FAN Bulletin 1058

March 24, 2009

Below is Part 2 of our 4-part series on “Why we doubt the benefits of swallowing fluoride.”

I have sent all four parts of this series to the European Commission committee that is reviewing the fluoridation of drinking water and health studies on fluoride and the fluoridating chemicals used in water fluoridation, in response to their erroneous claim in their “Working Mandate on fluoridation” that “no one doubts the beneficial effects of fluoride.”

Well as far as the benefits of ingesting fluoride are concerned ? we certainly have HUGE doubts. This 4-part piece gives chapter and verse on how poor the evidence is that supports the notion that swallowing fluoride reduces tooth decay. If what we offer is convincing ? as we certainly believe it is ? then there is no rationale for accepting any risk at all from swallowing fluoride. This would be true whether there were no evidence of any health risks at all, but now that the evidence is emerging that there are health risks (in addition to the undeniable high rise in dental fluorosis) it makes the practice even more preposterous.

Hopefully, the European Commission committee reviewing the health data published since 2004 (which will include the NRC (2006) report; the Bassin study and many of the IQ studies) will reach an honest and scientific judgment on the heath risks involved. This will only happen if the pro-fluoridation dental “experts” are kept off the panel. That is why that phrase “no one doubts the beneficial effects of fluoride” is so alarming. If it wasn’t for that phrase we would be more hopeful about this being a genuine effort to take a second look at this practice.

Today, we received a press release from a Kathy Sennott, a  Member of the European parliament, whose enquiries appeared to have triggered this review. Kathy Sinnott’s press release can be viewed online at http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/European-Union-countries/European-Commission-agree-to-investigate-health-risks-of-fluoridated-water. So at least we know that the trigger was genuine . Now we must make sure that the process is not hi-jacked by the powerful Anglo-American dental lobby and their friends at the WHO.

Remember the fact that most European countries do not fluoridate their water and yet their tooth decay is just as good ? if not better- than the handful of countries that do, is a huge stumbling block for the pro-fluoridation zealots who, if they had their way, would fluoridate the whole world. Europe must not be subverted on this issue.

So may we urge you again to send in the following message, with your personal changes/additions, to this email address: Sanco-Sc8-Secretariat@ec.europa.eu

Dear Committee members,

You have asked for comments on your “Working Mandate on fluoridation”

( your personal preamble here)

I am alarmed by the way the erroneous claim that “no one doubts the beneficial effects of fluoride” was slipped into your “Working Mandate on fluoridation.” This phrase suggests to me that the dental lobby is already influencing this process. In order to regain the public’s trust in this process, please remove this phrase because it is simply untrue. Please also exclude any dentists or dental researchers from your deliberations  because a) they are extremely biased on this matter and b) they do not have the qualifications to make judgments on fluoride’s ability to impact other parts of the body.  Instead, on behalf of the public, I request that a balanced panel of toxicologists, neurologists, physiologists, and biologists review the new information and the Working Mandate.

Your name etc

Please check out more important developments on the battles against fluoridation currently raging in Australia, Canada, NZ, the UK and the US in our latest news section.: http://www2.fluoridealert.org/

The promoters have so much power and money and influence it is incredible that we have made the progress we have done over the last few years. But we have something that they don’t have: we have integrity and the ability via the internet to get the truth out. We have also have dedicated people like you who use this information and fight this foolish practice nearly every day. Thank you for everything you do. We will prevail.

With your help maybe we can get the European Commission to exercise integrity on this issue and thereby protect our human rights, and the notion that public policy has to be supported by honest science, and not simply serve vested interests.

Paul Connett

Why we doubt the benefits of swallowing fluoride.  Part 2.
 
13. US Department of Human Health Services (DHHS) survey
 
Dr. Bill Osmunson has showed that according to the results of a questionnaire administered to parents in all 50 states in the US by the DHHS, there is absolutely no relationship in the percentage of parents who responded “my child has very good or excellent teeth” and the percentage of the population in the state drinking fluoridated water (Osmunson, 2007). However, there is a very strong relation in all 50 states between the percentage of parents giving that answer and their income levels.  Across the board 80% of high income parents gave that answer, but only about 60% of low income parents did so (Osmunson, 2007).
 
Linear regression lines plotted for these answers versus the percentage of the population in each state fluoridated were quite flat for both high income and low income families. This indicates no correlation between the answers and the fluoridation status of each state.

14. Tooth decay and income levels.
 
What the findings in the DHHS and NY surveys show is that there is a much stronger relationship between tooth decay and parent’s income level than community fluoridation status.
 
15. The weakness of comparing two towns (or regions).  
 
Frequently promoters will produce surveys comparing the tooth decay between two towns: one fluoridated the other not. However, you can get any result you want comparing two towns (or regions) unless confounding variables are controlled very carefully (i.e. income levels, delayed eruption, diet, genetic, ethnic, cultural and educational differences, parental oversight, as well as the dental services available).
 
Often, these comparisons look more like a self-serving and self-fulfilling prophesy on behalf of fluoridation promoters, than a genuine comparison of the effects of ingesting fluoride between two towns. That is why the surveys should be part of a bona fide externally peer-reviewed published study. This way it can be ascertained if controls were attempted for these confounding variables. Most importantly it is necessary to compare how much money was spent on dental services in each community as well as the number of interventions administered. There is some evidence in the US and the UK that commensurate with the introduction of fluoridation in some cities (e.g. San Antonio, Texas; Wolverhampton, UK) the measure has been accompanied with other measures to fight tooth decay. This can create or inflate whatever benefit of fluoridation is being claimed.

16. When fluoridation is discontinued
 
Contrary to claims from proponents that when fluoridation is discontinued tooth decay goes up, several modern studies indicate the very opposite. Where fluoridation has been discontinued in communities from Canada, the former East Germany, Cuba and Finland, dental decay has not increased but  in some cases actually decreased (Maupome 2001; Kunzel and Fischer,1997, 2000; Kunzel 2000 and Seppa 2000).
 
It is possible that other preventive measures were stepped up when fluoridation was ceased in these communities, but that gives weight to the notion that there are ways of fighting tooth decay other than forcing fluoride on people in their water supply.

17. A dental crisis has been reported in many fluoridated cities in the US

There have been numerous press reports over the last few years of dental crises in US cities and states (e.g. Boston, Cincinnati, Concord, NH, New York City, Pittsburg, Connecticut, South Bronx, Detroit) which have been fluoridated for over 20 years. The fact that these crises are occurring in the low income areas of the cities again reflects the fact that there is a far greater (inverse) relationship between tooth decay and family income levels than with water fluoride levels. It also demonstrates that the disparities in tooth decay caused by income levels is not being corrected by fluoridation programs. Here is a sampling of these newspaper reports:

Cincinnati - Fluoridated since 1979
 ”City and regional medical officials say tooth decay is the city’s No. 1 unmet health-care need. ‘We cannot meet the demand,’ says Dr. Larry Hill, Cincinnati Health Department dental director. ‘It’s absolutely heartbreaking and a travesty. We have kids in this community with severe untreated dental infections. We have kids with self-esteem problems, and we have kids in severe pain and we have no place to send them in Cincinnati. People would be shocked to learn how bad the problem has become.’”
Solvig E.  2002. Special Report: Cincinnati’s dental crisis, Cincinnati Enquirer (Ohio).  October 6. Available at http://www.fluoridealert.org/media/2002d.html)
 
Concord, NH - Fluoridated since 1978
 ”It’s overwhelming,” said Deb Bergschneider, dental clinic coordinator at the Concord center. “Because we serve the uninsured, we see the lower level of the community and the need is just astronomical. … By the time they get to us, their mouths are bombed out. They are all emergency situations. It’s a severe, severe, problem. It’s sad.”  
Gerth U.  2005. Nothing to smile about. Fosters Daily Democrat (Connecticut). May 22. Available at http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-States/New-Hampshire/Nothing-to-smile-about
 
Boston - Fluoridated since 1978
“With a study estimating that the number of untreated cavities among Boston students greatly exceeds the national average, public health officials are about to launch an offensive against what they say is a growing dental crisis in the city… According to statistics cited in the city’s latest annual health report, ‘’The Health of Boston 1999′’: Eighteen percent of children 4 years old and younger who were seen in the pediatric program at Tufts University School of Dental Medicine in 1995 had baby-bottle tooth decay, a painful condition that arises when a baby is given a bottle of juice or milk at bedtime. Treatment can cost up to $4,000 per child.  About 90 percent of 107 Boston high school students were found to need dental treatment, according to a 1996 unpublished study. That report also estimated that the city’s students had four times more untreated cavities than the national average…”
Kong D.  1999. City to launch battle against dental ‘crisis’.  Boston Globe (Massachusetts).  November 27.  Available at http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-boston.htm
 
Connecticut - Statewide mandatory fluoridation since 1960s
“Dental decay remains the most common chronic disease among Connecticut’s children. Poor oral health causes Connecticut children to lose hundreds of thousands of school days each year. One in four Connecticut children is on Medicaid, but two of three Connecticut children receive no dental care. And DSS continues to exploit the seriously stretched public health providers and the few remaining private providers. There is an oral health crisis in Connecticut.”  
Slate R.  2005.  State must fund plan to provide oral health care for the poor.  New Haven Register (Connecticut). May 5.  Available at http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-States/Connecticut/Fluoridated-Connecticut-experiencing-Oral-Health-Crisis
 
South Bronx, New York - Fluoridated since 1965
“Bleeding gums, impacted teeth and rotting teeth are routine matters for the children I have interviewed in the South Bronx. Children get used to feeling constant pain. They go to sleep with it. They go to school with it. Sometimes their teachers are alarmed and try to get them to a clinic. But it’s all so slow and heavily encumbered with red tape and waiting lists and missing, lost or canceled welfare cards, that dental care is often long delayed. Children live for months with pain that grown-ups would find unendurable. The gradual attrition of accepted pain erodes their energy and aspiration. I have seen children in New York with teeth that look like brownish, broken sticks. I have also seen teen-agers who were missing half their teeth. But, to me, most shocking is to see a child with an abscess that has been inflamed for weeks and that he has simply lived with and accepts as part of the routine of life. Many teachers in the urban schools have seen this. It is almost commonplace.”
Kozol J.  1991.  Savage Inequalities.  Children in America’s Schools. Crown Publishers, Inc.( New York).  Harper Perennial / Harper Collins (New York).  
 
Pittsburgh, PA - Fluoridated since 1953
“Nearly half of children in Pittsburgh between 6 and 8 have had cavities, according to a 2002 state Department of Health report. More than 70 percent of 15-year-olds in the city have had cavities, the highest percentage in the state. Close to 30 percent of the city’s children have untreated cavities. That’s more than double the state average of 14 percent.”
Law V.  2005.  Sink your teeth into health care.  Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (Pennsylvania). February 13.  Available at http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_303168.html
 
Washington DC - Fluoridated since 1952
“Washington DC has “one of the highest decay rates in children in the country.” The “typical new patient, age 6, has five or six teeth with cavities — a ’staggering” number’” at the Children’s National Medical Center.”
Morse S.  2002.  Dentists Push for Fluoride in Bottled Water. Washington Post (DC). March 5. Available at http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-States/National/Dentists-Push-for-Fluoride-in-Bottled-Water
 
End of Part 2.

All references can be found at http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/biblio.html