Bulletin #756

January 24, 2006

Dear All,

First an apology and a request.

The apology. Sorry to all those who tuned into the Alaskan radio program and did not hear my voice. I was there at the other end of the phone but first of all, their inline was not working, and by the time they got a workable line our phone service had gone down! Eventually I got to another phone, but didn’t get on air until about 3:45 pm (45 minutes late). Despite this did anyone get to hear the show?

The request. Does anyone know someone who could help us translate into English several important articles in Chinese on the lowering of IQ in children in China. With these five studies that brings the total of studies on this issue in China up to 10 or 11.

For years both the ADA and the CDC have claimed that water fluoridated at 1 ppm was safe for EVERY ONE to drink. Then on Nov 9 the ADA quietly and rather reluctantly recommended (to its members only) that children under one year of age should not drink formula made up with fluoridated tap water. Now the CDC has posted the same caution on their web site (printed below).

Both the ADA and the CDC want to cut their cake and keep it. They issue warnings (probably to avoid future liabilities) but do it in such a way as to not to undermine their zealous promotion of water fluoridation. So they do it as quietly as possible, by emailing their members only or by putting a slickly crafted message on their web site. What they don’t do is:

a) issue a press release to warn the media;  
b) take any practical steps to get the information to parents or pediatricians;
c) get the message to WIC programs

Worse still, both the CDC and the ADA standby silently and irresponsibly while Wal-Mart and other supermarket chains continue to market fluoridated “nursery water” which is targeting the very same children with fluoride that both the ADA and the CDC say shouldn’t get it!

If the ADA announcement was quiet, it was at least direct about the message. The CDC has been far more deceitful.

CDC: Masters of public deception. Once again the Oral Health Division at the CDC has demonstrated its mastership of public deception. In the same short statement which appeared unannounced on their web page the CDC spin masters have managed to give advice to parents not to use fluoridated water for infants while brilliantly crafting the message into one of parental CHOICE. In essence they say to parents: you choose whether your kids are going to get barely discernable markings or dental cavities! They know that this is a blatantly false message because they themselves have pointed out that fluoride’s benefits are largely topical not systemic, and thus depriving bottle fed infants of fluoride (i.e. before their teeth have erupted) is not going to increase their risk of dental caries but ONLY increase their risk of dental fluorosis. There is no balancing act needed here. Either you avoid the dangers or you don’t.  But this masterful piece of spin allows them to say that infants shouldn’t get fluoridated water while at the same time restating that water fluoridation is safe for ALL AGES! Wow!

Below I have printed the CDC statement and an article in today’s Texarkana Gazette which shows how well the CDC’s  deception is working.

Meanwhile, I let my imagination do some walking and I came up with an imagined conversation between two “public servants” at the CDC, which might have preceded the placement of this masterful piece of deception on their web page.

Do you have any thoughts on what we should do about this latest piece of CDC deception? Is there no way we can get at least one US Senator or Congressperson to force the CDC to behave responsibly on this issue or are we content to sit back and let the Oral Health Division to act as an arm of the ADA?

Paul Connett
————————————
Imagined conversation at the CDC.

Oh My God, the ADA is saying that parents shouldn’t use fluoridated water to make up baby formula!

Where did they say that?

In an E-gram that they sent to their members.

They didn’t send out a press release or anything?

No, they didn’t and so far very few people in the media have picked up on the announcement.

You know if the antis pick up this story it could cause trouble for our whole fluoridation program.

Why’s that?

We have been saying for years that fluoridated water was safe for everyone. Now the ADA is saying that it is not safe for babies.

Well, they’re not saying it is actually “unsafe” they are just saying it may discolor the tooth enamel – you know just a “cosmetic effect.”

Well, we should put out something to cover ourselves on this. Would you write something up which reiterates our commitment to water fluoridation? You know the usual line, “CDC believes that community water fluoridation is safe and healthy and promotes its use for people of all ages.” Stress that we are talking about a “minority” of children. That we are only talking about something which is “barely noticeable if noticed at all”

How about “faint white markings”?

Yes, that is good. Let’s hope people don’t actually look at photos of mild dental fluorosis!

We could also make this an issue of parental choice, by saying something like, “Parents and health providers should weigh the balance between a child’s risk for very mild or mild enamel fluorosis and the benefit of fluoride for preventing tooth decay and the need for dental fillings.”

That’s great! I love “weigh the balance.” Only the antis are on top of the fact that that we stated in 1999 and again in 2001, that fluoride provides little, if any, benefit prior to the eruption of the teeth, but it sounds reasonable enough. I just hope no one in the media points out that parents in low income families do not have any choice in this matter.

Should we suggest communities providing help for these families with alternative water supplies?

Are you kidding? Communities could never afford that, and that would undermine our whole argument on cost effectiveness,

Should we mention that our 2005 survey of American kids showed that 3-4% were in the moderate and severe category?

No don’t do that.  What we could do is to say that it is the combined total of fluoride exposure that gives these conditions.

You mean take the focus of water fluoridation?

Yes, absolutely.

What if someone asks what else the fluoride might be doing to the child’s tissues if the fluoride is damaging the growing tooth?

They seldom do – and we can say that after 60 years that there is no evidence that any other tissues are damaged.

But what about the NRC report?

Well, thank goodness no one in the national media has taken much notice of that. Besides who has time to read 500 pages?

But supposing some inquisitive journalist actually asks about other tissues being affected, what do we tell them?

If any one asks we’ll just say this would make a good research project, and the CDC will continue to assess the science, but in the mean time, we have to fight the number one preventable disease in the US.

You bet.

Don’t forget to end your statement with “CDC believes that community water fluoridation is safe and healthy and promotes its use for people of all ages” and just hope people don’t spot that what we have actually told them is that it is not safe for bottle fed babies.

OK. Shall we put out a press release on this?

Are your crazy? No just put it on our web site, and hope the media don’t go there.

Paul Connett

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm>  

 Background: Infant Formula and the Risk for Enamel Fluorosis

The proper amount of fluoride from infancy through old age helps prevent and control tooth decay. In a minority of children, fluoride exposure during the ages when teeth are forming (from birth through age 8) also can result in a range of changes within the outer surface of the tooth called enamel fluorosis. Recent evidence suggests that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water on a regular basis may increase the chance of a child developing the faint white markings of very mild or mild enamel fluorosis. This occurs on baby and permanent teeth while they are forming under the gums. Once the teeth come into the mouth, they are no longer able to develop this condition.  Typically, very mild or mild fluorosis is barely noticeable, if noticed at all. Studies have not shown that teeth are likely to develop more esthetically noticeable forms of fluorosis, even with regular mixing of formula with fluoridated water.

In children younger than 8 years of age, combined fluoride exposure from all sources—water, food, toothpaste, mouth rinse, or other products—contributes to enamel fluorosis. Currently one-third (33%) of children aged 12 to 15 years in the United States have very mild to mild forms of this condition. It is important to understand that some fluoride exposure to developing teeth also plays a long-term role in preventing tooth decay. Parents and health providers should weigh the balance between a child’s risk for very mild or mild enamel fluorosis and the benefit of fluoride for preventing tooth decay and the need for dental fillings.

The possibility of an association between fluoride in infant formula and the risk for enamel fluorosis has been studied for many years. Until now, most researchers concluded that fluoride intake during a child’s first 10 to12 months had little impact on the development of this condition in permanent teeth. A recent study, however, has raised the possibility that fluoride exposure during the first year of life may play a more important role on fluorosis development than was previously understood. It now appears that the amount of the fluoride contained in the water used for mixing infant formula may influence a child’s risk for developing enamel fluorosis, particularly if the child’s sole source of nutrition is from reconstituted infant formula.

CDC will continue to assess the science regarding the use of fluoride in preventing tooth decay while limiting enamel fluorosis, and will modify its recommendations as warranted. CDC believes that community water fluoridation is safe and healthy and promotes its use for people of all ages. (my emphasis, PC)

Texarkana Gazette

http://www.texarkanagazette.com:80/articles/2007/01/23/local_news/news/news14.txt

CDC develops new fluoride recommendations for formula

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 9:19 AM CST

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last month developed new recommendations concerning fluoride in infant formula.

The new recommendations aim to reduce the risk of enamel fluorosis, a cosmetic condition varying from barely noticeable white spots on the surface enamel of a tooth to pitting and staining of the outer enamel.

Recent evidence suggests mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water regularly may increase the chance of a child developing the faint white markings of very mild or mild enamel fluorosis, according to the CDC.

This occurs on baby and permanent teeth when they are forming under the gums.

Parents and health providers should weigh the balance between a child’s risk for mild enamel fluorosis and the benefit of fluoride for preventing tooth decay and the need for dental fillings, according the the CDC Website.

The possibility of an association between fluoride in infant formula and the risk for enamel fluorosis has been studied for many years.

Until now, most researchers concluded that fluoride exposure during the first year of life had little impact on the development of this condition in permanent teeth. But a recent study suggests it may play a more important role on fluorosis development than was previously understood, according the the CDC.

The CDC believes community water fluoridation is safe and healthy and promotes its use for people of all ages.