International Consensus Disfavors Systemic Fluoride Use For Caries Prevention in Early Educational Settings
An elaborate review of fluoride use in preventing tooth decay by researchers at several British universities has concluded that systemic fluoride exposure is no longer considered important in fighting tooth decay in school settings.
“It was agreed that policy makers should prioritise at-risk groups where resources are limited, and that systemic fluoride interventions (fluoride tablets, drops, milk, and salt) in this setting are no longer a priority,” concluded the authors from the University of Glasgow, Staffordshire University and University College London.
The authors posted their report on the medRxiv website on March 7th. It has not yet been peer reviewed.
After completing their review, the authors concluded that topical school tooth brushing and fluoride varnish programs were most effective in reducing the risk of tooth decay.
“There was high-quality evidence and consensus on delivering supervised toothbrushing in kindergartens (nurseries) and primary/elementary schools; this is safe and cost-effective, shows greater benefit to more disadvantaged children, helps child social development, and is feasible in high and low/middle-income countries. There was more moderate support for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of fluoride varnish application in this setting (especially where supervised toothbrushing with fluoride is in place,” wrote the authors.
While the authors do not address the use of water fluoridation in particular, they throw cold water on other systemic fluoride exposures such as fluoride tablets, drops, milk, and salt.
“Evidence for systemic fluoride in education settings largely predates the use of topical fluoride. The effectiveness of fluoride supplements (tablets, drops, lozenges) on deciduous teeth (nursery or early primary school children) appears unclear (there is some reported reduction in caries increment for older children with permanent teeth) and there is limited information on adverse effects. Similarly, evidence on fluoridated salt (typically containing 250ppm fluoride) is substantially over 20 years old, but supportive in children at primary/elementary school age and above. There is some evidence for effectiveness of fluoridated milk (versus non-fluoridated milk) in longitudinal cohorts but concerns about risk of bias and applicability to different populations,” write the authors.
The review did not favor fluoridated salt, noting, “In the survey, 100% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that salt as a way of delivering fluoride should be questioned because it is a risk factor for hypertension. They illustrated that it is ‘indicated [as a risk factor] in other non-communicable diseases and […] targeted for reduction in many foods’.”
Source: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.05.24303843
North Carolina Professor Giving Experimental Doses of Fluoride to Infants Knows of National Toxicology Program Fluoride Neurotoxicity Report
The University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill’s waterBEST human experiment is designed to be the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted on fluoridation after nearly 80 years of the practice. It will test the use of fluoridated bottled water on tooth decay starting in children aged 2 to 6 months for 3.5 years. A dental professor from UNC has confirmed that she is aware of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) study that concluded “with moderate confidence, that higher fluoride exposure…is consistently associated with lower IQ in children.”
The waterBest study expects participants to use only fluoridated water in the experimental group except for baby formula, with the website indicating, “For children fed powered (sic) infant formula, we additionally provide 3 gallon bottles of non-study unfluoridated water used exclusively for reconstituting infant formula.”
In response to a query from this reporter, Prof. Anne E. Sanders wrote, “The safety and wellbeing of children and families in waterBEST is assured by many independent groups that supervise all aspects of the study, including the study investigators. The oversight groups include UNC’s Institutional Review Board, UNC’s Office of Research, National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research.”
Reflecting a widely used pro-fluoridationist tactic to downplay the significance of the NTP study by citing a misleading and politicized letter from a committee of the National Academies, Sanders also wrote, “You may also be interested in two peer reviews conducted by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) reports. On both occasions, the NASEM committee found that the NTP had not adequately supported its conclusions that fluoride should be classified as a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard for humans.” This claim has been repeatedly debunked.
Sources:
-FAN’s webpage on the waterBest study: https://fluoridecopy.wpenginepowered.com/researchers/unethical-human-experiment-in-lenoir-county-nc/
-FAN’s latest bulletin update on the study: https://fluoridecopy.wpenginepowered.com/articles/children-at-risk-the-worlds-first-randomized-controlled-trial-on-fluoridation/
-fluorideWORST campaign: https://www.waterbest.info/
-Study protocol: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08000-4
Massachusetts Health Bill Could Impact Fluoridation Policy
A bill designed to accelerate “improvements to the local and regional public health system to address disparities in the delivery of public health services,” contains provisions that could potentially lead to local boards of health facing increased pressure to expand water fluoridation in non-fluoridated cities and towns in Massachusetts.
The measure, called SAPHE 2.0 (S. 1334/H. 2204) references Massachusetts municipal-based boards of health as inefficient and inequitable service providers, and would enhance their functions with ““Foundational public health services”, a nationally recognized framework for a minimum set of?public health services, including, but not limited to, public health programs and foundational capabilities,” reads the bill.
If made law, the bill would, “provide uniform access for every resident of the commonwealth” to “foundational public health services.” It does not reference water fluoridation specifically, but reads, “The standards shall consider national standards and shall be developed in?consultation with local boards of health, public health organizations, academic experts in the field of public health.”
While there is no national mandate on fluoridation, the federal Department of Health and Human Services recommends the practice.
The bill, which was sponsored by many representatives and senators, has been approved by the House of Representatives, and currently sits in the House Ways and Means Committee.
Source: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/S1334
Amery, Wisconsin and Milford, Indiana End Fluoridation
The City Council in Amery, WI voted unanimously to end fluoridation at a recent meeting, according to the Amery Free Press in an article published on March 14th.
“During the meeting, council members did share their source of information as it relates to fluoride. Based on information from Fluoridealert.org,” reported the newspaper. Council members cited FAN’s research on health effects, as well as the fact that 97% of Europe did not practice fluoridation.
The newspaper reported that additional reasons for ending fluoridation included, “The council thought it appropriate for the public to decide on what was best for their households,” and “a main point brought up was that the majority of the water gets used elsewhere, like watering grass, showers, and using the restroom…”
Around the same time in the state of Indiana, the Milford Town Council declined to reconsider its decision to end water fluoridation despite the request of dentist Steven Hollar of Warsaw.
According to inkfreenews.com March 12, “Water superintendent Steven Marquart explained that there is not enough space in the wellhouse to move the chlorine injection equipment into the chemical room if they keep housing fluoride, meaning the wellhouse would have to be expanded. He also noted he tested three different bottled water brands, finding an average 0.42% (sic) fluoride content. The fluoride content of Milford’s water was 0.80% (sic).” Marquart emphasized that he also had significant concerns over the safety of employees handling undiluted fluoride.
[Ed. note. The reporter apparently means 0.42 parts per million (ppm) and 0.8 ppm, respectively.]
“[Town Councilor Ken] Long stressed that the decision had not been made lightly. “In my five years on the board, it’s come up every year,” he said.
“Ultimately, the council is not reconsidering their decision at this time. Marquart informed the council that fluoride and the ejection equipment have already been removed from the wellhouse,” reported the news site.
Sources:
-(Milford) https://www.inkfreenews.com/2024/03/12/milford-town-council-considers-water-rates-fluoride-removal/
•• Michael Dolan can be contacted at <mdolan.ecsn@outlook.com>
•• The archives of The Fluoridation Review are available at: https://fluoridecopy.wpenginepowered.com/about/fluoridation-weekly-review/