600 Professionals Urge US Congress to End Water Flouridation

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 or FDA safety-tested approved 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.

Source: http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html