|                                                                                                                       
    info from  
    10 
    Facts about FluorideFluoride Action Network 
    |
    
    Printer-Friendly Version
 
 1) 97% of western Europe has chosen 
    fluoride-free water . This 
    includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, 
    Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, 
    and Switzerland. (While some European countries add fluoride to salt, the 
    majority do not.) Thus, rather than mandating fluoride treatment for the 
    whole population, western Europe allows individuals the
    right to choose, 
    or refuse, fluoride.  
 2) Fluoride is the only chemical added to 
    drinking water for the purpose of medication (to prevent tooth 
    decay). All other treatment chemicals are added to treat the water 
    (to improve the water's quality and safety - which fluoride does not do). 
    This is one of the reasons why most of Europe has rejected fluoridation. For 
    instance: 
      In
      Germany, 
      "The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general 
      permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature 
      of compulsion medication."  In
      Belgium, 
      it is "the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is 
      not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the 
      sole responsibility of health services." In
      Luxembourg, 
      "In our views, drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal 
      treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide 
      by their own to use the most appropriate way."  
 
     3) 
    Contrary to previous belief, fluoride has minimal benefit when 
    swallowed. When water fluoridation began in the 1940s and 
    '50s, dentists believed that fluoride needed to be swallowed in order to be 
    most effective. This belief, however, has now been discredited by an 
    extensive body of
    
    modern research (1). According to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride's 
    "predominant effect is posteruptive and topical" (2). In other words, any 
    benefits that accrue from the use of fluoride, come from the direct 
    application of fluoride to the outside of teeth (after they have erupted 
    into the mouth) and not from
    ingestion. There is 
    no need, therefore, to expose all other tissues to fluoride by swallowing 
    it.  
 
     4) 
    Fluoridated water is no longer recommended for babies. 
    In November of 2006, the
    
    American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid 
    giving babies fluoridated water (3). Other
    dental researchers 
    have made similar recommendations over the past decade (4). Babies exposed to fluoride are at high risk of developing
    dental fluorosis 
    - a permanent tooth defect caused by fluoride damaging the cells which form 
    the teeth (5). Other tissues in the body may also be affected by early-life 
    exposures to fluoride. According to a recent review published in the medical 
    journal The Lancet, fluoride may damage the developing brain, 
    causing learning deficits and other problems (6). 
 5) There are better ways of delivering 
    fluoride than adding it to water. By adding fluoride to 
    everyone's tap water, many infants and other at-risk populations will be put 
    in harm's way. This is not only wrong, it is unnecessary. As western Europe 
    has demonstrated, there are many equally effective and less-intrusive ways 
    of delivering fluoride to people who actually want it. For example:  
      A) Topical fluoride products such as toothpaste and 
      mouthrinses (which come with explicit instructions
      not to swallow) 
      are readily available at all grocery stores and pharmacies. Thus, for 
      those individuals who wish to use fluoride, it is very easy to find and 
      very inexpensive to buy.  B) If there is concern that some people in the community 
      cannot afford to purchase fluoride toothpaste (a family-size tube of 
      toothpaste costs as little as $2 to $3), the money saved by not 
      fluoridating the water can be spent subsidizing topical fluoride products 
      (or non-fluoride alternatives) for those families in need.  C) The vast majority of fluoride added to water supplies 
      is wasted, since over 99% of tap water is not actually consumed by a human 
      being. It is used instead to wash cars, water the lawn, wash dishes, flush 
      toilets, etc.  
 
     6)
    Ingestion of fluoride has little benefit, but many risks. 
    Whereas fluoride's benefits come from
    
    topical contact with teeth, its
    risks to health (which 
    involve many more tissues than the teeth) result from being swallowed. Adverse effects from fluoride ingestion have been 
    associated with doses atttainable by people living in fluoridated areas. For 
    example: 
      a) Risk to the brain. According to the 
      National Research Council (NRC), fluoride can damage the
      brain. Animal 
      studies conducted in the 1990s by EPA scientists found dementia-like 
      effects at the same concentration (1 ppm) used to fluoridate water, while 
      human studies have found adverse effects on IQ at levels as low as 0.9 ppm 
      among children with nutrient deficiencies, and 1.8 ppm among children with 
      adequate nutrient intake. (7-10)
 b) Risk to the thyroid gland. According to the 
      NRC, fluoride is an 
      “endocrine disrupter.” Most notably, the NRC has warned that doses of 
      fluoride (0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day) achievable by drinking fluoridated water, 
      may reduce the function of the thyroid among individuals with low-iodine 
      intake. Reduction of thyroid activity can lead to loss of mental acuity, 
      depression and weight gain (11)
 c) Risk to bones. According to the NRC, 
      fluoride can diminish bone strength and increase the risk for
      bone fracture. 
      While the NRC was unable to determine what level of fluoride is safe for 
      bones, it noted that the best available information suggests that fracture 
      risk may be increased at levels as low 1.5 ppm, which is only slightly 
      higher than the concentration (0.7-1.2 ppm) added to water for 
      fluoridation. (12)  d) Risk for bone cancer. Animal and human 
      studies – including a recent study from a team of Harvard scientists – 
      have found a connection between fluoride and a serious form of
      
      bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in males under the age of 20. The 
      connection between fluoride and osteosarcoma has been described by the 
      National Toxicology Program as "biologically plausible." Up to half of 
      adolescents who develop osteosarcoma die within a few years of diagnosis. 
      (13-16)  e) Risk to kidney patients. People with 
      kidney disease have a heightened susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. The 
      heightened risk stems from an impaired ability to excrete fluoride from 
      the body. As a result, toxic levels of fluoride can accumulate in the 
      bones, intensify the toxicity of aluminum build-up, and cause or 
      exacerbate a painful bone disease known as
      
      renal osteodystrophy. (17-19) 
 
     7) 
    The industrial chemicals used to fluoridate water may present unique 
    health risks not found with naturally-occurring fluoride complexes
    . The chemicals - fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, and 
    sodium fluoride - used to fluoridate drinking water are industrial waste 
    products from the 
    phosphate fertilizer industry. Of these chemicals, fluorosilicic acid (FSA) 
    is the most widely used. FSA is a corrosive acid which has been linked to
    
    higher blood lead levels in children. A recent
    study 
    from the University of North Carolina found that FSA can - in combination 
    with chlorinated compounds - leach lead from brass joints in water pipes, 
    while a recent study from the University of Maryland suggests that the 
    effect of fluoridation chemicals on blood lead levels may be greatest in 
    houses built prior to 1946. Lead is a neurotoxin that can cause learning 
    disabilities and behavioral problems in children. (20-23) 
 8) Water fluoridation’s benefits to teeth 
    have been exaggerated. Even proponents of water 
    fluoridation admit that it is not as effective as it was once claimed to be. 
    While proponents still believe in its effectiveness, a growing number of 
    studies strongly question this assessment. (24-46) According to a systematic 
    review published by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, "The 
    magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in absolute terms, is 
    often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical 
    significance." (36)  
      a) No difference exists in tooth decay between fluoridated 
      & unfluoridated countries. While water fluoridation is often 
      credited with causing the reduction in tooth decay that has occurred in 
      the US over the past 50 years, the same reductions in tooth decay have 
      occurred in all western countries, most of which have 
      never added fluoride to their water. The vast majority of
      
      western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. Yet, according to 
      comprehensive
      
      data from the World Health Organization, their
      
      tooth decay rates are just as low, and, in fact, often lower than the 
      tooth decay rates in the US. (25, 35, 44)  b) Cavities do not increase when fluoridation stops. 
      In contrast to earlier findings, five studies published since 2000 have 
      reported no increase in tooth decay in communities which have ended 
      fluoridation. (37-41) c) Fluoridation does not prevent oral 
      health crises in low-income areas. While some allege that 
      fluoridation is especially effective for low-income communities, there is 
      very little evidence to support this claim. According to a recent 
      systematic review 
      from the British government, "The evidence about [fluoridation] reducing 
      inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and 
      unreliable." (45) In the United States,
      severe dental crises 
      are occurring in low-income areas irrespective of whether the community 
      has fluoride added to its water supply. (46) In addition, several studies 
      have confirmed that the incidence of severe tooth decay in children (“baby 
      bottle tooth decay”) is not significantly different in fluoridated vs 
      unfluoridated areas. (27,32,42) Thus, despite some emotionally-based 
      claims to the contrary, water fluoridation does not prevent the oral 
      health problems related to poverty and lack of dental-care access. 
 9) Fluoridation poses added burden and risk 
    to low-income 
    communities. Rather than being particularly beneficial to 
    low-income communities, fluoridation is particularly burdensome and harmful. 
    For example: 
      a) Low-income families are least able to 
      avoid fluoridated water. Due to the high costs of buying 
      bottled water or expensive water filters, low-income households will be 
      least able to avoid fluoride once it's added to the water. As a result, 
      low-income families will be least capable of following ADA’s 
      recommendation that infants should not receive fluoridated water. This may 
      explain why African American children have been found to suffer the
      highest 
      rates of disfiguring dental fluorosis in the US. (47)  b) Low-income families at greater risk of 
      fluoride toxicity. In addition, it is now well established 
      that individuals with inadequate nutrient intake have a significantly 
      increased susceptibility to fluoride’s toxic effects. (48-51) Since 
      nutrient deficiencies are most common in low-income communities, and since 
      diseases known to increase susceptibility to fluoride are most prevalent 
      in low-income areas (e.g. end-stage renal failure), it is likely that 
      low-income communities will be at greatest risk from suffering adverse 
      effects associated with fluoride exposure. According to
      Dr. 
      Kathleen Thiessen, a member of the National Research Council's review 
      of fluoride toxicity: “I would expect low-income communities to be more 
      vulnerable to at least some of the effects of drinking fluoridated water." 
      (51)  
 
     10) 
    Due to other sources, many people are being over-exposed to fluoride
    . Unlike when water fluoridation first began, Americans 
    are now receiving fluoride from many
    other sources* 
    besides the water supply. As a result many people are now exceeding the 
    recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering
    toxic effects. For 
    example, many children ingest more fluoride from
    toothpaste alone 
    than is considered “optimal” for a full day’s worth of ingestion. According 
    to the Journal of Public Health Dentistry: 
      "Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more 
      fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily 
      fluoride ingestion." (52)  Because of the increase in fluoride exposure from all 
    sources combined, the rate of
    dental fluorosis 
    (a visible indicator of over-exposure to fluoride during childhood) has 
    increased significantly over the past 50 years. Whereas dental fluorosis 
    used to impact less than 10% of children in the 1940s, the latest national 
    survey found that it now affects over 30% of children. (47, 53)  * Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental 
    products, fluoride pesticides, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, processed foods 
    made with fluoridated water, and tea. |