During the run-up to a referendum on fluoridation in Wichita, Kansas, the city’s local paper (the Wichita Eagle) became an ardent advocate of fluoridated water. In it’s zeal for fluoridation, the Eagle turned its backs on one of the basic tenets of good journalism by allowing the paper’s editorial view to spill into the paper’s “news” reporting. The firewall that is supposed to separate the editorial page from the news page was all but obliterated.

One example of this can be found in the paper’s reporting on fluoride and IQ (discussed here). Another example can be found in a news article — published just three days before the vote — where the Eagle addressed three common misperceptions about fluoride. In an article aimed at correcting misperceptions about fluoride, the Eagle stated that the poison warning now mandated on fluoride toothpaste is not actually there because of fluoride — it’s there because toothpaste is a “surfactant.”

The journalist (Dion Lefler) based this extraordinary claim on a statement by a retired (pro-fluoridation) chemistry professor. With even the most menial fact check, however, Lefler would have discovered that the poison warning on fluoride toothpaste has been required by the FDA since 1997 due to the risk of acute toxicity from swallowing concentrated fluoride. Lefler did not even need to look up FDA regulations to discover this basic fact: he could have simply gone to a grocery store and compared a tube of fluoride toothpaste with a tube of non-fluoride toothpaste. If the retired chemistry professor was right, the poison warning would have appeared on both types of paste (it does not).

Not only did the Eagle uncritically repeat this claim (‘it it favors fluoride, it must be right, right?’), but it refused to issue a correction after the error was brought to their attention. Indeed, even after the retired chemistry professor told the journalist that a correction should be made, the Eagle has yet to do so. As the following email exchange shows, the retired professor (despite initially standing by her statement) conceded the error, stating:

I should have been more precise and I did not mean to say that the health authorities advisory/warning was based on toothpaste being only a surfactant.  The warning is indeed intended to minimize the inadvertent consumption of the contained fluoride.  My point was to indicate the fact that other ingredients contribute considerably to any adverse effects of swallowing toothpaste.  Despite the lack of such a warning on “non-fluoridated toothpastes”. This is a correction that should be part of the dialogue on the article in question.

Although the Eagle journalist acknowledged this email, no correction was ever made.

————————————————————

From: Michael Connett
Date: Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 1:44 PM
Subject: Question about your statement on Fluoride Toothpaste
To: Jamie Adcock
Cc: Dion Lefler

Professor Adcock,

As you may know, you are quoted in today’s Wichita Eagle concerning several aspects of fluoride toxicology. (See: http://www.kansas.com/2012/11/02/2555157/3-issues-arise-as-fluoride-vote.html). As someone who has done research on the fluoride issue, I was surprised to see the following statement attributed to you:

“They tell you not to swallow toothpaste; that’s not because of fluoride,” Adcock said.

Did you, in fact, make this statement? If so, could you please explain how this statement can be squared with the fact that FDA’s poison warning (i.e., “If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately.”) is only mandated for fluoride toothpastes? (Non-fluoridated toothpastes do not carry this warning.) Are you actually claiming that the FDA’s warning is simply the result of toothpaste being a “surfactant”?

I realize we all make errors, but, as you might appreciate, it is important that the debate about public health issues be based on facts. If you could, therefore, I would appreciate if you could confirm whether you stand by this statement and, if so, on what basis.

Sincerely,
Michael Connett

————————————————————

From: Jamie Adcock
Date: Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: Question about your statement on Fluoride Toothpaste
To: Michael Connett
Cc: Dion Lefler

Dear Mr Connett,

When you quote out of context, you can make anyone appear to be saying something that can be refuted.  The actual article has the following fully qualified text:

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2012/11/02/2555157/3-issues-arise-as-fluoride-vote.html#storylink=cpy”

I stand by my fully qualified statement. I wasn’t speaking to legality; I was speaking chemically to the actual fluoride content.  The warnings may be required by law or company policy only for fluoridated toothpaste.  They are meant to alert parents to possible danger due to excessive injestion and to contact a poison control center if it occurs.  I would expect you to get pretty sick at your stomach from eating a regular tube of toothpaste if it were “non-fluoridated”.  I wouldn’t suggest you try it.

Jamie L Adcock, PhD
Retired Professor of Inorganic & Fluorine Chemistry

————————————————————

From: Jamie Adcock
Date: Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: Question about your statement on Fluoride Toothpaste
To: Michael Connett
Cc: Dion Lefler

Touche’!  Never argue with a “lawyer” especially one who does this for a living.

###

From: Michael Connett
Date: Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: Question about your statement on Fluoride Toothpaste
To:  Professor Adcock
Cc: Dion Lefler

Indeed, I do confess to being an attorney. And this probably makes me somewhat more attuned to the meaning of the words one uses to express a point. I’m also someone who has spent a significant amount of time reviewing the scientific literature on fluoride and I would genuinely be interested to hear if you still stand by the statement as worded in the Eagle.

thanks,
Michael

————————————————————

From: Jamie Adcock
Date: Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: Question about your statement on Fluoride Toothpaste
To: Michael Connett, Dion Lefler

Dear Mr. Connett & Mr. Lefler:

The statement

“They tell you not to swallow toothpaste; that’s not because of fluoride,” Adcock said. “Toothpaste is basically a surfactant (detergent) and too much toothpaste can cause diarrhea.”

was given aurally over the telephone.  The statement should read:

“They tell you not to swallow toothpaste.  That’s not (chemically speaking) because of the fluoride,” Adcock said. “Toothpaste is basically a surfactant (detergent) and too much toothpaste can cause diarrhea.”

I should have been more precise and I did not mean to say that the health authorities advisory/warning was based on toothpaste being only a surfactant.  The warning is indeed intended to minimize the inadvertent consumption of the contained fluoride.  My point was to indicate the fact that other ingredients contribute considerably to any adverse effects of swallowing toothpaste.  Despite the lack of such a warning on “non-fluoridated toothpastes”.

This is a correction that should be part of the dialogue on the article in question.

Jamie L.. Adcock, PhD
Retired Professor of Inorganic and Fluorine Chemistry

————————————————————

From: Dion Lefler
Date: Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: Question about your statement on Fluoride Toothpaste
To: Michael Connett
Cc: Jamie Adcock

Drs. Connett and Adcock.

I just wanted to let you both know that this e mail exchange took place while I was driving back from a public utility hearing I covered in Topeka yesterday, so I didn’t see it until today. I am working a later shift today because of the election, but I will discuss it with my editor when I get to the office shortly. Thank you for bringing this to my attention,

Dion

————————————————————

From: Michael Connett <mconnett@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 6:43 AM
Subject: Re: Question about your statement on Fluoride Toothpaste
To: Dion Lefler

Mr. Lefler,

Did the Eagle ever issue a correction about the error regarding
fluoride toothpaste? Also, if you were at liberty to say, I would be
interested to hear why you chose to interview Prof Adcock for this
story. Was she recommended to you by anyone?

thanks,
Michael

————————————————————

NOTE: Mr. Lefler never responded to this email, and the Wichita Eagle has never issued a correction.