Fluoridation: Recent History
1988-2003
A Partial, Annotated List of Recent
Events, Articles, Hearings, Reports, and Research.
May 6, 2003 - EPA Science
Forum session on fluoridation. For the first time since 1978,
a government agency, the EPA, invited a discussion on the merits of
fluoridation. However, no one from government agencies or
non-governmental organizations that endorse and promote fluoridation, such as
the CDC, U.S. PHS, or the ADA, would agree to the EPA' s
invitation to speak
for fluoridation. Second Look's Statement
of Concern, with names gathered so far from organizations and
individual professionals, was released in support of the EPA union of
professionals' call for a Congressional investigation.
March, 2003 - Article in International Journal of Occupational &
Environmental Health, Vol.9, No.1, Jan/Mar2003, by D.W. Cross and
R. J. Carton, Ph.D., titled, "Fluoridation: A Violation of Medical Ethics
and Human Rights"
April 25, 2002 - EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory
states that the release of fluoride in drinking water from silicofluorides is
"not well understood", expresses concern over fluoride's interactions
with other chemicals, and asks for research.
September, 2001 - Sierra Club issues a position statement on
fluoridation, citing "…valid concerns regarding the potential adverse
impact of fluoridation on the environment, wildlife, and human health."
May, 2001 - Rachel's
Environment & Health News. Comprehensive article on
fluoridation by Dr. Paul Connett, Michael Connett, and Ellen Connett (http://www.rachel.org )
April, 2001 - Oregon Hearing on SB 99 (proposing mandatory
fluoridation) with testimony by Paul Engelking, Ph.D., Professor of Chemistry,
U. of Oregon, on environmental effects of fluoridation including endangerment
of salmon. SB 99 did not pass.
Feb. 16, 2001 - Nicholas Regush (ABC News, Second Opinion), brief overview, ending: "What is amazing, however, is that public health
policy in this country has allowed water fluoridation to continue in the
absence of solid scientific evidence that its benefit is greater than its risk.
When you commit to putting a powerful chemical into the water supply, you'd
better have the best of evidence that it is both safe and effective. The
required level of evidence is just not there."
Jan. 17, 2001 - The Ottawa
Citizen, Toronto, opens
its article on a recent Canadian Government study on fluoridation thus: "Cities should think twice about putting
fluoride in their water because the practice has minimal benefits and some
risk, suggests a newly released government report."
Oct. 2000 - The York Review of fluoridation , (British Medical Journal, Oct. 5,.2000),
was commissioned by the British Government's National Health Service. Two main
findings were that fluoridation reduced cavities by 15% (not by the large
percentages claimed by earlier studies) and that fluoridation increased dental
fluorosis in children by 48 % with 12.5 % of children having severe or moderate
fluorosis. Fluoridation proponents (often echoed by the media) claimed that the
York Review gave fluoridation a clean bill of health. Professor Trevor Sheldon,
Chair of the study committee, had no patience with the spin thus applied to the
research findings. He wrote: "It is
particularly worrying then that statements which mislead the public about the
review's findings have been made in press releases and briefings by the British
Dental Association, the National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health and the
British Fluoridation Society. I should like to correct some of these errors:
1. Whilst there is evidence that
water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries, the quality of the studies
was generally moderate and the size of the estimated benefit, only of the order
of 15%, is far from "massive".
2. The review found water
fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental
fluorosis, which was not characterised as "just a cosmetic issue".
3. The review did not show water
fluoridation to be safe. The quality of the research was too poor to establish
with confidence whether or not there are potentially important adverse effects
in addition to the high levels of fluorosis. The report recommended that more
research was needed.
4. There was little evidence to show
that water fluoridation has reduced social inequalities in dental
health"....
A highly respected British medical writer, Douglas
Carnall, wrote in response to the York Review: "Previously neutral on the issue, I am now persuaded by the
arguments that those who wish to take fluoride (like me) had better get it from
toothpaste rather than the water supply"
Sept. 5, 2000 - In a letter, Charles Fox of the U.S. EPA answers
questions from the U.S. House Committee on Science. Fox indicated fact sheets
would be prepared warning susceptible population groups especially vulnerable
to health effects from ingesting fluoride. The initial focus will be on the
elderly, children, and pregnant women. (Full text of letter on www.citizens.org )
Fox's letter essentially confirms the earlier findings
of the U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services, Public Health Service. Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, April 1993: Toxological
Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine. TP-91/17, 4/93. Pp.
155-156. We quote from this report: "Existing
data indicate that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to
the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the
elderly, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, and/or vitamin C, and
people with cardiovascular and kidney problems.... Impaired renal clearance of
fluoride has also been found in people with diabetes mellitus and cardiac
insufficiency.... People over the age of 50 often have decreased renal fluoride
clearance."
July 2000 - Neurotoxology 21 (6): 1091-1100, 2000. "Association of
Silicofluoride Treated Water with Elevated Blood Lead" by Masters, Coplan,
Hone, and Dykes. (See IIc. in attached statement.)
July 2000 - Journal of the
American Dental Association, Feature article by J.D.B.
Featherstone, Ph.D., confirms that "Fluoridation in drinking water and in
fluoride containing products reduces cavities via topical mechanisms" [Ed.: In other words, by direct
contact, as opposed to ingestion]
June 29, 2000 - J. William Hirzy, Ph.D., Vice-President of the
union of scientists and other professionals at EPA Headquarters, testifies on
fluoridation before an Environment and Public Works subcommittee at a U.S.
Senate Hearing on Safe Drinking Water Standards, reaffirming the union's call
for a national moratorium on fluoridation. Click here for
transcript.
May 2000 - A report
by Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility, titled "Toxic Threats
To Child Development", states in its chapter on fluorides "Studies in animal and human populations suggest that
fluoride exposure at levels that are experienced by a significant proportion of
the population whose drinking water is fluoridated, may have adverse impacts on
the developing brain."
April 2000 - Dr. Hardy Limeback, Head of Preventive Dentistry,
University of Toronto, and Past-President of the Canadian Association of Dental
Research, explains why he has reversed his position on fluoridation. (hardy.limeback@utoronto.ca )
Other dental professionals who reversed their position: Dr. John Colquhoun,
former Principal Dental Officer, Dept. of Health, Auckland, New Zealand, and
David Kennedy, DDS, Past President, International Academy `of Oral Medicine and
Toxicology.
Oct. 1999 - Centers for Disease Control "Achievements in
Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental
Caries", Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report. Oct. 22, 1999. This report gives a clean bill of
health to fluoridation and strongly promotes the practice, though admitting
that fluoride's benefits are now seen as predominantly topical rather than
systemic.
The CDC report is not a peer-reviewed article.
Professionals who have had a life-long career of promoting fluoridation wrote
it, and it can only be fairly evaluated by submitting it to scientific
scrutiny. One example of such scrutiny is provided by Paul Connett, Ph.D.,
Professor of Chemistry and Toxicology, St. Lawrence University, Canton, N.Y.,
in a 28 page report titled The Emperor Has
No Clothes: A Critique of the CDC's Promotion of Fluoridation. (Waste Not #
468, September 2000. ( http://www.fluoridealert.org
)
After analyzing each
statement in the CDC report, Connett writes in his conclusion: "The CDC's
report falls far short of the necessary critical distance on the issue that we
should expect from a government institution so integral in protecting the
public's health. The CDC, instead of playing the ever needed role of public
watchdog, is playing the institutionally expedient role of zealous
promoter."
May 1, 1999 - "White Paper" from the union of
professionals at EPA Headquarters (NTEU, Ch. 280) titled "Why
EPA Headquarters' Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation."
August, 1998 - Fluorides and the
Environment, 16-page report from Earth Island Institute, covering
environmental aspects of fluoridation, including its impact on salmon and
plants. ( http://www.earthisland.org
)
May 1998 - Pediatrics, May '98, Vol. 95. # 5: Fluoride Supplementation for Children: Interim Policy Recommendations
(RE 9511) from the American Academy of Pediatrics. Agreeing with
recent Amercian Dental Association's recommendations, AAP now advises NO fluoride
for infants up to 6 months, even if their water is not fluoridated. (Logically,
one would expect warnings not to use fluoridated water for formula for infants,
but this warning is not to be found in this article.)
July 1997 - Journal of the American Dental
Association. Researchers analyzed
the fluoride concentration in 238 baby foods. Stephen Levy, DDS, wrote:
"Our main concern is that these young children could be at increased risk
for mild to moderate dental fluorosis by ingesting too much fluoride."
Aug. 1, 1988 - Chemical and
Engineering News. A 17-page article by Bette Hileman analyzes the
history of fluoridation and fluoridation science. Many examples are given of
scientific articles critical of fluoridation that were published abroad after
having been rejected for publication in the U.S. Hileman: "Voices of opposition have been suppressed since
the early days of fluoridation…. From the beginning, the movement to fluoridate
water was conducted more like a political campaign than a scientific enterprise."
No comments:
Post a Comment