USA - The CDC's Stance on Water Fluoridation—Another Misleading Recommendation
The CDC's Stance on Water Fluoridation—Another Misleading Recommendation
Take water fluoridation for example.
Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show that since the 1970's, the dental health professionals in the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have had sole control over the agency's stance supporting water fluoridation.
The CDC is part of a larger administrative structure that provides intra-agency support and resource sharing for health issues that require the input from more than one area of expertise. Other offices that share information and expertise with the CDC include the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of Minority Health and Health Equity, and the Agency for Toxic Substances. The general assumption has been that the agency used a broad range of expert input to evaluate fluoride before reaching the decision to support water fluoridation.
After all, since fluoride is swallowed, it stands to reason it may have an impact on your whole body, not just your teeth.
Yet the documents show that no CDC toxicologists, minority health professionals, experts in diabetes, or others outside the Oral Health Division had any input into the agency's position.
This flies in the face of what the agency claims, and what water-, health- and political leaders have believed about the way the CDC operates. Without these additional experts from other fields, can we reasonably believe that the agency has properly assessed the research on whole-body harm from fluoridation? The documents have drawn attention once again to the CDC's and EPA's fluoride safety statements, which appear completely at odds with current scientific knowledge, and the fact that no outside experts from related fields were ever included may very well explain this discrepancy.
Take water fluoridation for example.
Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show that since the 1970's, the dental health professionals in the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have had sole control over the agency's stance supporting water fluoridation.
The CDC is part of a larger administrative structure that provides intra-agency support and resource sharing for health issues that require the input from more than one area of expertise. Other offices that share information and expertise with the CDC include the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of Minority Health and Health Equity, and the Agency for Toxic Substances. The general assumption has been that the agency used a broad range of expert input to evaluate fluoride before reaching the decision to support water fluoridation.
After all, since fluoride is swallowed, it stands to reason it may have an impact on your whole body, not just your teeth.
Yet the documents show that no CDC toxicologists, minority health professionals, experts in diabetes, or others outside the Oral Health Division had any input into the agency's position.
This flies in the face of what the agency claims, and what water-, health- and political leaders have believed about the way the CDC operates. Without these additional experts from other fields, can we reasonably believe that the agency has properly assessed the research on whole-body harm from fluoridation? The documents have drawn attention once again to the CDC's and EPA's fluoride safety statements, which appear completely at odds with current scientific knowledge, and the fact that no outside experts from related fields were ever included may very well explain this discrepancy.
posted by Bill at
1:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home