PROFESSIONALS' STATEMENT CALLING FOR AN
END TO WATER FLUORIDATION
AUGUST 9, 2007
We, the undersigned professionals, come from a variety of disciplines
but all have an abiding interest in ensuring that government public
health and environmental policies be determined honestly, with
full attention paid to the latest scientific research and to ethical
principles.
EIGHT recent events make action to end water fluoridation urgent.
1. The publication in 2006 of a 500-page
review of fluoride’s toxicology by a distinguished panel
appointed by the National Research Council of the National Academies
(NRC, 2006). The NRC report concluded that the US Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA) safe drinking water standard for
fluoride (i.e. maximum contaminant level goal or MCLG) of 4 parts
per million (ppm) is unsafe and should be lowered. Despite over
60 years of fluoridation, the report listed many basic research
questions that have not been addressed. Still, the panel reviewed
a large body of literature in which fluoride has a statistically
significant association with a wide range of adverse effects.
These include an increased risk of bone fractures, decreased thyroid
function, lowered IQ, arthritic-like conditions, dental fluorosis
and, possibly, osteosarcoma.
The average fluoride daily intakes (*) associated with many of these adverse effects are reached by some
people consuming water at the concentration levels now used for
fluoridation -- especially small children, above average water
drinkers, diabetics, people with poor kidney function and other
vulnerable sub-groups. For example, the average fluoride
daily intake associated with impaired thyroid function in people
with iodine deficiency (about 12% of the US population) is reached
by small children with average consumption of fluoridated water
at 1 ppm and by people of any age or weight with moderate to high
fluoridated water consumption. Of special note among the animal
studies is one in which rats fed water containing 1 ppm fluoride
had an increased uptake of aluminum into the brain, with formation
of beta-amyloid plaques, which is a classic marker of Alzheimer's
disease pathology in humans. Considering the substantial
variation in individual water intake, exposure to fluoride from
many other sources, its accumulation in the bone and other calcifying
tissues and the wide range of human sensitivity to any toxic substance,
fluoridation provides NO margin of safety for many adverse effects,
especially lowered thyroid function.
* Note: "Daily intake"
takes into account the exposed individual’s bodyweight and
is measured in mg. of fluoride per kilogram bodyweight.
2. The evidence provided by the US Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2005 that 32% of American children
have dental fluorosis – an abnormal discoloration and mottling
of the enamel. This irreversible and sometimes disfiguring condition
is caused by fluoride. Children are now being overdosed
with fluoride, even in non-fluoridated areas, from water, swallowed
toothpaste, foods and beverages processed with fluoridated water,
and other sources. Fluoridated water is the easiest source to
eliminate.
3. The American Dental Association’s policy change,
in November 2006, recommending that only the following types of
water be used for preparing infant formula during the first 12
months of life: "purified, distilled, deionized, demineralized,
or produced through reverse osmosis." This new policy,
which was implemented to prevent the ingestion of too much fluoride
by babies and to lower the risk of dental fluorosis, clearly excludes
the use of fluoridated tap water. The burden of following this
recommendation, especially for low income families, is reason
alone for fluoridation to be halted immediately. Formula made
with fluoridated water contains 250 times more fluoride than the
average 0.004 ppm concentration found in human breast milk in
non-fluoridated areas (Table
2-6, NRC, 2006).
4. The CDC’s concession, in 1999 and 2001, that
the predominant benefit of fluoride in reducing tooth decay is
TOPICAL and not SYSTEMIC. To the extent fluoride works
to reduce tooth decay, it works from the outside of the tooth,
not from inside the body. It makes no sense to drink it and expose
the rest of the body to the long term risks of fluoride ingestion
when fluoridated toothpaste is readily available.
Fluoride’s topical mechanism probably explains the fact
that, since the 1980s, there have been many research reports indicating
little difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated
communities (Leverett, 1982; Colquhoun, 1984; 1985 and 1987; Diesendorf,
1986; Gray, 1987; Brunelle and Carlos, 1990; Spencer,1996; deLiefde,
1998; Locker, 1999; Armfield and Spencer, 2004; and Pizzo 2007
- see
citations). Poverty is the clearest factor associated
with tooth decay, not lack of ingested fluoride. According to
the World Health Organization, dental health in 12-year olds in
non-fluoridated industrialized countries is as good, if not better,
than those in fluoridated countries (Neurath,
2005).
5. In 2000, the publication of the UK government sponsored
“York Review,” the first systematic scientific review
of fluoridation, found that NONE of the studies purporting to
demonstrate the effectiveness of fluoridation to reduce tooth
decay were of grade A status, i.e. “high quality, bias unlikely” (McDonagh
et al., 2000).
6. The publication in May 2006 of a peer-reviewed, case-controlled
study from Harvard University which found a 5-7 fold increase
in osteosarcoma (a frequently fatal bone cancer) in young men
associated with exposure to fluoridated water during their 6th,
7th and 8th years (Bassin et al., 2006). This study was
surrounded by scandal as Elise Bassin’s PhD thesis adviser,
Professor Chester Douglass, was accused by the watchdog Environmental
Working Group of attempting to suppress these findings for several
years (see
video). While this study does not prove a relationship between
fluoridation and osteosarcoma beyond any doubt, the weight of
evidence and the importance of the risk call for serious consideration.
7. The admission by federal agencies, in response to
questions from a Congressional subcommittee in 1999-2000, that
the industrial grade waste products used to fluoridate over 90%
of America's drinking water supplies (fluorosilicate compounds)
have never been subjected to toxicological testing nor received
FDA approval for human ingestion (Fox, 1999; Hazan, 2000;
Plaisier, 2000; Thurnau, 2000).
8. The publication in 2004 of “The Fluoride Deception”
by Christopher Bryson. This meticulously researched book
showed that industrial interests, concerned about liabilities
from fluoride pollution and health effects on workers, played
a significant role in the early promotion of fluoridation. Bryson
also details the harassment of scientists who expressed concerns
about the safety and/or efficacy of fluoridation (see
Bryson interview).
We call upon Members of Congress (and legislators in
other fluoridating countries) to sponsor a new Congressional
(or Parliamentary) Hearing on Fluoridation so that those in government
agencies who continue to support the procedure, particularly the
Oral Health Division of the CDC, be compelled to provide the scientific
basis for their ongoing promotion of fluoridation. They must be
cross-examined under oath if the public is ever to fully learn
the truth about this outdated and harmful practice.
We call upon all medical and dental professionals, members
of water departments, local officials, public health organizations,
environmental groups and the media to examine for themselves
the new documentation that fluoridated water is ineffective and
poses serious health risks. It is no longer acceptable to simply
rely on endorsements from agencies that continue to ignore the
large body of scientific evidence on this matter -- especially
the extensive citations in the NRC (2006) report discussed above.
The untold millions of dollars that are now spent on equipment,
chemicals, monitoring, and promotion of fluoridation could be
much better invested in nutrition education and targeted dental
care for children from low income families. The vast majority
of enlightened nations have done this (see
statements).
It is time for the US, and the few remaining fluoridating
countries, to recognize that fluoridation is outdated, has serious
risks that far outweigh any minor benefits, violates sound medical
ethics and denies freedom of choice. Fluoridation must be ended
now.
Click here to see references cited in this statement
STATEMENT SIGNED BY:
• UNITED STATES: Names beginnning with A-M and N-Z
• INTERNATIONAL SIGNERS
