January 25, 2015 marks the 70th anniversary of fluoridation – forcing Americans to ingest fluoride chemicals via the public water supplies without their informed consent. Fluoridation promoters repeatedly claim that the practice is “safe” and “effective” but science does not support either claim, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).
Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Executive Director says, “Politics not science keeps fluoridation alive. Fluoridation proponents, including the CDC, hire PR agencies to sell us fluoridation using half-truths, talking points and diversions. Dentists at the CDC claim that fluoridation is ‘one of the top public health achievements of the twentieth century,’ in reality it is one of greatest public health betrayals of the twentieth century.”
Today, WHO data indicates no difference in tooth decay in 12-year-olds between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries. Despite 7 decades of fluoridation reaching a record number of Americans, official reports indicate that a tooth decay crisis exists in the U.S. Meanwhile, dental fluorosis – the outward sign of fluoride overdose is impacting over 40% of American teens. As a result, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommends that water fluoride levels be reduced. But its recommendation is far too little and it comes too late.
Current science proves that ingested fluoride doesn’t reduce tooth decay (if it works at all it works topically i.e. on the outside of the tooth) but does expose the entire population to fluoride’s adverse health effects which can range from mottled teeth andstomach pains to thyroid disorders and brain deficits.
According to Connett, “It is reckless to expose bottle-fed infants to levels of fluoride over 100 times the level in mothers’ milk. Nature protects the baby from fluoride and fluoridation is removing that protection for bottle-fed babies.”
Dentists at the ADA and the CDC assure citizens that fluoridation is “safe” but they have no professional qualifications to make pronouncements on any tissue other than the teeth.
FAN’s study tracker contains published studies from major peer-reviewed journals showing fluoride’s harm and not just at high levels.
For example: Forty-two studies show fluoride reduces IQ; 17 at levels the US EPA claims are safe.
According to Connett, “The last children in the US that need a drop in IQ are children from low-income families and they are precisely the children being targeted in fluoridation programs.”
PR people teach dentists and other fluoridation promoters to avoid dialogue based on “Harms and Risks.”
“That’s because no science convincingly supports the safety of fluoridation,” says Connett. “That’s why they won’t debate this issue with us in public and why after over 4 years they have failed to produce a scientific response to our book, The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green, 2010).
Instead of handling the science in a professional manner both the ADA and the CDC are pouring money into PR to keep this outdated and dangerous practice going. This includes over 30 million dollars of taxpayer money that the CDC is using over the next 5 years to help fluoridate more communities in several target states and the ADA is lobbying for more. The ADA also is using half a million dollars of its own money on a social media campaign
Fluoridation is a waste of money on many fronts. CDC’s PR claim that, for each $1 invested in fluoridation $38 is saved in dental costs, has been shown to be false by independent scientists.
Incredibly, after 70 years it is still not clear which Federal Agency has jurisdiction for the safety of this program.
However, according to Connett, “Fluoridation would end tomorrow if the FDA and the EPA were to do their jobs honestly. Shockingly, the FDA has never regulated fluoride for ingestion and the EPA is dragging its feet determining a safe level of fluoride in water (considering it as a contaminant under the Safe Drinking Water Act). Sadly, many communities are being tricked into thinking that there are federal agencies that take responsibility for the safety of this program, but not one does so.”
Connett concluded that, “Continuing this practice in the absence of sound science – and investing millions of dollars in PR to cover up that fact – will further erode the public’s trust in public health programs. Right now the only thing being protected is the reputation of those who refuse to accept that this program has been a massive failure both ethically and scientifically.”