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