Diane Drayton Buckland 

Prozac,  Video w/ Michael Moore, CYP450 genes  and more!!!

google : CYP450 fluoride    and just look at the hits

Ron

================================================================

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/02/25/legal-system-rules-antidepressants-cause-kids-to-kill.aspx?e_cid=20120225_DNL_art_1

He Murdered a Friend After Taking This Best-Selling Drug

Posted By Dr. Mercola | February 25 2012 | 12,534views

Story at-a-glance

• A Canadian judge has ruled that Prozac caused a teenage boy to murder his friend, as the drug caused him to overreact "in an impulsive, explosive and violent way"
• Many drugs, particularly antidepressants, are associated with violence, including suicidal and homicidal tendencies. Of the top 10 drugs linked to violence, half are antidepressants
• Recent research has discovered that certain genetic variations may predispose you to homicidal behavior following exposure to antidepressants, due to an inability to properly metabolize the drugs
• Studies have found that up to 75 percent of the benefits of antidepressants can be duplicated by a placebo. So not only are these drugs ineffective, but the evidence is clear that most of these drugs in fact increase your risk of suicide and violence, including homicide
• Diet and lifestyle factors such as sun exposure, exercise, and intestinal health are root causes of many mental health issues, and need to be addressed in order for healing and recovery to occur. Guidelines and recommendations included

==========================================================================

(~lS'E'RVICES..- DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH &. HUMAN SERVICES

~"~'t.(~

FEB 7 2012

Food and Drug Administration

Rockville MD 20857

Charles E. Weber

• 1908 Country Club Road

Hendersonville, NC 28739

Re: Docket No. FDA-2007-P-018l

Dear Mr. Weber:

This letter responds to your citizen petition dated February 23, 2007
(Petition), requesting

that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) make fluoride a

prescription drug when included as an ingredient in all tooth application
products,

toothpastes, and bottled water. 1

We have carefully considered the arguments you raise in your petition, the
supplement

that you submitted on July 23, 2008, and the comments submitted to the docket
regarding

your petition. For the reasons stated below, your petition is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

Before addressing your concerns about the use of fluoride in tooth application
products

(which we understand to mean fluoride rinses, gels, and powders), toothpaste,
and bottled

water, we think it is appropriate to describe how these products are curreritly
regulated by

FDA.

A. Regulation of Fluoride Dentifrices and Rinses

FDA regulates fluoride dentifrices (gels, pastes, and powders) and rinses for
the

prevention of tooth decay. On March 28, 1980, we published anadvance notice of

proposed rulemaking (ANPR) (45 FR 20666) to establish a monograph for
over-thecounter

(OTC) anticaries drug products, along with the recommendations of our Advisory

Review Panel on OTC Dentifrice and Dental Care Drug Products. After reviewing
the

comments to the ANPR, on September 30, 1985, we published a notice of proposed

rulemaking (50 FR 39854) in the form of a tentative final monograph that
proposed to

establish conditions under which OTC anticaries drug products would be regarded
as

generally recognized as safe and effective and not misbranded. Following review
of the

comments to the tentative final monograph, on October 6, 1995, we issued a final
rule in

the form of a final monograph (60 FR 52474) for OTC anticaries drug products.

I This citizen petition was originally assigned docket number 2007P-0070/CPl.
The number was changed

to FDA-2007-P-0181 as a result of FDA's transition to its new docketing system
(Regulations.gov) in

January 2008.

The anticaries drug product monograph is set forth in 21 CFR part 355. Section
355.10

states the permissible concentrations and dosage forms for each of the
anticaries active

ingredients covered under the monograph. The following fluoride compounds at the

concentrations listed below are considered to be generally recognized as safe
and

effective for use in aTC anticavity products and may be legally marketed without
an

FDA-approved new drug application (NDA) if the products meet the requirements in
the

aTC anticaries monograph:

•

Sodium fluoride 0.188 to 0.254 percent dentifrices (850 to 1,150 parts per

million (ppm) theoretical total fluorine)

Sodium fluoride 0.01,0.02 and 0.05 percent rinses

Sodium monofluorophosphate 0.654 to 0.884 percent dentifrices (850 to 1,150

ppm theoretical total fluorine)

Sodium monofluorophosphate 1.153 percent dentifrices (1,500 ppm

theoretical total fluorine)

Stannous fluoride 0.351 to 0.474 percent dentifrices

Stannous fluoride 0.4 percent gels

Stannous fluoride 0.1 percent rinses

Acidulated phosphate fluoride 0.01 and 0.02 percent (effective fluoride ion

concentration) rinses

•

•

•

•

Under the monograph, numerous fluoride-containing gels, rinses, powders, and
pastes are

marketed on an aTC basis for the prevention oftooth decay. A product containing
a

concentration above those listed in section § 355.10 cannot be legally marketed
as an

aTC drug under the monograph. To lawfully market a fluoride-containing drug
product

above the concentrations listed in § 355.10, a company would need to submit an
NDA to

FDA for approval.

B. Regulation of Fluoride in Bottled Water

FDA regulates bottled water as a food under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act

(FD&C Act)? FDA's bottled water quality standard at 21 CFR 165.110(b)(4)(ii)

2 Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) regulates fluoride

in public drinking water. EPA determines maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and
maximum

contaminant level goals (MCLGs) for contaminants in drinking water. An MCL is
the maximum

permissible level of a contaminant in drinking water. An MCLG is the level of a
contaminant in drinking

water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. EPA established
4 milligrams/liter

(mg/L) as the MCL and MCLG for fluoride. In addition, the U.S. Department of
Health and Human

Services (HHS) provides recommendations for community water fluoridation to
prevent tooth decay. HHS

recently proposed a new recommended fluoridation level, 0.7 mgIL, to replace the
previous recommended

range of 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L, as the concentration that provides the best balance of
protection from dental caries

while limiting the risk of dental fluorosis (76 FR 2383, January 13,2011). EPA
is also reviewing its

MCLG for fluoride to take into account new information regarding health effects,
including dental

fluorosis. There are several reasons for these changes, including the fact that
Americans have access to

more sources of fluoride than they did when water fluoridation was first
introduced in the United States

(http://www.cdc.govlfluoridationifact_sheets/cwCqa.htm).

2

specifies the level of fluoride that may be contained in bottled water. Fluoride
can occur

naturally in source waters used for bottled water. It may also be added by a
bottled water

manufacturer. FDA has established different allowable levels for fluoride in
bottled

water (from 0.8 - 2.4 mg/L) in its bottled water quality standard under

§ 165.110(b)(4)(ii). Fluoride may be added to bottled water within these
limitations

because FDA recognized that water with added fluoride may provide a benefit to

consumers (i.e., prevention oftooth decay) and because bottled water may be used
by

some consumers as an alternative to community drinking water (60 FR 57076 at
57079,

November 13, 1995). If fluoride (or any substance) is added to bottled water,
the water is

considered a multi-ingredient food and, as such, must bear ingredient labeling
(section

403(i)(2) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 343(i)(2)). FDA also permits the following

health claim for reduced risk of dental caries on bottled water products that
meet certain

criteria: "Drinking fluoridated water may reduce the risk of [dental caries or
tooth

decayl.t'"

II. DISCUSSION

A. Safety and Efficacy Concerns

1. Effectiveness of Fluoride

You state that fluoride is used "both internally and as an application under the

supposition that it poisons tooth cavity bacteria and decreases enamel
solubility." You

think this supposition is incorrect, and you claim that fluoride is only
"marginally useful"

for preventing tooth decay because it decreases cavities less than 50 percent
while

adversely affecting health (Petition at 1).

We agree that fluoride achieves its anticaries effect primarily by decreasing
enamel

solubility, thereby making the teeth more resistant to attacks from bacteria.
Secondarily,

fluoride has the capability to reduce the number of cariogenic microorganisms in
the

mouth. However, we do not agree that fluoride is only marginally useful in
preventing

tooth decay. Dental caries is a disease with a high prevalence; 85 percent of
adults have

suffered from dental caries." The consensus in the dental scientific community
is that the

use of fluoride toothpaste decreases the incidence of dental caries about 15 to
30 percent. 5

Also, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CD C),
combined use

3 See "Health Claim Notification for Fluoridated Water and Reduced Risk of
Dental Caries"

(http://www.fda.govlFood/LabelingNutritioniLabeIClaimsIFDAModemizationActFDAMACl\
aimsl

ucm073602.htm).

4 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report, Recommendations

for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States,
Recommendations and

Reports August 17,2001150, RR14 at 5.

5 Id at.14.

3

of fluoride toothpaste and fluoridated water offers protection above either used
alone.6

The Surgeon General considers fluoride to be a highly effective anticaries
treatment, as

demonstrated by the following statement from a Surgeon General 2000 report on
oral

health: "Because the topical benefits of fluoride have been shown to be highly
effective,

and daily exposure to small amounts of fluoride can reduce the risk of dental
caries in all

age groups, experts recommend that all persons drink water with an optimal
fluoride

concentration in addition to brushing daily with a fluoride dentifrice.,,7

The 15 to 30 percent reduction in dental caries due to the use of fluoride
toothpaste is

significant when considering the morbidity associated with this problem. Dental
caries is

one of the most common childhood diseases, with recent data showing that about
52

percent of children aged 5 to 9 years have had at least one carious lesion in a
primary or

permanent tooth.f This proportion increases to nearly 78 percent for
17-year-olds and 85

percent for adults 18 years and 01der.9 Untreated dental decay affects
well-being and

quality of life, with negative impact on such matters as eating and sleeping,
and the

condition also has psychosocial and social dimensions.l" In a survey conducted
in 1996,

acute dental conditions accounted for 1.9 days per 100 persons per year in work
10ss.11

Given the prevalence of dental caries and the potential for pain and loss of
function

without the benefit of fluoride use, fluoride's demonstrated effectiveness is
well accepted

within the dental community.

You state that there are substances - including vitamin D, copper; and magnesium
-

that provide greater protection to teeth than fluoride with no adverse events at
reasonable

amounts. You claim that anacardic acid, a substance present in cashew nuts and
mango

fruit, is more lethal to cavity gram positive bacteria than fluoride. You also
maintain that

fluoride is not more effective than conventional mouthwash against cavity
bacteria

(Petition at 3).

Whether substances other than fluoride may be effective in caries prevention
does not

have a bearing on the effectiveness of fluoride or whether fluoride should
remain in the

monograph. Furthermore, we have no basis for concluding that any of these
substances is

effective in preventing tooth decay. S~ecifically, none of those substances was

considered in the O'TC Drug Review;' and to date, we have not received an NDA
for any

7 u.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Dental and
Craniofacial Research,

National Institutes of Health, Oral Health in America: A Report a/the Surgeon
General (2000), at 190.

8 Id. at 63.

9 Id. at 63.

10 Id. at 145.

II ld. at 143.

1245 F.R 20666 at 20669.

4

.- ._._-_ ..__ .. __ ... __ ....-------_.

of these substances that is supported by data from well-controlled clinical
trials. The

articles that you reference in your petition are largely anecdotal and not
supported by data

and thus are not considered adequate and well-controlled studies in support of
anticaries

claims.

2. Safety Concerns With Fluoride Generally

You contend that along with fluoride's alleged marginal effect on cavity
reduction, the

substance adversely affects health in several ways. Specifically, you claim that
fluoride

interferes with collagen formation, damages the kidneys, causes irreversible
bone

deformation, increases bone fractures, causes teeth to mottle (dental
fluorosis), causes

lower intelligence in children, inhibits the immune system, and, synergistically
with

aluminum, causes nerve degeneration (Petition at 1).

We agree that there is a link between excessive ingestion of fluoride and dental
fluorosis.

Dental fluorosis is a change in the appearance of the tooth's enamel. These
changes can

vary from barely noticeable white spots in mild forms to staining and pitting in
the more

severe forms. Dental fluorosis only occurs when younger children consume too
much

fluoride, from any source, over long periods when teeth are developing under the
gums.

As stated earlier in this letter, HHS has proposed reducing its recommended
level of

fluoride in the community water systems drinking water to provide the best
balance of

protection from dental caries while limiting the risk of dental fluorosis. In
the notice

announcing this proposal, HHS noted that the results of two national surveys
indicate that

the prevalence of dental fluorosis has increased since the 1980s, but mostly in
the very

mild or mild forms. The Pendrys and Katz articlel3 that you cite concludes that
there is a

significant association between the use of fluoride dentifrice in very young
children and

fluorosis. The authors characterize the degree of fluorosis as mild to moderate,
which is

consistent with most of the literature on this topic. We believe that this
proposed change

will help reduce the risk of excessive consumption of fluoride.

Nearly all of the medical literature that you cite in your petition discusses
aspects of

chronic fluoride toxicity due to high exposure. Some of this literature reports
on

individuals who have been occupationally exposed to toxic levels of fluoride,
and some

reports on individuals who live in parts of the world where they are exposed
chronically

to naturally occurring levels of fluoride in drinking water that are
significantly higher

than HHS' recommended fluoridation level and EPA's maximum contaminant level for

public drinking water.

13 Pendrys, D.G., and R.V. Katz, "Risk of enamel fluorosis associated with
fluoride supplementation, infant

formula, and fluoride dentifrice use," American Journal of Epidemiology 130:
1199-1208 (1989).

5

-- -~------------.---~---------------;

For example, in Reddy et al. (2003),14 which you cite in support of your claim
that

fluoride causes bone deformation, the authors examined biochemical parameters in

individuals with severe skeletal fluorosis who chronically drank water
containing greater

than 5 ppm fluoride daily and in rabbits given water containing 150 ppm fluoride
daily

for 6 months. These fluoride levels are higher than FDA's limits for fluoride in
bottled

water and EPA's limits for fluoride in public drinking water. IS The Reddy
article does

not implicate topical dental fluoride use as a factor in this disease.

Likewise, the article by Susheela and Mukerjee (1981)16 that you cite in support
of your

claim that fluoride exposure leads to the breakdown of collagen in bones,
muscles, skin,

and other organs and tissues, considered the effect of water with a
concentration of 100

ppm fluoride on bone in rabbits. This concentration far exceeds the currently

recommended concentration of approximately 1.0 ppm fluoride in drinking water.

Consequently, the article is not relevant to the discussion of the effects of
fluoride on

humans at therapeutic levels. In contrast, Whitford's The Metabolism and
Toxicity of

Fluoridel7 provides a more realistic picture of fluoride exposure on bone
health.

Whitford presents an exhaustive review of both acute and chronic fluoride
exposure.

Whitford states:

In view of the extensive literature on this subject, it appears that fluoride
has little

or no effect on bone strength. If there is an effect, either beneficial or

detrimental, it would appear to be rather subtle and convincing evidence of its

existence will probably require large, carefully controlled, prospective

investigations. 18

An article you cited by Lu et al. (2000) 19to implicate fluoride with decreased

intelligence used methodologies that limit its conclusions. The authors
concluded that IQ

scores are lower in children consuming high-fluoride drinking water compared to
the IQ

scores of children consuming low-fluoride drinking water.

The Agency does not believe that these statements are conclusive for several
reasons.

First, a 2006 article that appeared in International Journal of Occupational and

Environmental Health,2o rebutted the findings from Lu and identified four major
flaws:

14 Reddy, G.B., et al., "Antioxidant Defense System and Lipid Peroxidation in
Patients with Skeletal

Fluorosis and in Fluoride-Intoxicated Rabbits," Toxicological Sciences
72:363-368 (2003).

1576 FR 2383 at 2384.

16 Susheela, AK. and D. Mukerjee, "Fluoride poisoning and the effect of collagen
biosynthesis of osseus

and nonosseus tissues of rabbits," Toxicological European Research III(2):99-1
04 (1981).

17 Whitford, G.M., The Metabolism and Toxicity of Fluoride (Karger, New York,
1996).·

18 Id. at 141.

19 Lu, Y, et al., "Effect of High-Fluoride Water on Intelligence in Children,"
Fluoride 33(2):74-78 (2000).

20 Pollick, H. Concerns about Water Fluoridation, IQ, and Osteosarcoma,
International Journal of

Occupational and Environmental Health, 2006 Jan-Mar; 12(1):91-4.

6

(1) not measuring the parents' IQ and therefore, not controlling for
confounding, (2)

failure to discuss whether the IQ tests were administered in a blinded fashion
(3) failure

to examine the water supply for other differences such as increased levels of
arsenic, lead

or other toxins in the high-fluoride water and (4) failure to assess the
nutritional

deficiencies, or other confounding factors in either group.

Second, two authoritative groups, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention" and

the National Academy of Sciences.r' reviewed the Lu study and concluded that it
was not

sufficiently detailed to conclude that an association exists between fluoride
and IQ.

Third, a 1989 study on fluoride and IQ also conducted in China was unable to
show any

association of fluoride with IQ.23

No additional trials have been conducted to date to further clarify this issue.
FDA

regularly monitors data for fluoride-containing products and will review any new

findings on this topic that may result from future studies and make appropriate
regulatory

recommendations.

Finally, you claim that studies on rats by Varner et al. (1984)24 showed that
fluoride is a

significant neurotoxin, especially in the presence of aluminum. Referring to the
use of

1 ppm fluoride in the presence of aluminum sulfate, you state that Varner et al.
found an

80 percent mortality rate in animals fed doses of sodium fluoride and aluminum
similar to

those found in artificially fluoridated water. You also state that Varner et al.
found that

rats that drank aluminum/fluoride water experienced kidney abnormalities and
alterations

in cerebral blood vessels, which may be associated with neurodegenerative
diseases

(Petition at 2-3). However, the 1984 Varner study that you cited did not contain
a control

group, which made interpretation of results inconclusive. Subsequently, the same
author

conducted another study on the same topic, but with adequate control groups. The
paper

from this study was published in 1998 and is entitled, "Chronic administration
of

aluminum-fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in
neuronal

and cerebrovascular integrity.t'" This 1998 study concludes that rats given
aluminum

fluoride had higher mortality and morbidity than either a group given
fluoridated drinking

21 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Community Water Fluoridation:
Safety. Available on the

Internet at http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridationlsafety/systematic.htm

22 Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review ofEPA's Standards. Prepared
by the Committee on

Fluoride in Drinking Water, National Research Council.

23 Hu YS, Yu XZeta al. Investigation of students' intelligence quotient aged 6-
14 years old in eh endemic

fluorosis area. Collection of papers and abstracts of 4th China Fluoride
Research Association. Quiyang,

China, 1989;6:73.

24 Varner, l.A., et al. "Chronic administration of aluminum-fluoride or
sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking

water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity," Brain Medicine 4:
151-157 (1984)

25 Varner, lA., et aI., "Chronic administration of aluminum-fluoride or
sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking

water.alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity," Brain Research
784:284-298 (1998).

7

water or the group given drinking water without fluoride. The group given
drinking

water or fluoridated drinking water had the same morbidity and mortality. In
this paper,

Varner concludes, "Since, in the present study, the administration ofNaF alone
did not

produce a similar mortality rate (as the aluminum fluoride group), this effect
does not

appear to be directly related to F[luoride] intake." 26

Based on all the available data and studies on the safety of fluoride, we do not
believe

that the FDA-regulated products you are concerned about are likely to cause
adverse

health affects.

3. Safety Concerns Related to the Use of Fluoride Toothpaste by Small

Children

You state that although fluoride is applied largely for the purpose of
protecting children,

it is wrong to expect small children to apply toothpaste correctly, with or
without medical

instruction (Petition at 4).

We disagree. We think that children, even those as young as 2 years of age, can,
with

parental supervision, use toothpaste correctly. Section 355.50(d)(l) of the
regulations

allows for the marketing of OTC fluoride (850 to 1,150 ppm theoretical total
fluorine)

anti cavity toothpastes labeled for use by children as young as 2 years of age
with parental

supervision. The regulation also specifies that toothpastes marketed aTC with a
higher

level of fluoride (1,500 ppm), and formulations that are rinses and powders, can
only be

labeled for use by children 6 years of age and older. These directions are the
result of a

thorough evaluation of the available data on the safe and effective use of
fluoride

formulations for the prevention of cavities as part of FDA's aTC drug review,
described

below. Furthermore, we believe that the benefits from placing greater
restrictions on

children's access to fluoride toothpastes would be greatly outweighed by a
likely increase

in the rate of dental caries.

As stated in section LA of this response, the conclusions and recommendations of
the

expert Advisory Review Panel on aTC Dentifrice and Dental Care Products (Panel)
on

the safety and effectiveness of fluoride for aTC anti cavity use were published
in the

March 28, 1980, issue of the Federal Register. In its evaluation of the safety
of fluoride

use in children, the Panel acknowledged the risk of the inadvertent ingestion of
anticavity

products and carefully considered the acute and chronic toxicity effects of
excessive

fluoride ingestion (see 45 FR 20666 at 20673,20682).

As part of its analysis of the potential risk of fluoride use by children, the
Panel

considered a number of factors. The Panel concluded that while the developing
teeth of

children younger than 6 years of age may show objectionable fluorosis from the
repeated

ingestion of excessive amounts of fluoride during the formation of permanent
teeth,

epidemiological and clinical findings supported the conclusion that the
formative state of

teeth of children older than 6 years of age (excepting third molars) is too
advanced to be

26 Varner 1998, p. 295.

8

affected by excessive fluoride ingestion. The Panel also concluded, based on the

available data, that children 6 years of age and older have developed control of
their

swallowing reflex and are capable of rinsing for 1 minute and properly spitting
out

anti cavity products (45 FR 20666 at 20673).

Furthermore, data evaluated by the Panel demonstrate that children as young as 2
years of

age can be taught to use fluoride toothpaste safely. The Panel considered
studies in

children using a variety of testing procedures that measured the amount of
fluoride

ingested during tooth brushing with a fluoride-containing (850-1150 ppm)
dentifrice.

The studies demonstrated that, even in children 2 to 6 years of age, the large
majority of

children swallow less than 0.5 grams (g) of toothpaste during each brushing. The

maximum amount that was swallowed in a single brushing during these studies was

slightly over 1 g (45 FR 20666 at 20673). Although the majority of studies
reported that

the amount swallowed was substantially less than 1 g, the Panel used an estimate
of

slightly more than 1 g and an assumed fluoride concentration of 0.22 percent to
calculate

that the amount of fluoride swallowed per average brushing in children 3 to 6
years of

age would be 0.25 mg or less (id. at 20682). The Panel concluded that this
amount of

fluoride can be considered well below the toxic range (id. at 20673, 20682).

The Panel considered the widespread human exposure to fluoride in drinking water
and

the potential for excessive fluoride ingestion by children who routinely swallow

excessive amounts of fluoride-containing toothpaste and also drink fluoridated
water.

Based on the extensive human exposure to fluoridated water, the Panel concluded
that the

chronic effects of fluoride were well described. At the time of the Panel's
evaluation

(1973-1978), more than 105 million people lived in areas where the water
contained 0.7

ppm or more fluoride, with 94 million of these people receiving water
supplemented with

additional fluoride to provide about 1 ppm fluoride (45 FR 20666 at 20682). The
Panel

concluded that drinking water containing a level of approximately 1 ppm fluoride
will

provide a substantial reduction of about 60 percent in the incidence of dental
decay

without any adverse effects. The Panel also evaluated reports of dental
fluorosis that

resulted from the chronic daily intake of water containing substantially higher

concentrations of fluoride (2 to 10 ppm), and crippling skeletal fluorosis that
occurred at

20 to 80 ppm fluoride (id.). Although the Panel noted that it is conceivable
that a child

who regularly swallows excessive amounts of fluoride-containing toothpaste and
also

consumes fluoridated water could have a total daily fluoride intake in the range
that

causes dental fluorosis, the Panel concluded that there is a lack of
documentation that

dental fluorosis had increased significantly following the extremely widespread
use of

fluoride-containing toothpastes for approximately 15 years preceding the Panel's

deliberations (id. at 20673, 20682).

The Panel was also concerned about the potential for acute toxicity that might
occur if a

child were to ingest the entire contents of a fluoride-containing product. The
Panel

concurred with the American Dental Association's 1958 recommendation that no
more

than 120 mg fluorine be dispensed as a dental rinse at anyone time, based on 20
years'

experience with package size limitations for dental rinses. The Panel
recommended that

the package size of dental gels also be limited to 120 mg fluorine. Because
fluoride

9

toothpastes and other dentifrices contain abrasives and other inactive
ingredients that can

affect the rate of release andlor availability of fluoride ions during
toothbrushing, the

Panel recommended that use of this type of product be limited to no more than
260 mg

fluorine, which had been the largest amount approved for a dentifrice by FDA at
that

time. The Panel stated that it believed that these package size limitations
represented a

reasonable safety factor to address accidental ingestions of fluoride-containing
products

and recommended their inclusion in the monograph (45 FR 20666 at 20673). These

package size limitations are included in the final monograph for fluoride and
are

described in § 355.20.

Based on these considerations, the Panel concluded that fluoride dentifrices
afford a

reasonable margin of safety and recommended the following directions for use for

fluoride (850 - 1150 ppm) dentifrices:

Adults and children 2 years of age and older, brush teeth thoroughly at least
once

daily or as directed by a dentist or doctor. Children under 6 years of age
should

be supervised in the use of this product.

Based on the Panel's recommendations, we issued a proposed rule for OTe anti
caries

drug products on September 30, 1985. In the final rule, issued on October 8,
1995, we

slightly modified the directions for use in response to comments, in particular
to

emphasize that children under 6 years of age should be given instruction to
minimize

swallowing:

Adults and children 2 years of age and older: Brush teeth thoroughly, preferably

after each meal or at least twice a day, or as directed by a dentist or doctor.

Instruct children under 6 years of age in good brushing and rinsing habits (to

minimize swallowing). Supervise children as necessary until capable of using

without supervision. Children under 2 years of age: Consult a dentist or
doctor."

These directions for use, set forth at § 355.50(d)(1)(i), are currently required
for fluoride

toothpastes (850 - 1150 ppm) marketed under the monograph.

B. Request That Products Containing Fluoride Used in Tooth

Application, Toothpaste, and Bottled Water Be Regulated as

Prescription Drugs

1. Tooth Application Products (Rinses, Gels, and Powders) and Toothpaste

You request that we make products containing fluoride prescription drugs when
used for

tooth application and toothpaste to reduce cavities. For the reasons stated
below, we do

not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to require that all fluoride
dentifrices and

rinses be available only by prescription.

2760 FR. 52474 at 52509.

10

Section 503(b)(1) of the FD&e Act (21 U.S.c. 353(b)(1)) defines the conditions
under

which a drug product must be dispensed under a prescription. Under section

503(b)(1)(A), a prescription is required for a drug that, because of its
toxicity or other

potential for harmful effect, or the method of its use, or collateral measures
necessary for

its use, is not safe for use except under the supervision of a licensed
practitioner.

As stated in section LA of this response, based on an extensive evaluation of
the available

safety data as part of the O'I'C drug review, FDA concluded that O'TC use of
certain

fluoride compounds presents a low potential for toxicity and harmful effects,
and

provides a substantial health benefit in the prevention of dental caries. The
Advisory

Panel that reviewed the fluoride drug products was very careful to set limits on
the

concentration of fluoride in dentifrices and mouth rinses within which the
products could

be safely used without the intervention of a dentist or physician. A fluoride
drug product

containing a concentration above those listed in the monograph cannot be
marketed as an

O'I'C drug under the monograph.

The determination that the fluoride active ingredients listed in § 355.10 are
safe for O'TC

use was based on a careful evaluation ofthe available safety information on
fluoride.

eases of acute fluoride toxicity associated with sodium fluoride evaluated by
the Panel

indicated that 5 to 109 of sodium fluoride can be considered a lethal dose for a
70

kilogram man (45 FR 20666 at 20682, March 28, 1980). The amount of toothpaste
that

covers the head of a toothbrush is 1 g, which contains a maximum allowable dose
of

sodium fluoride of2.5 mg (§ 355.10 (a)(1)). Assuming that a I-g amount of
dentifrice is

swallowed, the fluoride exposure in O'TC monograph products is well below
amounts

needed for acute toxicity to occur.

The required directions for use of O'TC fluoride toothpastes, rinses, gels, and
powders are

written in plain language and are intended to be interpretable by the general
population.

We do not believe that additional measures, such as health care professional
intervention,

are necessary for the safe and effective use of these fluoride drug products,
and we have

received no comments in response to the development of the anticaries monograph
that

indicate otherwise. The proper use of O'TC fluoride drug products has resulted
in major

reductions in tooth decay and its associated disability, benefits that far
exceed the risks

associated with O'TC use of these products.

Based on these toxicity and use considerations, a fluoride-containing anti
cavity product

marketed under the conditions of the monograph does not meet the definition of a

prescription drug product under section 503(b)(1)(A) of the FD&e Act. Therefore,
we

conclude that there is no need to require that these products be regulated as
prescription

drugs.

2. Bottled Water

You request that we make fluoride a prescription drug for use in bottled water.
For the

following reasons, your request is denied.

11

Section 503(b)(1)(A) ofthe FD&C Act defines a prescription drug as a product
that,

because of its toxicity or other potential for harmful effect, or the method of
its use, or

collateral measures necessary for its use, is not safe for use except under the
supervision

of a licensed practitioner. As discussed above, FDA regulates bottled water as a
food, not

a drug, under section 201(f) ofthe FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(f)), and has
established a

quality standard for bottled water that limits the level of fluoride in bottled
water. The

allowable levels for fluoride in the quality standard for bottled water are
below the

maximum contaminant level for fluoride established by EPA for drinking water. In

addition, the method of use of bottled water is not such that it requires the
supervision of

a health professional. Thus, bottled water containing fluoride does not meet the

definition of a prescription drug in the FD&C Act.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, your petition asking that we make fluoride a
prescription

drug for use in tooth application, toothpaste, and bottled water is denied.

anetWoodcock

Director

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

12

http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20120225/NEWS/120229897/1077&ParentProfile=1058

City to consider fluoride questions

Andre Salvail
The Aspen Times
Aspen, CO, Colorado

 

 

ASPEN — Should the city of Aspen continue the practice of adding fluoride to its drinking-water supply? Or, should it simply lower its fluoride-to-water ratio based on Environmental Protection Agency suggestions?

These are the questions facing the Aspen City Council at Monday night's regular meeting.

C.J. Oliver, the city's environmental health director, said in a memorandum Tuesday to the council that the issue is whether the city should add fluoride as "a public health protection measure" or give responsibility to local residents to make their own decisions about fluoride intake, adding it to their diet when they believe it appropriate.

At a work session in September, the council heard a wide range of opinions about the benefits and risks of fluoride. For example, Oliver's memo points out that fluoride reduces the risk of cavities but that too much of it can increase the risk of dental fluorosis — various degrees of tooth discoloration — and bone fractures.

In addition, various studies and claims have raised the possibility that excess fluoride might increase the risk of rare bone cancers and can even lead to a lower IQ, "but there is no support for these effects based on existing science," Oliver wrote.

In January 2011, the EPA and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed a recommendation that water districts decrease the amount of fluoride to the lowest amount expected to help reduce cavities, or 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water. Currently, the city adds fluoride to the natural amount that already exists in the water supply to achieve a level of 1 to 1.1 milligrams of fluoride per liter.

According to the federal Centers for Disease Control, 515 water systems in Colorado are classified as nonfluoridated, while 196 systems are listed as fluoridated through natural means. Fifty systems, such as Aspen and Snowmass Village, use natural fluoride but adjust the levels through additives to meet a certain standard.

Oliver's memo quotes the CDC as such: "For 65 years, community water fluoridation has been a safe and healthy way to effectively prevent tooth decay. CDC has recognized water fluoridation as one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century."

In Aspen, the issue is not driven by cost considerations, Oliver wrote. The annual cost to the Water Department is about $13,000, which doesn't include staff time. "That amount of money could provide funding for fluoride-containing toothpastes, mouth rinses, tablets and treatments for people without adequate dental care in the event that council chooses to terminate the fluoride program," he wrote.

At the September council gathering, Dr. Tom Lankering, a Basalt chiropractor, called the addition of fluoride in the water "mass medication without consent." But Dr. David Swersky, a dentist, said he has seen the benefits in children's teeth, especially those who do not receive regular dental services, and recommended the 0.7-milligram level.

Oliver has prepared two resolutions for the council, one that would reduce the amount of fluoride to the 0.7-milligram level based on the EPA/HHS recommendation and one that stops adding fluoride to the water supply altogether.

asalvail@...

Message #9583

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/FluoridePoisoning/message/9583

This letter responds to your citizen petition dated February 23, 2007

and they finally respond on                                                  FEB 7 2012

well it only took                                                                          5 years

i wonder if this rejection letter can be used by the Maryland woman who filed suit against Nestle and Gerber or the suit against the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

Maybe James you should get a hard copy and pass it along,  little poisoned Ronnie does n't have as much clout as you do.

surely it does not reach the same conclusions as the NRC ?  

If we can pour sand down this rat hole faster than the rat can dig it out we could have a chance!!

R

--- In FluoridePoisoning@yahoogroups.com, MRN Olenick <mrn_olenic@...> wrote:
>
> I somehow missed the document or link this message references.  Can somebody please re-send it?  Many thanks.
>  
> Rae
>
> --- On Sat, 2/25/12, Aliss aliss@... wrote:
>
>
> From: Aliss aliss@...
> Subject: [FluoridePoisoning] FDA rejection of Weber's petition
> To: FluoridePoisoning@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, February 25, 2012, 7:32 AM
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks to Ron and Mr Weber for sending this. It is probably the most complete and thorough response regarding fluoride that anyone has ever gotten from this federal agency and gives us great insight into how they think.
> The FDA makes a crucial and inhumane assumption: that it has the government authority to cause cosmetic and adverse effect damage to children’s teeth but that citizens have no right to hold their government agency responsible for the damage because the substance that causes the fluorosis, in the concentration in water recommended by the FDA and called “safe�, shall nevertheless not be regulated by the FDA. So I ask: how can the FDA call it “safe� without performing its required regulatory function?
> What I have gathered from this response is that despite the clear unambiguous conclusions of the NRC panel, the FDA considers all fluorides, whether naturally occurring up to 4 mg/L in water or added as unregulated toxic wastes in tap or bottle, and fluoride intake from topical use, and fluoride from all other sources including air pollution (i.e. from nuclear fuel processing to coal burning to aluminum and phosphate refining) to be beneficial to Americans’ teeth without any other bodily harm, and therefore there is no need to regulate topical fluorides or water additive fluorides as drugs. Furthermore, because the FDA considers all other sources of fluoride exposure and intake to contribute to the total and always beneficial load, it accepts the rationale that 1.2 ppm in water is no longer “needed� to reach this imaginary and never specified load limit but 0.7 ppm will do.
> The FDA has wriggled out from under its regulatory responsibility in the same way that Health Canada has.
> I believe that the Codex/FDI goons are behind all of this and likely controlled by the oligarchy of global mineral-mining companies that need to emit fluorides as environmental pollutants.
> Invest in renewable membrane technology and solar distillation units, folks. I have a feeling our grandchildren are gonna need ‘em.
> Aliss
>

I would like to confirm that Weber actually submitted his petition in 2007.  Can
somebody ask Weber that?  It's possible that he started gathering names in 2007
and submitted the petition  years later.

If it's true that the FDA took 5 years to answer this petition, I'm wondering if
whether they chose to answer it at all could be due to increasing discussion of
water fluoridation across the country.  They probably did not have to answer the
petition at all, but they chose to do so now.  Perhaps they wanted to weigh in
on the increasing debate.

-Doug Cragoe

Doug

If you look at post Message #9580  and click on the link

http://charles_w.tripod.com/fluoride.html

it will take you to his web site - about 1/2 way down he says

----I have submitted a petition a few years ago to the FDA to make fluoride in tooth paste a prescription drug because of acute toxic effects if it is swallowed by children

this link takes you to

FDA Home Page | Dockets Home Page | Dockets Contacts and Location | Operating Status | Federal Register Up 2007P-0070: Make fluoride a Prescription Drug for use in Tooth Application, Tooth Paste, and in Bottled Water Document # Received Date Filed Date Submitter Code Submitter FR Date FR Page Comment Date Files Remarks CP1 02/27/2007 03/01/2007 Individual Consumer Charles E. Weber pdf Signature: Charles E. Weber ACK1 03/01/2007 03/01/2007 Federal Government FDA/DDM to Charles E. Weber pdf Signature: Lyle D. Jaffe Top | Up Page last updated: March 6, 2007 Dockets Home Page | Dockets Contacts and Location | Operating Status | Item Code Definitions | Federal Register FDA Home Page | Search FDA Site | FDA A-Z Index | Contact FDA FDA/Dockets Management =================================================== Click on the PDF for Weber http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/07p0070/07p-0070-cp00001-02-vol1.pdf here is his petition and  the next PDF http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/07p0070/07p-0070-ack0001-vol1.pdf ~seav~crs . ~ S a 0 ~ ~bYJ7(7 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration Rockville MD 20857 March 1, 2007 F~ILE C0~ Charles E . Weber 1908 Country Club Road Hendersonville, NC 28739 Dear Mr. Weber: Your petition requesting the Food and Drug Administration to make fluoride a prescription drug for use in tooth application, tooth paste, and in bottled water was received by this office on 02/27/2007. It was assigned docket number 2007P-0070/CP1 and it was filed on 03/01/2007 . Please refer to this docket number in future correspondence on this subject with the Agency. Please note that the acceptance of the petition for filing is a procedural matter in that it in no way reflects an agency decision on the substantive merits of the petition. Sinc ely, Lyle D a~`ffe Division of Dockets Management Office of Management Programs OfFice of Management ~Oo~p~00'7d ~ck ~ =================================================== You can ask him personally but I think it is pretty clear that  it took 5 years!!!!

--- In FluoridePoisoning@yahoogroups.com, "Doug" <cragoe@...> wrote:
>
> I would like to confirm that Weber actually submitted his petition in 2007. Can somebody ask Weber that? It's possible that he started gathering names in 2007 and submitted the petition years later.
>
> If it's true that the FDA took 5 years to answer this petition, I'm wondering if whether they chose to answer it at all could be due to increasing discussion of water fluoridation across the country. They probably did not have to answer the petition at all, but they chose to do so now. Perhaps they wanted to weigh in on the increasing debate.
>
> -Doug Cragoe
>

Most likely used NaF -  How about HSFA compared to NaF and then add in chloroamines.  These people got to stop doing half studies, how much harder would it be to do it right?

http://www.wisconsinrapidstribune.com/usatoday/article/38666505?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs

Ark. foundation trying to trim fluoridation costs

3:02 PM, Feb. 26, 2012

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (WTW) — A private foundation said adding fluoride to water in 34 Arkansas systems cost more than expected and could run as much as $10 million.

A law enacted last year requires cities and towns that serve or sell water to more than 5,000 people to install fluoridation systems in their water plants, but only if private funding is available. The 34 systems that meet those qualifications sell water to 85 other systems.

The law was written with the understanding that the Delta Dental Foundation of Arkansas would offer grants to cover the cost. So far, Delta Dental has awarded $1.62 million for fluoridation systems to 12 water companies, Delta Dental spokeswoman Edie Arey said.

It has pledged $2 million to cover all 34 systems that qualify for the grants because they serve more than 5,000 people and don't yet fluoridate. But foundation President Ed Choate said water systems are asking for more money than Delta Dental had planned on, and the cost could run between $6 million and $10 million.

"The requests were perfectly sound and logical, they were just more than we expected," he told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (http://bit.ly/xVBjN5) for a story in Sunday's editions.

Officials assumed the original amount of $500,000 pledged by the foundation would cover the cost of fluoride injectors, Choate said. As soon as the first applications started arriving, the foundation realized "it really was going to require more than injectors to make this work," he said.

Choate asked Delta Dental's board members to increase the pledge to $2 million. He said board members will be asked at their next meeting to increase the pledge again and spread the money over the next five to seven years.

"This is just going to take a little bit longer to do, but we are absolutely committed," he said.

Delta Dental has received grant applications from 18 water systems asking for a total of $4.6 million so far, Choate said. The water systems need facilities to house the chemicals, storage tanks and testing equipment, he said.

Because of the expense, the foundation has been negotiating with the water systems about what equipment they need.

The Carroll-Boone Water System had one of the largest grant requests, Choate said. He said the system applied for $1.2 million, and Delta Dental agreed to provide $763,605.

Water System Operator Rene Fonseca said Delta Dental asked the system to reduce its request, suggesting that hand-held testing equipment be used instead of automatic computerized testing equipment.

"It doesn't mean that we can't have that equipment, it's just that we have to pay for it ourselves," Fonseca said. "We operate off of computers that tell us everything that's going on in the plant. (The computerized fluoride testing equipment) was denied to us. To me that's like asking a pilot to fly without an altimeter or a doctor to do surgery without a heart monitor."

Rep. Kelley Linck, R-Flippin, said the Legislature may need to revisit the issue when it meets again next year.

"We didn't specify in the bill what's required and what's not," he said. "It gets real messy as to what is required. I'm one of those simple guys who think we can throw simple laws out there, but unfortunately it's not clear."

Sen. David Johnson, a Little Rock Democrat who sponsored the law, said the Legislature couldn't have written a broad enough definition to cover the different things water systems might need. He said the Department of Health should be able to ensure water systems get the equipment they need without asking for more than Delta Dental is willing to provide.

___

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

Ron Eheman · Top Commenter · Northern Michigan University

--- In FluoridePoisoning@yahoogroups.com, "ron072754" <reheman@...> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.wisconsinrapidstribune.com/usatoday/article/38666505?odyssey=\
> mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs
> <http://www.wisconsinrapidstribune.com/usatoday/article/38666505?odyssey\
> =mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs>
>
> Ark. foundation trying to trim fluoridation costs
>
> 3:02 PM, Feb. 26, 2012
>
>
>
> LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (WTW) — A private foundation said adding fluoride
> to water in 34 Arkansas systems cost more than expected and could run as
> much as $10 million.
>
> A law enacted last year requires cities and towns that serve or sell
> water to more than 5,000 people to install fluoridation systems in their
> water plants, but only if private funding
> <http://www.wisconsinrapidstribune.com/usatoday/article/38666505?odyssey\
> =mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs#> is available. The 34 systems
> that meet those qualifications sell water to 85 other systems.
>
> The law was written with the understanding that the Delta Dental
> Foundation of Arkansas would offer grants to cover the cost. So far,
> Delta Dental has awarded $1.62 million for fluoridation systems to 12
> water companies, Delta Dental spokeswoman Edie Arey said.
>
> It has pledged $2 million to cover all 34 systems that qualify for the
> grants because they serve more than 5,000 people and don't yet
> fluoridate. But foundation President Ed Choate said water systems are
> asking for more money than Delta Dental had planned on, and the cost
> could run between $6 million and $10 million.
>
> "The requests were perfectly sound and logical, they were just more than
> we expected," he told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
> (http://bit.ly/xVBjN5) for a story in Sunday's editions.
>
> Officials assumed the original amount of $500,000 pledged by the
> foundation would cover the cost of fluoride injectors, Choate said. As
> soon as the first applications
> <http://www.wisconsinrapidstribune.com/usatoday/article/38666505?odyssey\
> =mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs#> started arriving, the
> foundation realized "it really was going to require more than injectors
> to make this work," he said.
>
> Choate asked Delta Dental's board members to increase the pledge to $2
> million. He said board members will be asked at their next meeting to
> increase the pledge again and spread the money over the next five to
> seven years.
>
> "This is just going to take a little bit longer to do, but we are
> absolutely committed," he said.
>
> Delta Dental has received grant applications from 18 water systems
> asking for a total of $4.6 million so far, Choate said. The water
> systems need facilities to house the chemicals, storage tanks and
> testing equipment, he said.
>
> Because of the expense, the foundation has been negotiating with the
> water systems about what equipment they need.
>
> The Carroll-Boone Water System had one of the largest grant requests,
> Choate said. He said the system applied for $1.2 million, and Delta
> Dental agreed to provide $763,605.
>
> Water System Operator Rene Fonseca said Delta Dental asked the system to
> reduce its request, suggesting that hand-held testing equipment be used
> instead of automatic computerized testing equipment.
>
> "It doesn't mean that we can't have that equipment, it's just that we
> have to pay for it ourselves," Fonseca said. "We operate off of
> computers
> <http://www.wisconsinrapidstribune.com/usatoday/article/38666505?odyssey\
> =mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs#> that tell us everything that's
> going on in the plant. (The computerized fluoride testing equipment) was
> denied to us. To me that's like asking a pilot to fly without an
> altimeter or a doctor to do surgery without a heart monitor."
>
> Rep. Kelley Linck, R-Flippin, said the Legislature may need to revisit
> the issue when it meets again next year.
>
> "We didn't specify in the bill what's required and what's not," he said.
> "It gets real messy as to what is required. I'm one of those simple guys
> who think we can throw simple laws out there, but unfortunately it's not
> clear."
>
> Sen. David Johnson, a Little Rock Democrat who sponsored the law, said
> the Legislature couldn't have written a broad enough definition to cover
> the different things water systems might need. He said the Department of
> Health should be able to ensure water systems get the equipment they
> need without asking for more than Delta Dental is willing to provide.
>
> ___
>
>
>
> Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material
> may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed
>

http://democratherald.com/news/local/voters-to-decide-whether-water-will-be-treated/article_a5df997e-603d-11e1-b3b4-0019bb2963f4.html

Voters to decide whether water will be treated

Read more: http://democratherald.com/news/local/voters-to-decide-whether-water-will-be-treated/article_a5df997e-603d-11e1-b3b4-0019bb2963f4.html#ixzz1na3Rj9px

Read more: http://democratherald.com/news/local/voters-to-decide-whether-water-will-be-treated/article_a5df997e-603d-11e1-b3b4-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=comments#ixzz1na3qqcjf

Poor oral health putting hospitals under pressure – Tasmania ** and they have been 'fluoridated' for 50 years !!!!

BY JODIE STEPHENS

26 Feb, 2012 04:00 AM

 

POOR oral health is placing a strain on Tasmania's emergency departments and general practitioners as well as wasting money, according to the state's peak dental body.  

a relatively low number of dentists compared with other states.  

http://www.examiner.com.au/news/local/news/health/poor-oral-health-putting-hospitals-under-pressure/2467530.aspx

Report warns $10b needed to fix dental health system        Tasmania first 'fluoridated' 1953 Beaconsfield and 1964 Hobart et al

A report on the state of the nation's teeth has found the nation's dental health is getting worse and a universal Denticare scheme is the solution.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-28/national-dental-health-opens-denticare-debate/3856134

DENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM IN DECAY    

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/a-system-in�decay-20120107-1ppd0.html  

Again, not one word mentioning the widespread, long term, massive percentage of fluoridation in Australia's states.  This same appalling story in the USA –as has been said all along, PROVIDE ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE DENTAL CARE SERVICES FOR ALL THE POPULATION NOT FLUOROSILICIC ACID/SILICOFLUORIDE POISONED WATER SUPPLIES (the evidence of cumulative harm from which is unquestionable despite or dare I say,  as a result of, this widespread and huge % of fluoride poison chemicals /fluoridation.

INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE IN SOCIETY        
Science Society Sustainability


NO TO FLUORIDATION


DENTAL DISEASE INCREASES SIX-FOLD BY FLUORIDATION

Diane Drayton Buckland 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21332198

Send to:

http://www.pctonline.com/pct0212-pest-control-industry-issues.aspx

[Legislative Update] Raising Capitol Hill Awareness

FEATURES - INDUSTRY EVENTS

Legislative Day attendees will be asking their representatives to consider the pest control industry's position on several issues.

The National Pest Management Association (NPMA) represents the pest control industry's interests on Capitol Hill through intense lobbying efforts. But the nature of politics is such that the work of a few individuals can only do so much. No one voice carries more weight with PCOs' elected officials than their own voice. It was for this reason that NPMA created Legislative Day 25 years ago. The idea was to hold a once-a-year educational conference in which attendees would meet with their representatives to increase the awareness of key legislative and regulatory issues impacting the pest management industry.

Throughout the years Legislative Day issues have changed, but the need to raise Capitol Hill awareness of issues impacting the pest control industry is as strong as ever. Attendees of the 2012 Legislative Day are heading to Capitol Hill to make their collective voices heard on the following issues. 
 

Sulfuryl Fluoride Uses. In 2004, EPA registered sulfuryl fluoride for control of insect pests in harvested and processed foods such as cereal grains, dried fruits, tree nuts, cocoa beans, coffee beans, and also in food handling and processing facilities. The fumigant is considered an alternative to methyl bromide, which is being phased out. However, the product has come under attack from the activist group FAN (Fluoride Action Network), which has a waged a lengthy campaign to remove sulfuryl fluoride usage in food-processing facilities. FAN claims the use of sulfuryl fluoride will introduce unacceptable levels of fluoride to consumers and can cause medical risks, mainly dental fluorosis, a condition where overexposure to fluoride can damage the enamel on teeth.

Ives and others believe that the amount of fluoride people could be exposed to from sulfuryl fluoride is minimal, especially in comparison to other sources of fluoride such as water, food and toothpastes. "We really don't believe that any of the dangers or issues related to fluoride are related to this product. It's kind of a return to the Risk Cup concept," Ives said. "In other words, eliminating it from [this use] will have virtually no impact on the exposure of the U.S. population to fluoride and conditions that overexposure may cause, such as flourosis."

Nevertheless, in January 2011 EPA announced it is taking steps to begin a phased-down withdrawal of sulfuryl fluoride, and the agency accepted comments about this action from January 2011 until July 2011. NPMA and other groups submitted their comments to EPA; NPMA also has met with the agency about this issue several times. "At this time, EPA doesn't appear to concede there is an administrative fix," Harrington said. "They believe their hands are tied because of possible litigation and that they have to cancel the [food tolerance use]. We disagree with that assessment, so it is going to be increasingly important for PMPs to let their members of Congress know how valuable this product is." 

http://blogs.windsorstar.com/2012/02/27/more-doctors-smoke-camels/

`More Doctors Smoke Camels'

February 27, 2012. 11:41 pm 

To the critics of fluoride, it's pretty straightforward:

Windsorites are being mass medicated without their consent with an industry-sourced waste chemical that is considered too toxic to be released directly into the environment, but which is considered safe enough to be added to our drinking water.

To its backers, it's equally simple:

Fluoridation of municipal drinking water is one of the cheapest, most effective ways to combat tooth decay in children, it's been flowing from our taps for more than a half-century, and an exhaustive list of government authorities gush that it's one of the best public health achievements of the past century.

Windsor's council and mayor will soon be forced to play doctor and decide on whether the city continues a practice that a growing number of cities are backing out of.

It will become increasingly harder for the politicos to ignore the issue — as of Jan. 1, 2013, changes to Ontario's Safe Drinking Water Act will make municipally elected officials legally responsible for negligence related to municipal water systems. If half the scary stuff the critics are saying is true, then I foresee future lawsuits in our increasingly litigious society. The fluoride contrarians like to point out that during the era when the stuff first entered our homes via the plumbing, advertisers were also advising us that "more doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette."

Windsor Utilities Commission is hosting a special public meeting on fluoridation at city hall on Wednesday at 6 p.m.

WUC administration has been studying the matter and is expected to make a recommendation to the board, but it's ultimately city council's call. I was told the report relies heavily on what the health community recommends, and both the local dental society and the health unit are heavy supporters of continued fluoridation.

But a growing number of citizens, connected and empowered through social media and the Internet, are questioning what they're told by experts and authorities is best for them. One expert I interviewed for my recent feature on the subject, Paul Connett, a retired professor of environmental chemistry and toxicology with years of delving into the fluoride issue, feels there's a lot more at stake for the authorities pushing for the fluoride status quo.

"Lose fluoridation and you lose credibility, lose credibility and you lose the public's trust — maybe they're not protecting fluoridation, maybe they're protecting vaccinations," said Paul. Remember how nervous the health authorities became when growing numbers of parents began questioning why it was so important to artificially innoculate their kids to fend off the winter flu?

"They're scared stiff of admitting they got it wrong," said Paul.

Expect local medical officer of health Dr. Allen Heimann — who, like me, is neither a toxicologist, an epidemiologist or a scientist — to come armed with experts and reassuring documents. Health unit board chairman Gary McNamara, mayor of Tecumseh — which has some say on the matter because both Tecumseh and LaSalle consume about a fifth of WUC's water — recently suggested a referendum (just what i want — my neighbors voting on whether or not i get medicine).

I agree with WUC chairman and city councillor Bill Marra when he says it's a difficult subject for the layman. Researching my story, for every good point from one side came an equally compelling counterpoint from the other side.

But in good science and good public health, there's a thing called the precautionary principle — if there's any doubt or question, THEN DON'T DO IT. If we were simply guided by years or decades of past behavior, we'd still have mercury tooth fillings killing our brains or asbestos-lined homes and brake pads ravaging our lungs.

Mayor Eddie Francis, whom I'm told holds some sway on WUC and council, told me he'd be quite satisfied to see fluoridation end in Windsor, so there's a beachhead for the opposition. (Eddie's cornered on this one — his wife, who runs a wellness centre,  is a chiropractor, whose professional body is opposed to fluoridation).

It's not a big money matter, with WUC spending under $150,000 a year on fluoride. That money could be used to top up existing health unit programs targeting dental health care for lower income families (who tend not to have a choice on whether their kids fluoridate or not).

By the way, it's not really fluoride that's used in Windsor and most other municipal water systems — it's fluorosilicic acid, which is a toxic waste byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer manufacturing process. At about the same time as government agencies decided to ban the stuff from being released into the environment, industry was able to convince municipalities that it was just as effective and way cheaper than the pharmaceutical grade stuff they had been using to fight cavities (there are so many cool stories related to this topic — years from now, our grandchildren will be either horrified at us or laughing in stitches).

It's an important issue — that's why each speaker at Wednesday's special WUC meeting gets five minutes to make their case.

dschmidt@...

http://blogs.windsorstar.com/2012/02/28/20298/

The Star's Doug Schmidt posted an interesting blog this morning weighing the pros and cons of fluoride in municipal drinking water.

The contentious issue has been making headlines across Essex County and will be the subject of  a special Windsor Utilities Commission meeting beginning about 6 p.m. Wednesday at City Hall.

What do you think? Should the city remove fluoride from municipal drinking water? Vote in our poll:

Public Health Advocacy Shouldn't Stop at the Courthouse Door

TOM CHRISTOFFEL, JD

During the past several decades, public health professionals

have worked hard to educate both the public and

policy makers that great care should be taken to scrutinize

safety when large populations are routinely exposed to new

substances or to common substances in new ways. An

Illinois court accepted this principle when it declared that:

Because public health is at stake the burden [of proof] is

that if the addition of artificial [substances] to the public

water supply may have adverse health effect, that must be

weighed against the benefits alleged to determine [appropriate

But last fall the Illinois Supreme Court rejected this

cautious approach and held that, even where evidence for

safety and for benefit is completely lacking, courts should

not be the forum to seek protection from alleged health risks.

The justices said debate regarding adverse health effects

produced by substances introduced into the environment

should occur in the legislature, and those unhappy with the

result should not be allowed to shift the debate into the

These conflicting judicial opinions offer some important

lessons for public health professionals. Ironically, they involve

one of the most thoroughly documented successes in

public health: community water fluoridation.

Fluoridation of community drinking water was first

undertaken in the United States in 1945. Today close to

one-half the population of the United States drinks water

from community water supplies that have fluoride contents

near the optimal level of one part per million (ppm), either

naturally or through the addition of fluoride compounds.3

Numerous studies have borne out the safety and effectiveness

of fluoridated drinking water in preventing dental

caries.326 A 1982 Science article on fluoridation summarized

During the past 40 years a large body of research has

attested to the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and safety of

fluoride therapy in community water fluoridation, school

water fluoridation, fluoridation of dentifrices, professional

topical application, and self-administered rinses and tablets.

A former US Surgeon General called fluoridation, along with

pasteurization, water purification, and immunization, one of

the four most important public health measures of our time.'

Address reprint requests to Tom Christoffel, JD, Associate Professor,

School of Public Health, Health Sciences Center, University of Illinois at

Chicago, P.O. Box 6998, Chicago, IL 60680.

This guest column was invited and accepted for publication by George J.

Annas, JD, MPH, Editor of the Public Health and the Law section of the

Yet despite the clear evidence and the strong support of

water supplies remains under continual attack by some

extremely vocal groups which are associated with the political

far right and/or with various unorthodox health claims.

"The most active and effective" group, according to Consumer

Reports, "is the National Health Federation, whose

roots run deep into the soil of medical quackery."8 This

opposition has ended or prevented fluoridation of the water

supply in numerous municipalities, including Los Angeles,

CA, and Levittown, NY, prevailing in at least two-thirds of

more than 1,000 local fluoridation referenda.3'11" Rejection

of fluoridation has generally been based on campaigns in

which opponents argue that fluoridated water can cause

fluoride poisoning, allergic reactions, sterility, birth defects,

genetic damage, and/or cancer. Use of the courts to invalidate

fluoridation programs has had considerably less impact.

The courts of the various states have almost routinely upheld

fluoridation of public water supplies as a legitimate exercise

of state policy power.3'6"12 In one leading case, the Illinois

Supreme Court ruled in 1964 that fluoridation of water was

reasonably related to, and suitable and necessary for, the

protection of the public's dental health.'3

It therefore came as a minor surprise when an Illinois

trial judge ruled in 1982 that the Illinois law authorizing the

fluoridation of public water supplies'4 was an unreasonable

exercise of the police power and therefore unconstitutional

and invalid.' But it did not seem at all surprising when the

Illinois Supreme Court subsequently reversed this judgment.

2 At first glance it would appear that a lower level

judge, perhaps confused by the scientific concepts involved

or perhaps pursuing idiosyncratic beliefs, simply reached a

conclusion as intellectually unsound as the anti-fluoride case

itself, and that the state Supreme Court acted as a voice of

reason and responsibility in overturning the decision. Yet a

careful reading of these judicial opinions reveals a quite

The Anti-fluoridation Case

The lawsuit was brought by the Illinois Pure Water

Committee, Inc., and its executive director, alleging that at

the levels prescribed by the state fluoridation law (1.0 to 1.2

ppm) a fluoride compound is a "poisonous, noxious and

deleterious substance which results in higher incidences of a)

aggravation of kidney disease; d) mongoloid births; e) chromosomal

and genetic damage in humans; and f) allergic,

intolerant and toxic reactions in many sensitive individuals."

2 The plaintiffs therefore argued that the fluoridation

888 AJPH August 1985, Vol. 75, No.8

PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE LAW

law was unconstitutional as an unreasonable exercise of the

state's police power.

To support their case, the plaintiffs presented a series of

judge noted that:

The plaintiffs witnesses were fanatical in their approach

to the litigation and bias permeates the plaintiffs case....

The presentation of scientific evidence in this case followed

the same basic pattern throughout the trial. The plaintiffs

would present evidence of inquiries, experiments and studies

that showed fluoride to be a potential health hazard. The

defense would then attack the quality of the research and

would present evidence showing that the conclusion arrived

at by the plaintiffs were erroneous. Plaintiffs would in turn

attack defendants conclusions and so it went.

Most notable among the witnesses for the plaintiffs was

John Yiamouyiannis, PhD, a biochemist who was at the time

serving as Science Director of the National Health Federation.

Dr. Yiamouyiannis testified that fluoride compounds

inhibit enzymes responsible for the repair of damaged DNA

molecules in vivo. In the face of defendant's challenge of this

assertion, "Dr. Yiamouyiannis admitted that he has done no

study of enzyme inhibition and that his conclusions were

based on inference." Dr. George Waldbott, an allergist and

long-time anti-fluoridation crusader, testified for the plaintiffs

that based upon his clinical experience fluoridation

could cause allergic and intolerant reactions, including nausea,

vision problems, mental slowness, constipation, and

bruises. On cross-examination he admitted that he had no

formal research training, and that his studies were not

double-blind, but relied on personal intuition.

The real heart of the plaintiffs' case came in testimony

by Dr. Dean Burk, a cytochemist, who together with Dr.

Yiamouyiannis presented the results of their comparison of

the 10 largest US cities with fluoridated water and the 10

largest US cities without fluoridated water. They claimed a

4-5 per cent greater increase in cancer death rates in the

fluoridated cites over a period of 15 years. Defendants

pointed out that Drs. Burk and Yiamouyiannis both lacked

formal training in epidemiology and statistics, that this was

in fact their first epidemiological study, and that they undertook

it as active opponents of fluoridation. Defendants

argued that the study lacked any clear hypothesis, was

non-random, did not use the best available statistics, ignored

confounding variables such as education and employment

and historical considerations, adjusted for age, sex, and race

variables separately, failed to identify and differentiate cancers

according to site and affected area, and-even thenproduced

a statistically insignificant result.

The Trial Court Rationale

The existing literature is overwhelming in its acceptance

of fluoridation as a safe and effective way of preventing

dental caries. As an American Dental Association spokesman

put it in 1977 Congressional testimony, "Fluoridation

may well be the most thoroughly studied community health

measure of recent history."'5 Moreover, the trial judge's

opinion makes it clear that he was not impressed with the

quality of the testimony presented by witnesses for the

plaintiffs in their effort to discredit fluoridations. How, then,

could the judge have ruled in favor of the plaintiffs? Was this

a neanderthal-like reaction to emotionally charged evidence?

Is the decision a warning sign of "anti-scientific" court

rulings to come?

Generally, public health regulations will be upheld as

constitutional if it can be reasonably shown that they are

needed to protect and promote the public's health, safety,

and general welfare. The courts have repeatedly upheld state

public health powers even when individual rights are significantly

infringed by the operation of that power and even

when no immediate public health danger threatens. In one of

the classic statements on the subject, Jacobson v. Massachusetts,'

6 the United States Supreme Court upheld the

authority of state government to compel immunization by

imposing a fine for noncompliance. However, the Court did

note in that case that "the police power of a state . . . may

be exerted in such circumstances, or by regulations so

arbitrary and oppressive in particular cases, as to justify the

interference of the courts to prevent wrong and oppression."

It is not enough for a court to disagree with a legislative

judgment; the plaintiff must provide evidence that the legislature

has gone too far. The most compelling standard to

emerge from the Illinois Pure Water Committee case was

one of undue risk: legislation which exposes the public to the

risk of unhealthy side effects is unreasonable and should be

Judges decide cases by applying the law to the facts

presented to them. Judge Ronald Niemann, the trial judge,

was aware that "There are hundreds of studies and experiments,

perhaps thousands, involving the effect of fluoride on

living systems." Yet despite 40 days of testimony, involving

11 witnesses and 151 exhibits, "the Court received very little

of the vast area of knowledge that has assimilated since the

1940s." The judge noted that:

It is disappointing to the Court that of available evidence

on the subject matter very little was presented for the record.

The State was satisfied with trying to discredit the plaintiffs

case and not presenting witnesses and studies to help enlighten

the Court when it appears much quality data was

available. ... Not once were the roles reversed with the

defendants presenting their own independent evidence which

tended to show that fluoridation of public drinking water is

The judge was therefore faced with that small part of the

plaintiffs' case which had not been fully or successfully

refuted, "together with the failure of the State to adequately

explain the scope of the risks to the public...." As far as

the court was concerned, this shifted the burden of proof

from the plaintiffs onto the defendant government "to justify

its intrusion into the life and health of the individual."

What was the judge to do under such circumstances?

The facts missing from the record were not "generally

known with certainty by all the reasonably intelligent people

in the community." 17 Judge Niemann may have been

tempted to do his own research, but this approach is

narrowly proscribed for judges. In fact, the judge bemoaned

the inability of the current adversary system to deal with this

information problem. "It may be," he observed, "that the

Court system will need a specialized group of judges in the

future who are trained in the technical field underlying the

litigation such as bio-chemistry or statistics. At the very

least, the rules of evidence need to be altered to permit

scientific treatises or experiments under Judicial Notice or as

hearsay exceptions."18

Judge Neimann took as his guiding principle the view

that "decisions that touch the environment and affect the

lives and health of all are entitled to a special claim ofjudicial

protection requiring more precision and persuasion than

presented by the State in this case." He felt compelled to

AJPH August 1985, Vol. 75, No.8 889

rule as he did by the State's failure to provide any evidence

regarding the safety of fluoride. He noted that:

There are important interests resting on the scientific

and/or technical judgments of the State. The Court cannot

weigh the reasonableness of the State action because of the

absence of evidence from the State of Illinois as to how it

tests the effects of artificial fluoridation on the public at large.

. . . This record is barren of any credible and reputable,

scientific epidemiological studies and/or analysis of statistical

data which would support the Illinois Legislature's determination

that fluoridation of public water supplies is both a safe

and effective means of promoting public health.. . . To carry

the burden of proof in this case the plaintiffs evidence need

not be conclusive that fluoride will cause adverse health

effects. Because public health is at stake the burden is that if

the addition of artificial fluorides to the public water supply

may have adverse health effect, that must be weighted against

the benefits alleged to determine if it is a reasonable exercise

of the police power afforded the State.

The judge briefly commented on asbestos, on Love

Canal, of PBBs entering the food chain in Michigan, and on

toxic shock syndrome. In all of these instances, he suggested,

government should have taken a "harder look"

when the possibility of harm to humans was first raised. He

concluded, "The Court is not satisfied, on the record in this

case, that the state has taken a hard enough look at the long

term effects on humans of artificial fluoride when added to

the Public Water Supply. . . The legislation that exposes

the public to the risk, uncertain in its scope, of unhealthy

side effects of artificial fluoridation of the public water

supply is unreasonable...." and therefore an unconstitutional

exercise of the police power.

The State Supreme Court Decision

Appellate courts are generally limited to reviewing

whether the lower court has correctly applied the law, and

are required to accept the factual determinations made by

the lower court. Here the lower court ruled as it did because

of a lack of evidence regarding safety, and the Supreme

Court could not get safety information on its own. At the

same time, however, it faced a lower court decision which

invalidated an important public health program.

The Court's way out of this seeming dilemma was

simply to "find that plaintiffs have not sustained their burden

of showing that the fluoridation statute is so unreasonable as

to be invalid." The high court noted that it accepted the

long-established "principle that courts will not interfere with

legislation falling within the orbit of a municipality's police

power unless there is a palpably arbitrary or unfair exercise

of the power.""9

We construe the circuit court's . . [opinion to say] ...

that plaintiffs have shown, not that the risk was so great that

fluoridation was unreasonable, but that the question was

shown to be debatable. Under these circumstances plaintiffs

have failed to show an unreasonable exercise of the police

On this record, we conclude that the evidence shows, at

most, the existence of a debate upon the dangers and benefits

of fluoridation . . . "At best there is room for difference of

opinion, and ... it is enough to say it is an area in which the

legislative judgment must prevail."

Comparing the Two Decisions

From a public health perspective, the Supreme Court

decision reached the proper result: fluoridation of public

water supplies may continue in Illinois, whereas the lower

court decision would have had at least temporarily ended the

practice. But judicial opinions are prized more for their

rationales than their results, and the Illinois Supreme Court

decision establishes a troubling precedent. Stripped of the

peculiar fact situation involved, i.e., the State's failure to

present relevant and readily available evidence, the decision

holds that the police power of the state allows the state to

engage in practices of potentially harmful effect to the entire

population without any legal obligation either to establish the

safety of the practice or to demonstrate significant benefit

from the practice. If this were an issue in which the safety

scientific evidence, then the court's deferral to the legislative

judgment would be understandable, and consistent with

accepted doctrines regarding the appropriate scope of judicial

review. But here, where there is nothing in the record to

support the legislature's rationale, the Illinois Supreme

Court seems to be rejecting any role for the courts as

safeguards for protecting the public's health. In the long run,

therefore, the appellate court's decision may be more damaging

to public health than the lower courts invalidation of

the fluoridation law (which the legislature could always have

re-enacted in light of the safety evidence the court lacked).

wisdom of Judge Neimann's approach. The anti-fluoridation

activists have a clear strategy. They are not concerned with

drawing conclusions from data, but use data to create an

aura of scientific controversy. Simply refuting the antifluoridationist's

arguments plays into their hands by highlighting

the "debate". It is important, instead, to emphasize

the positive, to stress the fact that this is not an area of

unsettled controversy but rather a matter that has been well

studied and in which conclusions regarding safety and efficacy

are clear. Moreover, it is important to emphasize that

failure to fluoridate carries a certainty of increased dental

Public health professionals must be clear and consistent in

promoting two key ideas: 1) that society should take great

care to scrutinize safety when large populations are exposed

to new substances or to common substances in new ways;

and 2) that there are public health policies of proven worth

and safety and these should be strongly supported in all

forums, including the courtroom, as forcefully and as frequently

as possible.

In Illinois Pure Water Committee, the dental and public

health experts participated by successfully refuting virtually

all of the bad science presented in the plaintiffs' case. Yet

they lost, and lost on what should have been a winner.

Similar losses have been occurring on an even broader scale

in local anti-fluoridation referenda. This suggests that it is

not enough to merely refute misinformation, and may not

even be enough to simply provide scientific facts while

staying distant from the political-legal-media battle. To function

solely as a source of expert information is to abdicate

responsibility and guarantee losing. In the case of Illinois

Pure Water Committee, it meant prolonging the ordeal and

winning final victory at the expense of a state supreme court

decision that is bad precedent for public health protection.

To be effective, public health professionals must be advocates,

whether they like it or not. They should use every

possible forum to push the public health agenda. Facts will

not persuade on their own; they must be put to use. Whether

they are used wisely or not is up to the public health

890 AJPH August 1985, Vol. 75, No.8

1. Illinois Pure Water Committee v. Director of the Department of Public

Health, No. 68-E-128 (Third Judicial Circuit, Madison Co, III Feb 24,

2. Illinois Pure Water Committee v. Director ofPublic Health, 104 Il1.2d 243

3. Young WO, Striffler DF, Burt BA: The prevention and control of dental

caries: fluoridation. In: Striffler DF, Young WO, Burt BA (eds): Dentistry,

Saunders, 1983; 155-200.

4. McClure FJ: Water Fluoridation: The Search and the Victory. Bethesda,

MD: National Institute of Dental Research, 1970.

5. American Dental Association: Fluoridation Facts. Chicago: ADA, 1980.

6. Burt BA: The epidemiological basis for water fluoridation in the prevention

7. Leverett DH: Fluorides and the changing prevalence of dental caries.

PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE LAW

9. Isman R: Fluoridation: Strategies for success. Am J Public Health 1981;

10. See, e.g., McQuiston JT: Community on L.I. stops use of fluoride in

12. Roemer R: Water fluoridation: public health responsibility and the democratic

process. Am J Public Health 1965; 55:1337-48.

13. Schuringa v. City of Chicago, 30 11.2d 504 (1964).

17. McCormick's Handbook of the Law of Evidence, Second Ed. St. Paul:

Call for Abstracts for

APHA Late-Breaker Epidemiology Exchange Session

The Epidemiology Section will sponsor a Late-Breaker Epidemiologic Exchange on Wednesday,

November 20, at APHA's Annual Meeting in Washington, DC. The Exchange will provide a forum for

concluded so recently that abstracts could not meet the deadline for submission to other Epidemiology

Sessions. Papers submitted should report on work conducted during the last 6-12 months.

Abstracts should be limited to 200 words; no special form is required. Abstracts should be

submitted to

Robert A. Gunn, MD

Epidemiology Program Office

Atlanta, GA 30333 and

Abstracts must be received by October 1, 1985.

AJPH August 1985, Vol. 75, No.8 891

VOTE FOR THE AUSTRALIAN PARTY 

I hope many Australians realise what is going on with both Liberal and Labor – both don’t listen to the people, both don’t act to protect the health and safety of the people  and both don’t give a damn about or listen to  ‘ordinary Australians’ and both of them quite happy to continue by force, poisoning the populations' water supplies with this dangerously corrosive and cumulative hazardous waste pollutant and co-contaminants of lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium et al  (known as 'fluoride' ) which both Liberal and Labor have continued to force on the population for up to 50 + years.  Despite or dare I say because of  this widespread and huge percentage of ‘fluoridation’ Australia is in dental health crises (not to mention crises of kidney disease, mental health, alzheimer’s disease, bone diseases – also the chemical dumbing down of an entire population).  Both Liberal and Labor say the claims of the serious cumulative effects of consuming this dangerously corrosive and cumulative hazardous pollutant ‘are baseless’ and that 'fluoridation' is 'safe and effective' – I assure Australians that there is extensive evidence of cumulative harm from many world experts (ones that don’t have financial intere$t$ in pushing this hazardous and dangerous pollutant (known as ‘fluoride) on a trusting and gullible population and using the populations’ kidneys as hazardous waste disposal/filtration units.

"If this stuff gets out into the air, it's a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it's a pollutant; if it gets into the lake, it's a pollutant; but if it goes right straight into your drinking water system, it's not a pollutant. That's amazing!" Dr. Hirzy 2000 Senior Vice-President of EPA Headquarters Union. http://www.fluoridealert.org/phosphate/overview.htm

“In regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this Agency [US EPA] regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them.” Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, US EPA, 30 March 1983.

Public Policy is lagging behind the scientific evidence:-:-ic Policy is lagging behind the sci                                                      The purpose of this report is to inform policymakers about the current state of knowledge. The products most commonly put into our drinking water (hydrofluorosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride) have never been tested for safety or efficacy. Additions of these toxic substances into our drinking water should be stopped.     Full document: http://www.waterloowatch.com/Index_files%5CEnvironmental%20Petition%20To%20Auditor%20General%20%28Canada%29%2019-Nov-2007.pdf

Reference:

THE CASE AGAINST FLUORIDE   

HOW HAZARDOUS WASTE ENDED UP IN OUR DRINKING WATER AND THE BAD SCIENCE AND POWERFUL POLITICS THAT KEEP IT THERE  by Paul Connett, PhD,  James Beck, MD, PhD,  H.S. Micklem, DPhil

SUMMARY: A review of The case against fluoride: how hazardous waste ended up in our drinking water and the bad science and powerful politics that keep it there by Connett P, Beck J, and Micklem HS summarises the historical, political, ethical, toxicological, and epidemiological scientific data behind drinking water fluoridation. The book concludes that, if proposed today, fluoridation of drinking water to prevent tooth decay would stand virtually no chance of being adopted, given the current status of scientific knowledge.

Diane Drayton Buckland