FAN Bulletin #536:
March 23, 2006

Dear all,

The Wall Street Journal has published a terrific article on the National Research Council report. We have posted the article below. Read, enjoy, and then forward it to your friends, colleagues, and city councilors!

Michael & Paul Connett

P.S. For more information on the NRC report, see: www.fluoridealert.org

- - - - - - - -

Government Panel Raises Concern About Fluoride

National Academy of Sciences Calls Current Ceiling Unsafe; Monitoring Your Local Supply

By SHARON  BEGLEY
March 23,  2006; Page D1
 
A panel of the National Academy of Sciences concluded  yesterday that the maximum amount of fluoride currently allowed in the  nation’s drinking water can cause health problems and “should be  lowered.”

The report concluded that children exposed to four  milligrams of fluoride per liter, the highest allowable level, risk  developing severe dental fluorosis, in which teeth become mottled, pitted  and scarred. Because fluoride can weaken bones, people who consume water  containing that much fluoride over a lifetime are likely to be at  increased risk for bone fractures.

Only 200,000 people in the U.S. live in places where water  has fluoride levels of at least 4 mg. But an additional 1.4 million live  where the concentration is at least half that, a level that can produce  mild to moderate dental fluorosis. Most are in South Carolina, but there  are thousands in Texas, Oklahoma and Virginia as well.

Fluoride levels as high as 4 mg are caused by natural rock  and soil formations, not by the addition of fluoride to water. The  government’s recommended level for fluoride deliberately added to prevent  cavities is only 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams per liter.

Still, the report will likely fuel debate in communities  considering whether to add fluoride to their water. While it didn’t  address the 60-year controversy over whether it is safe to add fluoride to  drinking water to prevent tooth decay, it is the latest development in a  number of recent findings that have changed the thinking about  fluoride.

Fluoride in moderation is known to strengthen teeth, but  views have changed on how best to get it. While scientists used to believe  that the benefits occurred mostly when people ingested fluoride so it  circulated in their blood, a spate of new studies suggests that topical  exposure (through toothpaste, gels and fluoride applications at a  dentist’s office) is equally important, if not more so. Overall, drinking  fluoridated water cuts the rate of tooth decay 18% to 40%, according to a  2001 analysis by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention —  which translates into fewer than one decayed tooth surface per person.
 
Consumers can learn how much fluoride is in their tap water  by asking their local utility. Those with high fluoride levels can reduce  fluoride exposure by using home water-filtration systems, which vary in  their ability to remove fluoride from 13% to 99%, the committee found.  So-called reverse-osmosis systems are the most effective at removing  fluoride.
 
Worries about fluoride could increase demand for bottled  water. That can have fluoride, too, but the limits for naturally occurring  fluoride are lower. About 20 bottled-water makers add fluoride to some of  their brands, including those in home and office coolers. Federal law  limits fluoride in bottled water to 1.4 to 2.4 mg per liter if none is  added by the bottler (as when the water comes from an already fluoridated  source), and to 0.8 to 1.7 mg per liter if fluoride is added at the  bottling plant. The range reflects the climate where the water is sold,  with lower allowable levels in hotter regions. The label doesn’t have to  indicate fluoride content if the bottler doesn’t add it.

There is no way, short of taking a bone sample, to  unequivocally determine one’s cumulative exposure to fluoride. It isn’t  possible to remove fluoride from the body as can be done for lead and  other heavy metals. But “if you stop exposure, it will very gradually come  out of the bone,” committee member Thomas Webster of Boston University  said.

While the panel called for the fluoride safety limit to be  lowered, it is likely to take years before that might happen. For now, the  panel’s recommendation is that the Environmental Protection Agency, which  requested and paid for the study, conduct a new risk assessment to  determine how much lower the maximum fluoride level should be. If such a  risk assessment agrees with the academy panel that four mg per liter is  too high, the EPA could then use enforcement provisions of the Safe  Drinking Water Act to compel water utilities to reduce fluoride levels.

A separate study to be published next week concludes that  fluoride raises the risk of osteosarcoma, a rare bone cancer, especially  in boys. Among boys drinking water with 30% to 99% of the 1 mg per liter  fluoride level recommended for preventing cavities, the risk of  osteosarcoma was estimated to be five times as great as among boys  drinking nonfluoridated water. At one mg per liter or more, the risk was  an estimated seven times as high. But because only 400 or so cases of  osteosarcoma are diagnosed annually in the U.S., the absolute risk of the  disease remains very low.

Other studies have shown no link between fluoridation and  cancer. The national science panel called the evidence for osteosarcoma  ”tentative and mixed,” because the studies as a whole do “not clearly  indicate that fluoride either is or is not carcinogenic in humans.” But  because the hypothesis is biologically plausible — fluoride is known to  accumulate in bone tissue and causes bone cells to proliferate, and animal  data suggest it is carcinogenic — the committee concludes that “fluoride  appears to have the potential to initiate or promote cancers, particularly  of the bone.”

The thoroughness of the report impressed even advocates of  fluoridation. “It’s an excellent piece of research,” says John Stamm of  the University of North Carolina School of Dentistry, a spokesman for the  American Dental Association. “A number of jurisdictions have been waiting  for this report.” But Dr. Stamm said fluoride should be used “for reducing  tooth decay,” and its “accumulated safety and benefits level is quite  remarkable.”

In a surprise to even some longtime fluoridation opponents,  the committee expressed concern about the effect of fluoride on IQ, noting  that the “consistency of study results appears significant enough to  warrant additional research” on the question. IQ deficits, the committee  noted, have been strongly associated with dental fluorosis, in which teeth  become scarred and weakened and develop yellow and brown mottling during  the years teeth are forming. But the existing data are “not adequate” to  say for sure whether fluoride can impair IQ.

One immediate effect of the report will be felt in  communities that are weighing fluoridation. As of 2000, 162 million  Americans have artificially fluoridated water. In recent years, local  decisions on fluoridation have broken roughly 50-50. Antifluoridation  advocates see the report as their strongest weapon ever.

“When one couples the risks with the lack of understanding  on what the safe doses are for neurotoxic and other effects, it should  cause a great deal of concern,” says Michael Connett of the Fluoride  Action Network, a nonprofit group that opposes fluoridation.