Fluoride Action Network

Fluoridation Chemicals Have Not Been Safety Tested – Here’s the Proof

SOURCE: National Pure Water Association (UK) | August 2002

Note from FAN: The following article pertains to the fluoridation chemicals used in England, a country which is 10% fluoridated. The article provides an important addition to information obtained recently from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). According to the EPA, the fluoridation chemicals used in the US have, as in England, NEVER BEEN TESTED for safety. Click here to read the EPA’s letter.

Fluoridation Chemicals Have Not Been Safety Tested – Here’s the Proof

Recent NPWA investigations revealed that the chemicals used to fluoridate drinking water had “FAILED FORMAL VOTE” in Europe. In January 2002, we exchanged several emails, extracted below, with UK and EU people responsible for setting Standards for water chemicals.

We wrote to Dr Guy Franklin of the Water Research Centre, whose website states that they are equipped to test and approve to European Standards (EN), British Standards (BS), International Standards (ISO), UK Water Industry Specifications (WIS) and a host of others.

We wrote: “Will you please let us have all the details of the testing which your agency or any other has done on disodium fluoro-silicate and Hexafluorosilicic acid on which these chemicals have been adopted in the UK?”

Dr Franklin replied, copied to Peter Jackson of WRc-NSF:

“I can not disclose any testing information of disodium fluoro-silicate or hexafluorosilicic acid because any data generated is the property of the commis-sioning body. This is not an attempt to hide data. In the past data was submitted to the Drinking Water Inspectorate for product approval under Regula-tion 25 of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations. Once approval was given the products were added to a list published by the DWI. However, under EC procurement rules, any product with a European Standard can not be subject to equivalent National Regulations. These products are now the subject to first party certification and have been removed for the DWI list.”

We wrote again to Dr Franklin, cc’d to Peter Jackson:

” I am sure that you will appreciate our increasing concern when relevant information on chemicals which are added to the British public water supply with the intention of treating people are not freely available.

If you will please furnish the name of the commissioning body for whom the testing of these chemicals was done . . . “

Here is an extract from Peter Jackson’s lengthy reply:

“WRc-NSF recognises that it has a reputation as a professional organisation which can be relied on to maintain confidentiality regarding sensitive and confi-dential information and will not act in any way which might prejudice that reputation. The importance of confidentiality between WRc-NSF and its various clients is a topic of high priority within the company

However, I can inform you categorically that WRc-NSF has never tested any samples of disodium hexafluorosilicate or hexafluorosilicic acid. Therefore in this case we have no test data to release nor names of clients – these simply do not exist.

Disodium hexafluorosilicate and hexafluorosilicic acid are classified by DWI as “Traditional Chemicals” for which there is no requirement to gain DWI appro-val for particular commercial products. Therefore individual commercial brands of these chemicals have never been listed or tested by DWI. We have done tests . . . but not in the case of these particular chemicals.

The quality of disodium hexafluorosilicate and hexa-fluorosilicic acid suitable for the treatment of drinking water is specified in BS ENs 12174 and 12175 respectively. These standards do not contain any requirement for third-party testing. It is up to the manufac-turer to ensure that their product meets the requirements . . .This would be done through in-house quality assurance procedures.

ENs 12174 and 12175 were produced by CEN TC164/WG9 in which I participate as Principal UK Expert. I am also the Chairman of BSI Committee CII/59 that provides the UK input to this CEN Committee and receives draft standards for comment. I am therefore in a good position to state categori-cally that no product testing was undertaken in the development of these ENs. No manufacturers of fluoridation chemicals partici-pated in WG9, or in its sub-committee Task Group 4. The specifications in ENs 12174 and 12175 were developed on the basis of existing standards . . . and codes of practice . . .

In only a very few cases have CEN TC164/WG9 Task Groups undertaken product testing . . not to determine the purity of products per se. In the case of disodium hexafluorosilicate and hexafluorosilicic acid, no testing at all would have been carried out since no manufacturer of these products participated in the work of WG9 or TG4. As noted above, it is the manufac-turer’s responsibility to ensure that a product sold as confor-ming to a BS EN does in fact meet the specification. TG4 has now been disbanded since its work is complete and all of its members have now retired from their companies.”


“To summarise:

1. WRc-NSF has not tested these chemicals. WRc-NSF does not have access to any information that NSF International may hold. 
2. No approval or testing by DWI is required or has been carried out.
3. The BS ENs for these chemicals do not specify any third party test requirements. Quality assurance is provided by manufacturers who operate externally-assessed quality control systems.
4. No product testing was done in the course of developing the BS ENs.”