Fluoridation of drinking water is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay. It is hailed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century. The water fluoridation controversy is also one of the most scientifically, ethically and politically contested debates between pro and anti-fluoridation supporters since its introduction to the present day.
Fluoridation began in the United States in 1945 and has been introduced to varying degrees in many countries including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Spain, the UK, and Vietnam. Continental Europe largely does not fluoridate water although some water supplies are naturally fluoridated and of its countries fluoridate salt. Worldwide, fluoridation is not unanimously supported with modernised countries such as Finland, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland having begun and discontinued their practice of fluoridation.
The following is a compilation of some key resources that unravel the scientific, medical and political controversies behind the practice of fluoridation. The concerns include the many toxicological dangers of excessive fluoride intake and our uncontrolled widespread exposure from many sources including processed foods, fluoride pesticides used in agriculture and its bioaccumulation in the environment and food chain.
“Since then our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis.” – NTEU Chapter 280
There is no way to measure or control the daily fluoride intake by individuals and thus fluoridation violates the most basic principles of modern pharmacology. As with many endocrine disruptors, infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly and individuals with impaired renal function are most vulnerable to the health effects of fluoride ingestion. The general public is largely under-educated about fluoride, that it can prevent tooth decay in the mouth but is not effective in the body, its toxicity, that fluoride accumulates in bone, that bottled water can contain fluoride and it cannot be easily filtered out of tap water. Many clinicians may not be aware of the latest research in order to recommend a reduction in fluoride intake among their most vulnerable patients.
We hope our readers will take the time to evaluate the current evidence against fluoridation and decide whether its continued practice is really worth the risks. How much fluoride are we actually consuming and how much is too much? Until we can reliably measure our total exposure, it may be wise to exercise the precautionary principle with fluoride as we should with pesticides.
Professional perspectives on fluoride
Dr. Bill Osmunson explains in this brief introductory video the concerns about fluoride and water fluoridation. You can also watch the full-length version of this presentation online (28 mins, highly recommended).
Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation
Dr John Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation until he evaluated national and worldwide data on its effectiveness. This paper explains why an ethical health professional was compelled to reverse his support for fluoridation.
http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm
Why the EPA headquarters’ union of scientists opposes fluoridation
Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union represents approximately 1,500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at the US Environmental Protection Agency. Read their position statement on why the views of these EPA employees oppose that of their employer.
http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm
The case against fluoride: how hazardous waste ended up in our drinking water and the bad science and powerful politics that keep it there (2010)
“Sweden rejected fluoridation in the 1970s and, in this excellent book, these three scientists have confirmed the wisdom of that decision. Our children have not suffered greater tooth decay, as World Health Organization figures attest, and in turn our citizens have not borne the other hazards fluoride may cause. In any case, since fluoride is readily available in toothpaste, you don’t have to force it on people.” - Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Laureate in Medicine or Physiology (2000) and Emeritus Professor of Pharmacology, University of Gothenburg
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Fluoride-Hazardous-Drinking/dp/1603582878
The fluoride deception by Christopher Bryson (2006)
“Bryson marshals an impressive amount of research to demonstrate fluoride’s harmfulness, the ties between leading fluoride researchers and the corporations who funded and benefited from their research, and what he says is the duplicity with which fluoridation was sold to the people. The result is a compelling challenge to the reigning dental orthodoxy, which should provoke renewed scientific scrutiny and public debate.” – PUBLISHERS WEEKLY
http://www.amazon.com/Fluoride-Deception-Christopher-Bryson/dp/1583225269
Professionals’ statement calling for an end to water fluoridation
The Fluoride Action Network is an international coalition seeking to broaden public awareness about the toxicity of fluoride compounds and the health impacts of current fluoride exposures. Over 2,700 international science and health professionals have signed its Professionals’ Statement to end fluoridation of drinking water.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/professionals.statement.html