May/June 2003 Alternative Health
The State of the Debate On Fluoridation
by Jim Martin
Deadly poison from
toxic waste? A nutrient that will save the rotting teeth of America’s
neglected children? A massive coverup of scientific research and government
fraud? Proven in medical studies to be both safe and effective?
All across America, the debate over water fluoridation rages on. Both
sides present volumes of data supporting very convincing arguments.
To help clarify this issue, the Health and Dental Awareness Professionals
recently sponsored a presentation entitled Fluoride’s Place in
21st Century Health Care, featuring Dr. David Kennedy. Kennedy,
a retired dentist, is a Fellow and past president of the International
Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology and an internationally known
speaker on the topic of fluoridation. He was accompanied by Jeff Green,
National Director of the Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, and for many
years a consultant to the dental industry.
The key points of the discussion focused on current scientific research
from around the world, the recent US Committee on Science investigation
into fluoride and the response from the FDA. Contrary to public belief,
the government is not setting standards. The Environmental Protection
Agency discontinued doing so several years ago, leaving this task to
voluntary regulation by the fluoride industry itself—which was
keen to sell the toxic fluoride byproduct from its fertilizer production.
One very important aspect of the issue has been often misunderstood
due to confusion about dose vs. concentration. Decades ago the
maximum dose was set for adults at 1 milligram per day, and approved
concentrations in water supplies—an arbitrary 1 part per million,
never proven to be optimum— were based on the assumption that we
drink one liter of water daily.
The problem is that any consumption of water over 1 liter/day for
adults, and half that amount for children, can deliver an overdose.
The American Academy of Pediatrics now recommends no flouride
whatsoever for children under six months of age, and very low
doses for older kids, increasing with age. A major complicating factor
is that all fluoride sources must be considered. For example, by consuming
just a Coke, a bowl of Wheaties and a glass of milk you are already
overdosed (132% of daily maximum dose) without drinking any water at
all.
Research to date has demonstrated that the benefit of fluoride in decay
prevention is topical, not systemic. There is no benefit whatsoever
from the ingestion of fluoride via drinking water. Only fluoride
applied to the teeth, where it is incorporated into the tartar, may
have decay reduction benefits.
Studies involving tens of thousands of people in Canada, New Zealand,
USA and India found no benefit from drinking fluoridated water, and
in one study of 400,000 people the highest tooth decay was found in
the area with the highest fluoride concentration.
Fluoride is not an approved drug: The FDA defines
fluoride as a drug, but it has rejected 35 new drug applications for
fluoride/vitamin combinations, stating: "There is no substantial
evidence of drug effectiveness as prescribed, recommended or suggested
in labeling." Adding fluoride to water is therefore the mandated
distribution of an unapproved drug to the public. The FDA is therefore
violating its own policy of approval of drugs for public use.
Studies show fluoride to lower IQ, affect incidence of hip fractures,
cause cancer, and to be particularly hazardous to susceptible populations
including people with certain nutritional deficiencies or kidney problems.
Coverups and censorship: The Public Health Service downgraded
or threw out all data on tumor formation connected to fluoride in a
report by William Marcus, a top EPA scientist. In response, Marcus sued
the government and won. The PHS then shredded all documents supposedly
incriminating him for violations such as outside contracting.
The American Medical Association and American Dental Association have
lobbied to keep the professional journal Fluoride, which
has published articles of the health hazards of fluoride, out of the
library of Congress
Judicial rulings: findings against fluoride have mostly
been overturned by Supreme courts on the basis that cities have the
right to add poisons to their drinking water supplies.
The position of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology
is that fluoride, whether added to the public water supply or as oral
supplements, delivers no discernable health benefit, and causes a
higher incidence of adverse health effects.
The issue of safe drinking water is currently being addressed in the
Oregon State Legislature with the introduction of SB 684, Protective
Criteria for Water Additives. It pertains to those additives for which
a health claim is being made, additives to treat people, not
substances, such as chlorine, which treat the water, making it
safe for people to drink.
The bill requires such additives meet two criteria: 1) They would have
to be approved as safe and effective for the intended purpose by the
FDA, and 2) they could not contain contaminants in excess of Maximum
Contaminant Goals already established by the EPA.
For further information on the clean water issue in America, including
fluoride, go to:
Jim Martin, Lic. Ac, Dipl. Ac. (NCCAOM) is an acupuncturist with offices
in Hillsboro (503-640-3668) and Scappoose (503-543-7266) Email: jmartin214@aol.com