quack organization based in Canada that promotes dental woo. They were responsible for the "smoking tooth" video that frequently gets passed around in altie circles. Their main issue is mercury amalgam fillings, which they claim can cause all sorts of neurological illnesses such as Parkinson's and autism. They sell filling removal kits for "dentists" along with various other nature woo, mostly vitamin supplements. The organization also opposes water fluoridation, claims to put out peer-reviewed "research," and supports "health freedom."
Thanks for bringing forward your group of opposition. Now our readers truly can understand who these folks are and what they stand for.
Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS
When a person lacks evidence to support a theory, they attack the person and people rather than the issues.
Many aspects of dentistry and public health are in the dustbin of history. Fluoridation will soon be considered on of public health's greatest blunders.
When fluoridation first started, public health authorities (Burk et al) assured the public only about 10-15% of the public would get dental fluorosis, a biomarker of too much fluoride.
Dental fluorosis increased at the turn of the century to 41% of adolescents with dental fluorosis. The latest NHANES 2011-2012 dental fluorosis CDC survay released, shows 60% of adolescents with dental fluorosis and 20% with moderate and severe. Clearly, too many are ingesting too much fluoride.
One of the unknowns is, "where is the excess fluoride coming from?" Water fluoridation and toothpaste do not seem to have increased enough to cause such high rates of dental fluorosis. Are there synergistic chemicals, other fluoride products or what? Indeed, HHS recommended reducing the concentration of fluoride in water to 0.7 ppm, but HHS suggests that will represent about a 14% decrease in exposure. Still too much fluoride ingestion.
Fluoride does not magically go just to the teeth. Most cells and tissues and organ systems appear to be affected.
First consider dosage. What fluoride concentration is desireable in the tooth? How much fluoride does it take to get that concentration?
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Bill, as a point of clarification, while you may claim to be a “former fluoride promoter” at some point in the past, the fact is that you are the former Director of the New York antifluoridationist faction, FAN.
Yes, there were two decisions, by the NZ Supreme Court. I have, of course, seen both, and understand, as apparently you do not, that both rulings rejected the arguments of the antifluoridationists, and upheld the lower rulings that:
1. The Tanaki Council did, indeed, have the authority to fluoridate its water system,
2. That the fluoridation substances are not medicine under the Medicine Act.
What you have posted here are out-of-context opinions of justices, not their ruling. You have also conveniently omitted the opinion of the other justice which differred from them. However, none of them “confirm” anythng, and are simply opinions expressed to explain their reasoning in reaching a final ruling against the antifluoridationists. The following is the summary in complete and proper context:
“After a series of cases that have been running since 2014, the Supreme Court has released two decisions dismissing New Health New Zealand Inc's various challenges to drinking-water fluoridation.
The Court dealt with the claims in two separate judgments. In the first judgment the Court addressed New Health's challenge to South Taranaki District Council's decision to fluoridate drinking-water supplies in Patea and Waverley. In particular, the Court addressed New Health's claims:
- That the Council did not have the necessary statutory powers to fluoridate drinking-water supplies
- That mass water fluoridation breached the right to refuse medical treatment, as set out in section 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA).
Although their reasoning sometimes differed, all of the Justices except Elias CJ agreed that the Council did have the necessary statutory powers to fluoridate drinking-water supplies.
On the BORA point, the analysis was complex. William Young J agreed with the Court of Appeal's finding that water fluoridation is not a medical treatment for the purpose of section 11. In contrast, the other Justices found that drinking-water fluoridation is a medical treatment. However, O'Regan and France JJ concluded that, despite engaging section 11: "the provisions authorising the fluoridation of drinking water limit the s 11 right only to an extent that is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society for the purposes of s 5 of [the BORA]". Glazebrook J also agreed section 11 was engaged, but in contrast, noted that satisfaction of section 5 would depend on local conditions and declined to analyse the point further. Overall, while the Justices were divided in their reasoning, the majority agreed that the appeal must be dismissed. Elias CJ differed, giving a minority judgment which concluded that "an interpretation of the legislation which recognises an implied power to add fluoride to water is inconsistent with s 11 of the [BORA]".
In the second judgment, the Court addressed New Health's challenge to the validity of the Medicines Amendment Regulations 2015, which had declared that fluoridating agents for use in water supply were not medicines for the purposes of the Medicines Act. The Court was united in dismissing this appeal, finding, in essence, that because the Regulations were made for a lawful purpose (clarity) and were prospective in nature, they were valid. The Court also agreed with the Court of Appeal that New Health's other challenges to the Medicines Act were moot, and the appeal was dismissed.”
Now, with that settled, Bill, do you care to comment on the recently released results of the National Toxicology Program study which you, yourself, instigated, and which your FAN promoted and pledged to closely monitor? It’s probably no coincidence that FAN has chosen to remain deafeningly silent on these results, given that they reject, in no uncertain terms, the claims of FAN.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Yes I agree with you the court dismissed the cases. However, I think you will agree that the quote I cut and pasted that fluoridation is a medicine, is accurate.
In the USA we call medicines . . . drugs. The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has jurisdiction over drugs in the USA and has not approved the ingestion of fluoride with the intent to prevent dental caries. . . no NDA . . . no drug approval process.
Why have proponents never received FDA approval to ingest the fluoride drug? FDA has rejected approval because the evidence of efficacy is "incomplete." The FDA calls unapproved drugs "illegal."
When people attack the messenger, it is a loud statement they don't have the evidence to counter the message.
Paul Connett PhD is Director of FAN. I'm too busy treating patients. . . some with dental fluorosis. I am Board Chair of the organization (AEHSP) over FAN. If you want to talk about dentistry, fluoride or other issues, I'm with you. If you want to attack people, I'm not interested.
You asked about the NTP study. Good question. Three steps to their review. The first part of the NTP review was available animal studies. The result was "moderate" evidence of developmental neurotoxicity from fluoride.
Second, NTP proposed to do research to fill in one or more gaps in the animal research. The resulting NTP study is the study you are refering to and I will comment on it below.
Third part of the report is a review of the human research. The human research review was to come out late 2017 and did not. I contacted NTP and was told Spring of 2018. We are not past Spring and I expect the report anytime. Why the delay? The NTP told me that should the human research also show a "moderate" risk, both animal and human moderates would indicate fluoride is designated as a developmental neurotoxicant.
You ask specifically about the animal study NTP did on animals. The study has serious limitations, in my opinion. A big one was the choice of animals. I don't know of any animal more resistant to the effects of fluoride than the one they chose. The second item I objected to in their study was the age of the animals tested.
Because the testing was for "developmental neurotoxic" effects, it would seem reasonable to test the effects of fluoride when the neurological system was in its most critical developmental phases. Avoiding giving fluoride to the animals while during the development of the neurologic system would make no sense. NTP started the study after the animals were weened. In other words, prenatal and early development of the neurologic system was not included in the study. Many children get a huge dose of fluoride when fluoridated water is mixed with formula rather than breast fed (mother's milk contains almost no fluoride.)
The study is not without merit, simply has limitations. In fact, the results help us focus on the possibility of the most harm happening during early exposure, consistent with the Bashash human study and others. If we are going to test the effect of fluoride on development, the fluoride should be given during development. . . wouldn't you agree? And because fluoride affects the genetic systems, a good study would start prior to conception and the development of the sperm and egg in dad and mom.
So much to learn about fluoride which science has not even begun to explore. Sad that tradition forces people to ingest a medicine with so little research which has had mixed results.
I do not give my consent to be medicated with fluoridated water.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Bill, first of all, you need to cease attempting the “poor victim” tactic of claiming personal attacks when there are none. Such tactics do not belong in intelligent discourse. Attacking the misinformation you post does not constitute a personal attack, and the posting of false claims and misinformation does not make you a “messenger”.
1. As I have clearly stated, the out-of-context quote you posted is nothing but the personal opinions of 3 justices of the NZ Supreme Court, while you conveniently omitted the opinion of another, which differed from those 3. Such opinions are just that....opinions. They carry no more weight than do the opinions of anyone else, and confirm nothing. What does confirm, and carry the weight of law, is the ruling by these justices that the arguments made to overturn the lower court rulings against the antifluoridationists were without merit, that the appeal was rejected, and that the lower rulings stand.
There is nothing accurate about posting out-of-context quotes and implying them to be legal rulings.
2. What you personally call anything is irrelevant, and does not represent what “In the USA we call” anything, whatsoever. Your personal nomenclature has no bearing on this discussion.
3. There are no drugs involved in water fluoridation, thus, there is no “drug approval process” necessary for this initiative.
The US FDA has no jurisdiction over the content of drinking water supplies. What the FDA approves or does not approve has no relevance to optimal level fluoride in public water supplies. This is fact.
That said, the FDA does have jurisdiction over consumable retail products. This includes fluoridated bottled water. The FDA has approved the following claim to be made about this water: “Drinking fluoridated water may reduce the risk of [dental caries or tooth decay].”
Obviously, the FDA has no problem with fluoride in water at the appropriate concentration. It is a mystery as to why you believe they do.
4. Yes, I’m aware that Paul Connett has recently resumed the position of FAN Director from which he had retired. Do you deny that you were the Director, or Interim Director, of FAN during a portion of the time after he retired?
Given that the AEHSP has no apparent function other than to cloak FAN, thereby keeping FAN finances hidden from public scrutiny, and that the Board of Directors of AEHSP is the same as that for FAN, your extensive involvement with that antifluoridationist group is clear.
5. I have no desire to talk about, “dentistry, fluoride, or other issues” with you. I simply correct the misinformation you post.
6. Your obsession with people attacking other people is somewhat bizarre, as I see no evidence of that occurring here.
7. The only dental fluorosis which may be associated with optimally fluoridated water is mild to very mild, a barely detectable effect which causes no adversity on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. This level of dental fluorosis requires no treatment. If you are cutting down mildly fluorosed teeth and placing veneers as you have implied in the past needs to be done for such teeth, then you are arguably committing malpractice and your state dental board should be notified.
8. While I appreciate your being the sole FAN associate having the courage to finally comment on the NTP study, your arguments against it are not very compelling, to say the least.
A. First of all, the result of the initial NTP literature review was not “ ‘moderate’ evidence of developmental neurotoxicity from fluoride.” as you claim. It was a reported finding of moderate level of evidence suggesting adverse cognitive effect in animals exposed to fluoride as adults, and low level of evidence suggesting cognitive impairment in animals exposed during development. Given that you, yourself, claim in this comment that “it would seem reasonable to test the effects of fluoride when the neurological system was in its most critical developmental phases.”, then the lowest level of evidence for cognitive impairment was in the group you admit to being the most critical.
B. That you are not aware of any animals “more resistant to the effects of fluoride than the one they chose” is not a very convincing argument. Assumedly, you are not an expert in the physiology and pharmacokinetics of rats relative to all other animals.
C. You instigated the NTP review. FAN touted and promoted the study, lavishing praise onto the “cutting edge scientific tools” and integrity which the NTP would employ in this study. Now that the results of the study found no evidence to support FAN claims of neurotoxicity or other purported adverse effects of fluoride in these animals, you deem the study to have had serious limitations, and the methodology of the NTP researchers to have been flawed.
Hmmm......Perhaps you should have found a more competent and reliable toxicology program than the NTP to have performed the study you requested. Oh, wait.....there is no such entity.
D. Anecdotal claims about what the NTP told you really have no relevance at this point.
9. There is no medicine involved in water fluoridation. There are simply fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water. Your claim of “so little research” could not be any more ludicrous. Water fluoridation has been the most studied public health initiative in history. PubMed lists over 50,000 studies on fluoride.
“So little research”?? Seriously, Bill?
10. Your consent is not required for local officials to approve the concentration level of existing fluoride in public water supplies under their jurisdiction. If you don’t want to consume such water, then don’t. Entirely your choice.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Science should not be treated like religion or politics. Shooting the messenger does not prove science. Historically, religions and governments shot the messenger. Science focuses on the message.
To your numbered points:
1. Please read my post again and I agree, the NZ Court ruled in favor of fluoridation. But the judges did acknowledge some key points. They did say fluoride is a medicine, although the case was not specifically on determining whether fluoride is a medicine. I'm not a lawyer. . . as you know. But I do agree that since fluoride pills are drugs, simply diluting the pill in water does not make it anything else. The intent of use makes it a drug/medicine. And important to note, the ingestion of fluoride has never gone through the drug approval process in any country.
3. The US FDA has approved fluoride topical use in toothpaste with warnings not to swallow. Drug Fact.
And the FDA testified to Congress fluoride is a drug when used with intent to prevent disease.
And NZ judges agreed fluoride is a drug. . . .
And Washington State judge agreed fluoride is a drug. . . .
And the Washington State Board of Pharmacy determined fluoride is a drug. . .
And the Idaho State Board of Pharmacy determined fluoride is a drug. . . .
The FDA is clear, their interpretation of the FD&C Act is any substance with a health (mitigation, treatment, prevention, cure of disease) claim is a drug, even a placebo is a drug and needs NDA. Dilution or efficacy is not the criteria of whether a substance is a drug. The intent of use, claim by the manufacturer for marketing defines the substance as a drug.
In all state laws which I have reviewed, fluoride fits within the definition of a highly toxic substance, poison. There are strict penalties for adding poisons to water. However, there are two exemptions to poison laws, when they are regulated under pesticide or drug laws.
Your comment suggests there are no drugs involved with fluoridation. OK, then the law gives the choice of either fluoride is regulated as a pesticide or a poison. Which would you prefer? Drug, pesticide, or poison? There are no other options. Fluoride is not a food and is not added to treat water. Fluoride is not added to treat water and make it safer, rather fluoride is added with the intent to prevent disease in humans. Just because arsenic naturally occurs in water does not mean a person could legally add more arsenic.
The EPA legal council clearly stated the addition of fluoride to water is under the jurisdiction of the FDA. And the FDA said the EPA has responsibility. You have suggested the FDA has no problem with fluoride in water. Really? Has anyone tried to get a New Drug Approval (NDA) from the FDA for fluoride diluted in water. Fluoride added to bottled water did not go through the NDA process and receive approval. The FDA did not evaluate any science on the efficacy or safety of fluoride. The FDA was notified of a health claim that was going to be put on bottled water based on other government agencies supporting fluoride ingestion. The FDA and EPA avoid fluoride regulation due to politics, not science.
And what about fluoride supplements? We know full well the FDA withdrew approval of fluoride supplements because the evidence of efficacy was incomplete. Swallowing fluoride with the intent to prevent dental caries has never been approved with a NDA.
Suppose we add a small amount of penacillin to water with a claim the water helped prevent bacterial infections? Certainly we would need FDA NDA.
4. FAN. I have never received any money from FAN or AEHSP. I am a volunteer. Ethically and morally I am trying to stop my patients and humans from being harmed.
5. You wrote, " I have no desire to talk about, “dentistry, fluoride, or other issues” with you. I simply correct the misinformation you post." Sounds like you are doing what you don't want to do. A paradigm shift can be uncomfortable.
7. Dental fluorosis. You have suggested the only dental fluorosis associated with "optimally" fluoridated water is mild to very mild. Then why does the NHANES 2010-2011 CDC survey in the USA show 20% of adolescents with moderate/severe dental fluorosis. I would agree if a person only received fluoride from fluoridated water, we would not see moderate/severe cases of dental fluorosis.
Do you disagree with the NHANES survey? Why? Where are they wrong? What are the other sources of fluoride? Or is the dental fluorosis due to synergistic chemical effects? The huge increases in dental fluorosis should be alarming to everyone.
And what sources of fluoride should be reduced to lower the risk of harm? Fluoride pesticides?
Fluoride added to water? HHS suggested lowering the fluoride concentration in water, which was a good start, but not enough.
8. NTP study. You don't find my arguments compelling? Well, for scientists, no single study is proof of anything. We evaluate the weight of evidence, the quality of studies. The NTP only did one study. We can't hang our hats and declare ingestion of fluoride is safe for the developing brain, based on one study. There are some human studies which have found no harm to the brain. But for every study which did not find harm to the brain there are more than six which have found harm. And as we are still in the infancy of studying the fluoride/brain relationship, the research is becoming more focused and of higher quality. Several studies a year on humans are being published and the vast majority report harm at ever lower dosages.
The relavance of what the NTP told me is important. They are not finished with their report. Perhaps one should wait for them to finish their report before one pops open the champaign.
9. Yes, I maintain so little quality research on fluoride has been done. Not a single prospective randomized controlled trial on fluoridation or fluoride ingestion with the intent to prevent dental caries. You mention 50,000 studies in your search. Yet not one RCT???? They can be done and maybe they have and found no benefit.
Yes, fluoride has been used to cause cancer in animals so new cancer drugs can be tested. But those kinds of studies do not prove fluoride is either safe or effective.
10. You have suggested ingesting fluoridated water is my choice. Perhaps you should read the NZ court case again. The judges found one could not avoid fluoridated water, they did not agree fluoridated water is an individual's choice.
For me, the bottom line is:
1. Too many are ingesting too much fluoride. (NHANES and EPA)
2. Dosage of water is highly variable, some drinking very little and some drinking a great deal. Distribution of any substance without control of dosage is problematic.
3. Freedom of choice is violated.
4. Fluoride's effect is primarily topical, not systemic.
5. Many studies report risks to most cells and systems of the body.
6. Some individuals are chemically very sensitive.
Fluoridation is one of my professions greatest blunders.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
15. I have no “paradigm shift”. I’m doing exactly as I said. I’m correcting the misinformation you continually post, and have no desire to “discuss dentistry, fluoride, or other issues” with you, as you proposed in your previous comment.
16. The FAN claim of what “NHANES shows” is FAN’s interpretation, not that of NHANES. You clearly admit here that moderate/severe dental fluorosis is not attributable to fluoridated water. What you are therefore seeking to do is end fluoridation due to an effect that is not attributable to this public health initiative.
17. Yes, your arguments against the NTP study are not compelling in the least. This is particularly true in view of the fact that your group promoted and blustered about this study from the very beginning, yet by some strange twist now finds it to be fraught with limitations and having utilized questionable methodologies. The no uncertain terms in which the results of the study debunked FAN’s claims, has nothing to do with this sudden shift in confidence in the NTP, I presume........
I fully agree. No one study is proof of anything. This is precisely the point fluoridation advocates have been hammering home against the cherry-picking of antifluoridationists for years. You should tell this to your FAN colleagues. They are the ones who blustered about the NTP study as one “that could end fluoridation”, who misrepresent Bashash as “proof” of neurotoxicity, and who constantly cite Bassin for their ridiculous cancer claims, while ignoring the volume of science which has clearly demonstrated just the opposite.
Your claim of 6 to 1 is typical of the unsubstantiated nonsense constantly put forth by antifluoridationists. Providing titles of studies which contain the word “fluoride” in them somewhere does not denote relevance, validity, or proper representation of the results of such studies......as the EPA made clear in its 40 page rejection of the most recent meritless FAN petition.
18. Anecdotes about what you claim the NTP told you are meaningless and irrelevance.
The ones who “pops open the champaign” were FAN and its followers who blustered about this NTP study at the beginning, only to have their champaign go completely flat when the study results didn’t go as planned......to the surprise of no one except antifluoridationists.
19. As both York 2000 and Cochrane 2015 clearly noted, RCTs on large, population-based initiatives such as water fluoridation are infeasible, and will thus never be done. Not only are the observational studies on fluoridation entirely acceptable, such studies have been clearly demonstrated to provide equally reliable results as RCTs.
“We found little evidence that estimates of treatment effects in observational studies reported after 1984 are either consistently larger than or qualitatively different from those obtained in randomized, controlled trials.”
—-A Comparison of Observational Studies and Randomized, Controlled Trials
Kjell Benson, B.A., and Arthur J. Hartz, M.D., Ph.D.
N Engl J Med 2000; 342:1878-1886
“However, empirical proof that observational studies of treatment are widely off the mark has been surprisingly elusive.2 Four meta-analyses contrasting RCTs and observational studies of treatment found no large systematic differences (Benson 2000, Concato 2000, MacLehose 2000, Ioannidis 2001).”
—-Why do the results of randomised and observational studies differ?
BMJ 2011; 343 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d7020 (Published 07 November 2011)
20. Perhaps it is you who “should read the NZ court case again”.....or actually read for the first time, which your comments indicate you have not yet done. If you did, then maybe you would cease misrepresenting it. That aside, it’s interesting that you attempt to base your “choice” argument on one court case in New Zealand given that you previously professed the inadvisability of relying upon “one single study”. I rest my case about the cherry-picking of antifluoridationists.
You have the option of purchasing fluoride-free bottled water, utilizing an RO filter, utilizing rain water, obtaining water from rivers and streams.....
Options are choices. Inconvenience does not equate to force. You are free to consume fluoridated water, or to obtain fluoride-free water from other sources. Entirely your choice.
21. Your “bottom line”:
a. Your personal opinion as to whom is ingesting what is unsubstantiated, unquantified, and does not demonstrate harm from optimally fluoridated water. It is certainly not a reason to deprive entire populations of the very valuable disease preventive benefits of this public health initiative.
b. The dose of fluoride from optimally fluoridated water is very strictly controlled. For every one liter of such water consumed, 0.7 mg of fluoride is ingested. When the amount of a substance which can be ingested falls below the level of adverse effects for that substance, then dose is not of concern in regard to adverse effects. Before this level could be attained from ingesting optimally fluoridated water in conjunction with fluoride intake from all other normal sources of fluoride, water toxicity would be concern, not fluoride.
This is true not only for fluoride but for chlorine, ammonia, and the myriad other substances routinely added to public water supplies.
c. There are no “freedom of choice” issues involved with water fluoridation. You are free to consume it or not. Entirely your choice.
d. The effects of fluoride are both topical and systemic. The systemic effects are demonstrated in the mild to very mild dental fluorosis which which may be associated with optimally fluoridated water. Mild to very mild dental fluorosis is a barely detectable effect which causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As peer-reviewed science has demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse. Dental fluorosis can only occur systemically.
—-The Association Between Enamel Fluorosis and Dental Caries in U.S. Schoolchildren Hiroko Iida, DDS, MPH and Jayanth V. Kumar, DDS, MPH
Additionally, topical effects of fluoride are made possible through its ingestion. Saliva with fluoride incorporated into it provides a constant bathing of the teeth in a low concentration of fluoride all throughout the day, a very effective means of dental decay prevention. Incorporation of fluoride into saliva occurs systemically.
Further evidence of systemic benefit is provided by:
------Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States
United States Centers for Disease Control
Recommendations and Reports
August 17, 2001/50(RR14);1-42
Additionally, in a 2014 study Cho, et al. found:
-----Systemic effect of water ﬂuoridation on dental caries prevalence
Cho HJ, Jin BH, Park DY, Jung SH, Lee HS, Paik DI, Bae KH.
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2014; 42: 341–348. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
---Buzalaf MAR (ed): Fluoride and the Oral Environment. Monogr Oral Sci. Basel, Karger, 2011, vol 22, pp 97–114
e. Unsubstantiated claims about some phantom studies existing somewhere or another....are meaningless and irrelevant.
f. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any sensitivity to fluoride at the optimal level.
G. Your “greatest blunder” in regard to this issue is a failure to properly educate yourself on it from reliable, respected sources of accurate information.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Scientists. . . good scientists. . . are not dogmatic and absolute, non-negotiable. Good scientists understand that not all evidence, research, facts are known. We are always challenging the evidence and questioning the theories. The terms "ignorant" "always" "never" "established" are terms to be avoided. Camping on assumptions is hazardous because 50% of what science has "established" is wrong and we don't know which 50%. An open mind is essential.
I want to break the concept of fluoridation into small sub-topics for more clarity.
Lets talk about one aspect of dosage, which involves how much are we getting? and how much do we want?
1. CONTROLLED DOSAGE FROM WATER: The concentration of fluoride in water is a concentration, not a dosage. Concentration of fluoride in water makes no "dosage" sense unless we know how much water the patient is ingesting. Some ingest almost no water and others ingest over 10 liters a day. Dosage of fluoride from water is uncontrolled because the amount of water consumed by each individual is not controlled. Water is a poor medium for dispensing any substance used to treat humans or animals.
2. TOTAL FLUORIDE EXPOSURE: In all discussions on fluoride, total fluoride exposure is essential. Individuals consume a great deal of fluoride from many sources. Swallowing toothpaste, pesticides, post-harvest fumigants, medications, and much more. A discussion of fluoridation MUST consider all sources of fluoride exposure, not just water. A statement such as a Harvard Professor tried to use, "water fluoridation has never been shown to cause any harm," is deceptive. In fact, I don't know any human study which has isolated out only water fluoridation as the only source of fluoride exposure.
3. MANY ARE INGESTING TOO MUCH FLUORIDE: NHANES clearly shows a huge increase in dental fluorosis to 60% of adolescents in 2011-2012, a biomarker of excess fluoride exposure. Note the EPA graph below:
The US EPA Relative Source Contribution of fluoride in 2010 shows fluoride daily intake is excessive (percentage above the black line) for about a quarter to a third of children.
The EPA ignored the 10% of children drinking more water.
The EPA ignored infants below six months of age.
The EPA proposed, without support, claiming fluoride is a third safer (RfD).
And we have not considered, yet, "HOW MUCH FLUORIDE IS BENEFICIAL?"
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Yes, Bill. Good scientists are not “dogmatic and absolute”. Good scientists rely on valid evidence from reliable sources. They do not rely upon erroneous personal opinions, unsubstantiated claims, and speculation. When you have valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your claims, feel free to provide it at any time. Attempting to cloak the absence of such evidence in personal philosophical opinions is transparent and disingenuous.
As for your “sub-topics”
1. Yes, concentration and dose are two different quantifiers. Your acknowledgement of this elementary concept does not change the facts.
The intake, or dose, of fluoride from optimally fluoridated water is very strictly controlled. For every one liter of such water consumed, 0.7 mg fluoride is ingested. The average water consumption of adults is 2-4 liters per day. Ten liters is roughly 2.5 gallons. If you know of anyone ingesting 2.5 gallons of water on a daily basis you should caution him/her about the dangers of water toxicity. No public health initiative is expected to account for extreme behaviors such as this.
Prior to attaining the daily limit of fluoride intake from optimally fluoridated water in conjunction with that from all other normal sources, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride. When the amount of a substance which can be ingested falls below the level of adverse effects for that substance, then dose is not a concern in regard to adverse effects. Presumedly you understand this as you seem to have no problem with any “uncontrolled” dose of chlorine, ammonia, or any of the other substances routinely added to public water supplies.
Ironically, the non-fluoridated systems for which you advocate are far less controlled in regard to fluoride dose than are fluoridated systems. While fluoridated systems maintain a constant fluoride concentration of 0.7 mg/liter, non-fluoridated systems are only governed by a maximum allowable level of 4.0 mg/liter, nearly 6 times that of fluoridated systems.
2. Both the EPA maximum allowable level, and the US DHHS recommended optimal level, of fluoride in drinking water obviously take into account total fluoride intake from all sources. Believe it or not, the scientists establishing such levels are not incompetent.
Simply put, water is fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter (ppm=mg/liter). Thus, for every liter of fluoridated water consumed, the "dose" of fluoride intake is 0.7 mg. The average daily water consumption by an adult is 2-4 liters per day. The US CDC estimates that of the total daily intake, or "dose", of fluoride from all sources including dental products, 75% is from the water.
The National Academy of Medicine has established that the daily upper limit for fluoride intake from all sources, for adults, before adverse effects will occur, short or long term, is 10 mg. As can be noted from a simple math equation, before the daily upper limit of fluoride intake could be attained in association with optimally fluoridated water, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.
The range of safety between the minuscule few parts per million fluoride that are added to existing fluoride levels in your water, is so wide that "dose" is not an issue.
3. FAN claims as to what NHANES data “clearly shows” does not constitute proper interpretation of this data by any qualified, reliable entity.
The severe level of dental fluorosis is the only level of this effect considered to be an adverse effect. Severe dental fluorosis is rare in the US and, as clearly noted by the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, does not occur in communities with a water fluoride content less than 2.0 ppm. And yes, this takes into account fluoride intake from all sources. These scientists were not incompetent either.
4. An image of some graph you claim to be from the EPA, with no citation to the original is meaningless.
5. Your unsubstantiated personal opinion as to what the EPA “ignored” or “proposed without support” is meaningless and irrelevant.
6. It has been determined, through countless peer-reviewed scientific studies, that a concentration of 0.7 mg/liter fluoride in drinking water fluoride is beneficial in preventing a significant amount of very serious dental infection in populations served by that water.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Bill, I’ll go round and round in your little circles as long as you would like. However, no matter how many times you keep repeating the same invalid arguments, the facts will not change.
Yes, science should not be treated like religion or politics. It is a mystery why you continue to do so. The only ones I see injecting religion into the issue of fluoridation, for whatever reason, are opponents. You and Connett do so repeatedly.
Again, posting misrepresentations, false claims, and misinformation does not you make you a “messenger” of anything but nonsense. I am personally aware of no attempts to “shoot” you, for whatever bizarre reason you keep making that reference.
Yet once again.......
1. The opinions of the New Zealand justices were just that....opinions. They are not rulings, and carry no force of law. Countless people have opinions on fluoridation. Interestingly enough, the opponents putting out their nonsensical misrepresentation of this ruling, conveniently omit the opinion of the justice which differed with those of the others. The ruling of the NZ Supreme Court in this case was that the arguments presented by the antifluoridationists were inadequate to warrant overturn of the lower court ruling against the antifluoridationists. Their appeal was therefore rejected and the lower court ruling was upheld.
2. The US FDA has no jurisdiction over the contents of public water supplies. It therefore makes no more difference to water fluoridation what the FDA approves, than it does what the Girl Scouts of America approve.
3. The US FDA has jurisdiction over consumable retail products. It is certainly free to testify to Congress or anywhere else how it classifies these products. Such testimony has no relevance to contents of public water supplies.
4. The NZ justices did not agree that “fluoride is a drug”. Just the opposite. They unanimously agreed that under the regulations set forth under the NZ Medicine Act, fluoridating agents are not drugs. The antifluoridationist challenge to the validity of those regulations had already been rejected.
“The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed New Health’s appeal against both aspects of the Court of Appeal decision. The Court found that the regulations were valid because they were not made for an improper purpose, nor were they made on the basis of an error of law. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the question as to whether the fluoridating agents were medicines prior to the making of the regulations was moot.”
Fluoridation: New Health NZ v South Taranaki DC Wednesday, 27 June 2018, 12:30 pm Press Release: NZ Supreme Court Supreme Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Mana Nui 27 JUNE 2018 http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1806/S00307/fluoridation-new-health-nz-v-south-taranaki-dc.htm
5. You forgot to include the Girl Scouts in your little list of whom you claim thinks fluoride is a drug. Where does GSA stand, Bill? I mean, their opinion on the contents of drinking water supplies is every bit as relevant as that of the other groups you list.
6. What you deem you have gleaned from a perusal of the laws of some unknown state or another, could not be any more meaningless or irrelevant. How you personally define fluoride could not be any more meaningless or irrelevant. Produce a ruling from any court of last resort that water fluoridation is illegal.
7. My comment does not “suggest” there are no drugs involved with fluoridation. It states this as a fact. Whatever “poison laws” to which you refer, are a mystery.
What you personally deem to be “options” for fluoride classification is meaningless and irrelevant. Fluoride has always existed in water. It is regulated by the US EPA, as are all other contents of such water.
8. The concentration of the existing fluoride content in public water supplies is adjusted through fluoridation to that level at which has been established that maximum dental decay resistance occurs in the population served by that water, with no adverse effects upon anyone. The fluoride ions added to adjust to this level are identical to those which already exist in water. An attempt to suddenly proclaim these fluoride ions to be a “drug” is obviously ludicrous.
9. Arsenic is ubiquitous in nature. It is added to water constantly. To prevent this occurrence would be nearly impossible. The amount of arsenic which can legally exist in drinking water at the tap, is 10 parts per billion The amount of fluoride which can legally exist in drinking water at the tap is 4.0 parts per million. As long as these amounts are not exceeded there are no legal violations. Optimally fluoridated water contains 0.7 parts per million fluoride.
10. Under the US Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, the EPA has complete jurisdiction over the contents of drinking water. There is no “EPA legal council ” that somehow cedes this jurisdiction to the FDA. It is a congressional mandate.
“SDWA authorizes the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) to set national health-based standards for drinking water to protect against both naturally-occurring and man-made contaminants that may be found in drinking water. US EPA, states, and water systems then work together to make sure that these standards are met.”
11. The FDA never “withdrew approval of fluoride supplements”. Unlike fluoride in water, fluoride supplements are retail consumables, regulated under the FDA. They are therefore subject to the “drug” label of that agency. Drugs which were already on the market prior to 1938 when the 1906 Food and Drugs Act was revised were grandfathered in under the then new regulations. The 1906 law was revised to require testing of new drugs introduced into the market after 1938. Drugs already on the market at that time with no evidence of safety concerns were considered to be safe and not required to undergo the testing for new products which had no such existing record. Fluoride supplements were already on the market then, with no reason to question their safety. To this day, here has been no credible evidence that these supplements are in any manner unsafe. Had there been, the FDA would have reevaluated its decision to grandfather the substance......as it is currently doing with caffeine, a substance which had also been grandfathered but is now being questioned due to to effects of large doses in energy drinks.
The list of grandfathered drugs is extensive and includes, along with fluoride supplements and caffeine, such commonly ingested substances as acetaminophen, aspirin and codeine.
Antifluoridationist attempts to portray the grandfathering of fluoride supplements as an indication that such substances are unsafe, are misrepresentative and dishonest.
12. Penicillin does not already exist in water as does fluoride. Introducing this drug into water supplies as you suggest would be introducing a new substance not already being ingested from the water. Penicillin also has clearly documented adverse side effects, including potentially fatal allergic reactions, which fluoride does not at the optimal level utilized in fluoridation.
13. I have not stated you to have received any payment from FAN or AEHSP. I stated that you were extensively involved with this antifluoridationist faction. Given your lack of denial that you are a former Director of FAN and your admission that you are the Chair of the AEHSP Board, which is the same Board for FAN, the extensiveness of your involvement with FAN is self-evident.
14. Seeking to undermine the most cost-effective means of dental decay prevention in entire populations based on nothing but false assertions, unsubstantiated claims, and misinformation is neither ethical nor moral.
to be continued......
Steven D. Slott, DDS
We agree on many aspects and accuse each other of not following the facts and the science.
We agree, science should not be religion and we need to look at factual evidence, not opinion.
We agree the FDA does NOT have jurisdiction over public water.
We agree opinions of organizations are not facts, just opinions.
We disagree on cost effectiveness of fluoridation.
We disagree on safety.
We disagree on judgment. Appears you feel the Girl Scouts opinion is just as reasoned as Supreme Court Justices.
We disagree that Washington State is an "unknown" state.
We disagree that fluoride is a drug. Toothpaste says it is. As a dentist I have prescribed fluoride. FDA says it is a drug. Those are facts.
We disagree on the FD&C Act's definition of drug. Natural occuring fluoride is not a drug, it becomes a drug when marketed with the intent to mitigate, prevent, cure or treat a disease. Steve, the definition of a drug is not the chemical, but the use of the chemical, the marketing of the chemical. The FDA regulates the manufacturer and the manufacturer must gain FDA NDA for any substance used with the intent. Read the FD&C Act. Read the FDA web page on drugs and the development of drugs. Read for yourself. Read the facts. The FDA does not exempt a manufacturer from NDA simply because they "adjust" the concentration of the chemical. The chemical can be fake, non-existant, ineffective, or placebo, the definition is based on the "INTENT" of use.
I agree with the fact that arsenic is added to water as a contaminant of such things as hydrofluorosilicic acid and water treatment chemicals. The MCLG is zero, but that is not usually possible.
If the intent of adding arsenic to water was to treat or prevent a disease, the substance then becomes a drug.
Steve, think this through. If I took a drug which exists in water in very small amounts, such as penacillin or lithium, and simply adjusted the concentration, would that substance be legal to market and sell as a substance to treat disease and without a prescription or FDA NDA? No. Dilution of the substance does not exempt the substance from FDA NDA. Concentration makes no difference. Efficacy makes no difference. The intent of use determines whether a substance is a drug.
Your quote of the SDWA is correct but incomplete. The SDWA also prohibits the EPA from adding anything for the treatment of humans or animals. The EPA regulates contaminants, which fluoride is a contaminant.
So lets look at the evidence.
Later. I'm off to protest and march against children being taken away from their parents and treated like criminals.
A natural mineral in drinking water
A mineral nutrient
A water additive
An over the counter medication
A prescription medication
An industrial chemical
An industrial pollutant
A rat poison
Each of these statements is true. There are important, critical distinctions between each use, each concentration, and the purity standards which define the various incarnations of "fluoride." Different governmental bureaucracies have regulatory responsibility depending on the specific use.
The willful refusal to acknowledge these clear and easily understood distinctions is an important element in fluoridation opponents misleading the general public.