New Health Bill opens water fluoridation ‘breakthrough’, MP says

 Sir Paul Beresford opens up on water fluoridation and how a new Health Bill could help to introduce fluoride in UK water.

Shocking sights like the one above are all too common for dentists in England. The child who owns these teeth is probably about six or seven and has a mixture of baby and permanent teeth – all of which have severe decay.

Like so many of England’s children today, most if not all will need extracting because of extensive decay. The prospect for the second teeth is not good.

This is in spite of the fact that dental decay, or caries, is virtually entirely preventable. It makes the situation a disgrace to our modern society.

I first started practising dentistry in a deprived area in east London. The state of dentition there shocked me, especially the state of children’s dentition.

It was not the deprivation that caused this; it was poor diet and the almost complete lack of oral hygiene.

Put simply, the kids and parents did not brush their teeth. Some parents did not even know that toothbrushes existed. If you went into the supermarket, the shelves were packed with biscuits and cakes. Whereas there was little meat or vegetables.

Go to less deprived areas and it is the other way round. So, it is not the deprivation; it is the shoppers – the parents.

Water fluoridation effectiveness

Pre-pandemic, children, with smiles like the one shown above, occupied 177 clinical general anaesthetic extraction cases daily in hospitals. This is a complete waste of our services.

The latest figure shows that 23,529 children between the ages of five and nine were admitted to hospital annually pre-pandemic because they had tooth decay.

Better diet, regular and (for children) supervised toothbrushing and fluoridated water supplies are the answer.

Water fluoridation is clinically proven for nearly a century to improve oral health and reduce oral health inequalities.

This was first noticed in water supplies in the US where fluoride was occurring naturally. I believe in the first investigation, the level was a little too high. Researchers noted teeth with a remarkable lack of decay but slightly stained, now known as fluorosis.

Further research over many years in many countries has shown that setting the level of fluoride to 0.7 milligrams per litre gave the protection from decay without the marking.

Fluoride strengthened the hydroxyapatite of enamel by linking to produce fluorohydroxyapatite. This produces a protective effect, which reduces the impact of a high sugar diet and poor oral hygiene.

Community water fluoridation schemes have operated for more than 70 years; the US introduced the first scheme in 1945.

Fluoridation in the UK

The first substantive UK scheme established was in part of Birmingham in 1964. Birmingham dentists can immediately see when a child opens their mouth whether he or she is from the fluoride area or not by the state of their teeth.

Sadly, community water fluoridation in England only covers 10% of water supplies. This means only around 5.8 million people in England receive fluoridated water.

In the most deprived areas, fluoridation of water has been shown to reduce tooth decay in five-year-olds by a third. And more so for older children and in time adults.

Currently it is the responsibility of local authorities to instruct the water companies to fluoridate their water supply. This is a cumbersome procedure in that it is exceptionally rare that local authority boundaries are coterminous with those of the water companies.

Furthermore, the cost is currently on local authorities. But the NHS reaps the benefits. So there is little or no incentive financially for local authorities themselves.

The new NHS Bill, that received second reading 10 or so days ago will change that.

Anti fluoride

Following the NHS Bill it will become the responsibility of the NHS centrally to instruct the water companies to fluoridate their water.

This will require local consultation, which sadly will raise cries of fear and damnation from the sorts of people that are making similar noises against COVID vaccinations.

There will be claims that it causes cancer, that the Nazis used it as a poison in extermination camps, that it gives brittle bone disease and that it causes venereal disease.

If so, as I pointed out to a dissenter last week, the health of the population of Australia, Canada, the USA, New Zealand and many other countries would be in a disastrous situation.

The safety of fluoridation is proven beyond doubt in the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Here 60 to 80% of their water supplies receive fluoride.

Hastings, New Zealand was one of the first to fluoridate its water supplies in 1954. When the then Mayor of Hastings pulled the lever to set the fluoridation in action the outcry was enormous. Every ache and pain suffered was put down to fluoride. To make matters worse – for New Zealand the tea took on a funny taste.

Some weeks later New Zealand quietly announced that the lever was actually not connected. A required part had not arrived from the UK.

The benefits spread nationwide as other areas introduced fluoride. Only dental benefits, with no negative effects have ever been seen in any correctly fluoride areas.

Perhaps fluoridation combined with the chief dental officer Sara Hurley’s drive to teach children to properly brush their teeth means we can actually be proud and then lead the world in producing a population with wholesome natural teeth and smiles.

Sad News

 Ann Richards <annandpeter1@outlook.com

Dear Bill,

Please could you let the anti fluoride group know that our beloved Ann  passed away today after a short illness. She had rather stopped being involved in the group some time ago due to dementia but was still very keen on the work of the group.

Peter Richards, Nick Richards and Melita Cooper

From Ann Wills

Daily Mail 28.7.21   “BLOOD SCANDAL IS NOT MY FAULT, SAYS EX-MINISTER KEN”

Previous health minister, Kenneth Clarke outraged survivors of the infected blood scandal yesterday by telling the Public Inquiry he had “nothing to do” with the disaster.   He insisted he was “not responsible” - despite being the Health Minister when 10s of 1,000 of Britons were infected with deadly diseases from NHS blood & blood products.

He was Health Minister from 1982 to 1985 & Health Secretary from 1988 to 1990.   Haemophilia Society said “Lord Clarke’s long awaited evidence to the Infected Blood Inquiry was an opportunity to show remorse for the terrible NHS treatment catastrophe which devastated so many lives while he was Health Minister.  Instead he has treated the inquiry & its participants with distain by showing a shocking lack of knowledge & quibbling over the relevance of questions.  Those infected & affected deserve better.”   Despite admitting he was aware haemophiliacs were dying from HIV-related illnesses as early as 1983 - after “most likely” being infected by clotting products   he claimed blood was seen as a “harmless subject.”   He appeared irritated by “meticulous” questioning from the lead QC, branding it “pointless” & “irrelevant.”  Inquiry Chair Sir Brian Langstaff intervened to state the relevance was “for him to determine.”  The inquiry continues.

(A Wills comment:  Blood was bought by the NHS from high-risk groups such as drug addicts & sex workers in USA who were paid to give blood.  This was cheaper than UK blood.) 

Anti-fluoride group to launch TV advert ahead of Port ...

www.dailytelegraph.com.au › mid-north-coast › news-story

0:15

A shock television ad claiming fluoride is a “toxic waste” that damages the developing brain of children will be ...

6 hours ago · Uploaded by Fluoride Free Australia

Letter: Fluoridation should be our choice not compulsory

 Further to the article in this newspaper on July15 “Borough tops the child tooth decay table again”, we share the concern about our poor dental health record. We applaud the Borough Council for all the strategies that they are recommending apart from fluoridation of the water supplies.

The public should be aware that fluoridation is the practice of adding compounds containing fluoride (hexafluorosilicic acid or disodium hexafluorosilicate) to the water supply to produce a final concentration of one part per million – 1ppm – (1 milligram per litre).

The fluoride compounds used in water fluoridation are by-products of the manufacture of phosphate fertiliser and contain trace elements such as lead and arsenic.

These compounds should not be confused with naturally occurring calcium fluoride found in some water supplies or pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride found in toothpaste, gels, mouthwashes, etc.

Our main argument against fluoridation is one of medical ethics, and in particular, patient consent. From the legal point of view, fluoridation is a medical intervention and we have the legal right to accept or refuse medication or treatment.

A doctor, dentist or health professional who treats us on an individual basis and knows our medical history, is in a unique position to offer advice on medication or treatment they believe we require. By law they cannot force us to accept their medical advice.

The medical “experts” might believe at times the individual makes the wrong decision, for example refusing the Covid jab, refusing blood transfusions by Jehovah’s Witnesses, or not giving up smoking, but the individual has the final say and legally the right to refuse.

A deficiency of fluoride does not cause tooth decay, it is the sugary food and drinks that cause the decay, so by better dental health education tooth decay can be reduced and prevented. It makes much more sense to tackle the causes of dental decay - not the symptoms.

Linda Forrest, Chair East Lancashire Against Fluoridation

From Ann Wills

 Daily Mail published an article “Hancock has shares in firm that won NHS work” (17 April,) & that he faces allegations of cronyism.  I wonder if his plans for fluoridation could be linked to cronyism?   Fluoride toothpaste or tablets could be dispensed free for those children who need it.  Could the Health Secretary have financial motives I wonder?

I’ve written to Daily Mail “Letters.”   Other members might like to write a short letter on this to D. Mail.  It is the largest circulation newspaper in UK & they only publish fairly short letters.   dailymail@letters.co.uk

Ann.    Click heading below to read article:

 
Hancock has shares in firm that won NHS work - PressReader

https://www.pressreader.com › daily-mail

14 hours ago — Hancock has shares in firm that won NHS work. 2021-04-17 - By Martin Beckford and Mario Ledwith. MATT HANCOCK was last night facing fresh allegations

Toxic effects of fluoride in intestinal epithelial cells and the mitigating effect of methanol extract of coconut haustorium by enhancing de novo glutathione biosynthesis

Highlights

•

Fluoride is an important environmental pollutant with serious health implications.

•

Fluoride exposure induce apoptotic death in IEC-6 cells via redox imbalance.

•

H extract restored fluoride-induced glutathione depletion and lipid peroxidation.

•

CHE treatment prevented the fluoride-induced caspase activation and apoptosis.

•

Coconut haustorium may be useful against fluoride-induced health issues.

Abstract

Fluoride ions are an important environmental contaminant and pollutant found in a wide variety of environmental conditions. The fluoride in drinking water is evident to induce toxic effects including neurodegeneration, skeletal and dental fluorosis as well as organ damage. Nutraceuticals and functional foods are emerging as possible preventive agents against fluoride toxicity. Hence, the possible use of an emerging functional food-the coconut haustorium is being evaluated against sodium fluoride-induced toxicity in intestinal cells (IEC-6). The cells exposed to fluoride showed significant cell death mediated through the increased lipid peroxidation and glutathione depletion. The glutathione biosynthetic enzymes were inhibited by the exposure to fluoride and the apoptotic genes (caspases 3/7 and apaf-1) were upregulated. The CHE pre-treatment improved the activity of enzymes involved in the de novo biosynthesis of glutathione and subsequently improved the intracellular GSH pool. The improved antioxidant defense was also evident from the reduced expression of apoptotic genes (p < 0.05). Overall, the study concludes that fluoride ions induce oxidative stress-mediated apoptosis in intestinal epithelial cells, via inhibiting glutathione biosynthesis. Methanol extract of coconut haustorium increased glutathione biosynthesis and subsequently prevented fluoride toxicity in IEC-6 cells by virtue of its antioxidant potentials. 

Fluoride And IQ? What Is The Link, What This Study Says

Bruce Y. Lee

Senior Contributor

Health

I am a writer, journalist, professor, systems modeler, computational and digital health expert, avocado-eater, and entrepreneur, not always in that order 

.....................What then should you do with these latest findings? If you are not pregnant, this study alone shouldn't dissuade you from drinking fluoridated tap water. The Austin Powers look is not a good one, and you need your teeth to eat many things. If you are pregnant and want to be extra cautious, you could try drinking bottled water, although bottled water is not necessarily safer than tap water. For example, recently testing commissioned by the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) found: "high levels of the toxic metal arsenic in Starkey Water, owned by Whole Foods, and Penafiel, owned by Keurig Dr Pepper, bottled in Mexico and sold at Target." So, you may want to scrutinize what the bottled water sellers are really offering. And for Pete's (or whatever you are going to name your child) sake, don't drink raw water, for the reasons I described previously in Forbes. Of course, not drinking water at all is not an option, because you need water to pee and survive, not necessarily in that order. 

The bottom line is that more studies are needed to shed more light on these recent findings. In the meantime, don't panic. Feel free to keep drinking (tap water, that is, assuming that your community is regularly checking the water for pollutants), especially if you are not pregnant. As I've frequently said, panic is only useful at the disco. 

Letter: Fluoridation should be our choice not compulsory

 Further to the article in this newspaper on July15 “Borough tops the child tooth decay table again”, we share the concern about our poor dental health record. We applaud the Borough Council for all the strategies that they are recommending apart from fluoridation of the water supplies.

The public should be aware that fluoridation is the practice of adding compounds containing fluoride (hexafluorosilicic acid or disodium hexafluorosilicate) to the water supply to produce a final concentration of one part per million – 1ppm – (1 milligram per litre).

The fluoride compounds used in water fluoridation are by-products of the manufacture of phosphate fertiliser and contain trace elements such as lead and arsenic.

These compounds should not be confused with naturally occurring calcium fluoride found in some water supplies or pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride found in toothpaste, gels, mouthwashes, etc.

Our main argument against fluoridation is one of medical ethics, and in particular, patient consent. From the legal point of view, fluoridation is a medical intervention and we have the legal right to accept or refuse medication or treatment.

A doctor, dentist or health professional who treats us on an individual basis and knows our medical history, is in a unique position to offer advice on medication or treatment they believe we require. By law they cannot force us to accept their medical advice.

The medical “experts” might believe at times the individual makes the wrong decision, for example refusing the Covid jab, refusing blood transfusions by Jehovah’s Witnesses, or not giving up smoking, but the individual has the final say and legally the right to refuse.

A deficiency of fluoride does not cause tooth decay, it is the sugary food and drinks that cause the decay, so by better dental health education tooth decay can be reduced and prevented. It makes much more sense to tackle the causes of dental decay - not the symptoms.

Linda Forrest, Chair East Lancashire Against Fluoridation

Health and Care Bill: water fluoridation

Dr Niger Carter, Oral Health Foundation said:

We believe that water fluoridation is the single most effective public health measure there is for reducing oral health inequalities and tooth decay rates, especially amongst children. We welcome these proposals and believe they represent an opportunity to take a big step forward in not only improving this generation’s oral health, but those for decades to come.

This fact sheet explains how the government plans to transfer responsibility for water fluoridation from local authorities to the Secretary of State.

Background

Evidence of benefit

Dental caries (tooth decay) is largely preventable. Those with dental caries can suffer pain and infection and often have difficulties eating, sleeping and socialising. It is a significant public health problem with levels of tooth decay in children that vary from nearly 32% of 5-year-olds in the North West to 18% in the South East of England^{[footnote 1]}. It is also a common cause of hospital admission of children, for the removal (extraction) of decayed teeth. There were approximately 37,000 such episodes for children aged 0 to 19 in 2019 to 2020. The cost of all tooth extractions for children aged 0 to 18 in hospitals is approximately £50 million per annum, the majority of which are due to avoidable tooth decay.

Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral found in soil, food and drink and also in drinking water supplies, in varying amounts. In some parts of England the level of fluoride in the public water supply already reaches the target concentration of water fluoridation schemes (one milligram per litre (1mg/l)), sometimes expressed as one part per million (1ppm)), as a result of the geology of the area. In other areas the fluoride concentration has been adjusted to reach this level as part of a fluoridation scheme.

The World Health Organization recommends a maximum level of 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per litre of water (mg/l) ^{[footnote 2]}. This value is intended to maximise the oral health benefits, and be protective of public health, including dental mottling (fluorosis) which might be unsightly and in England is set out in the water supply (water quality) regulations for England^{[footnote 3]} and applies both to fluoridation schemes and fluoride naturally present in water.

Currently, around 6 million people in England live in areas with water fluoridation schemes, mainly in the West Midlands and the North East. Many schemes have been operating for over 50 years. Birmingham was the first permanent scheme to commence in 1964. Other countries with fluoridation schemes include the USA, Canada, Ireland, Spain and Brazil. It is estimated that, around 400 million people in some 25 countries are currently served by water fluoridation schemes. There are an additional 50 million people, worldwide, consuming water with naturally occurring fluoride at or around the same level as used in fluoridation schemes.

Studies since the 1930s have shown that access to fluoride in drinking water is associated with a reduced level of dental decay. Recent reviews of the scientific evidence published by authoritative bodies in England (2015)^{[footnote 4]}, USA (2013)^{[footnote 5]}, Canada (2019)^{[footnote 6]}, Australia (2016)^{[footnote 7]} and New Zealand (2021)^{[footnote 8]} have concurred that fluoridated water confers significant dental health benefits. Public Health England (PHE) has recently summarised the evidence in an updated toolkit for local authorities^{[footnote 9]}.

PHE’s 2018 health monitoring report compared the results of dental surveys of 5-year olds undertaken in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities in England^{[footnote 10]}. The report found that there was a significant reduction in both the number of five-year-olds experiencing tooth decay and the number of teeth affected in areas with water fluoridation compared to non-fluoridated areas. The impact was also greater in more deprived areas, meaning that water fluoridation is successful in reducing oral health inequalities. A further benefit of water fluoridation over other approaches is that it does not rely on behaviour change, which is particularly important for children and vulnerable groups.

The effect of fluoridation on rates of hospital admission for tooth extraction is substantial, with the impact again being greatest for those from more deprived areas. PHE estimated that if all 5-year-olds in England drinking water with 0.2mg/l of fluoride instead received fluoridated water of at least 0.7mg/l then the number experiencing decay would fall by 17% in the least deprived areas, rising to 28% in the most deprived areas. At the same time, the number of estimated hospital admissions for tooth extractions due to decay would reduce by 45% to 68%.

There are also substantial benefits for adults. Studies suggest adults living in fluoridated areas may retain more teeth when compared to adults living in non-fluoridated areas and suffer less decay^{[footnote 11]},^{[footnote 12]}. Studies in Australia have suggested that adults that spent more than 75% of their lives in fluoridated areas had around 10% fewer teeth and 30% fewer tooth surfaces affected by decay with greater impact being found in younger adults at greater risk of disease^{[footnote 13]},^{[footnote 14]}. PHE’s 2014 health monitoring report included permanent (adult) teeth in children aged 12 and reported that that on average those in fluoridated areas were between 11% and 21% less likely to have had tooth decay than those in non-fluoridated areas^{[footnote 15]}.

Based on PHE’s current return on investment tool for local authorities, water fluoridation also offers a return on investment after 5 years in areas of high deprivation of £35 for every £1 spent^{[footnote 16]}.

Evidence of potential harm

There is an association between increasing levels of fluoride in water and the appearance of dental mottling, referred to as dental fluorosis. PHE’s 2018 health monitoring report describes a study of children undertaken living in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas^{[footnote 17]}. The prevalence of fluorosis was greater in the fluoridated cities (61%) compared to the non-fluoridated cities (37%). However, there was no difference between children and young people surveyed in fluoridated and non-fluoridated cities when asked about their opinion on the appearance of their teeth, taking into account concerns which have resulted from any cause (for example - crowding, decay, trauma etc).

Previously, there have been suggestions that fluoridated drinking water may cause certain adverse effects, such as a rare form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma), Down’s syndrome or effects on the kidney. There have also been some more recent studies reporting associations between exposure to fluoride and adverse developmental neurological effects^{[footnote 18]},^{[footnote 19]}. However, the evidence does not support this and various authoritative expert evaluations from different international organisations all agree that there is no convincing evidence that fluoride in drinking water at levels used in fluoridation schemes or at concentrations below the regulatory drinking water limit is harmful to general health^{[footnote 20]},^{[footnote 21]},^{[footnote 22]},^{[footnote 23]},^{[footnote 24]}.

The Water Industry Act will maintain the duty on the Secretary of State to monitor and report on the effects of water fluoridation every 4 years.

What the Bill will do

Evidence supports water fluoridation as an effective public health measure that has the ability to benefit both adults and children, reduce oral health inequalities and offer a significant return on investment. There is also no evidence of health harms from the levels of fluoride used in English schemes, nor the slightly higher levels allowed naturally. Despite this, no new schemes have been implemented for nearly 40 years.

Since 2013 local authorities have had the responsibility, through the Water Industry Act 1991, to propose and consult on new fluoridation schemes and variations to or termination of existing schemes. Local authorities have, however, reported difficulties with the current process and there is the added complication that local authority boundaries are not coterminous with water flows. If the water supply crosses into neighbouring authorities it requires the involvement of several authorities in the development of schemes, which may be complex and burdensome.

In light of these challenges, the purpose of the water fluoridation clauses in the Bill is to give Secretary of State the power to directly introduce, vary or terminate water fluoridation schemes. The revenue costs of the schemes would also transfer to the Secretary of State. This will allow central government to directly take responsibility for fluoridation schemes. Any future decisions on new fluoridation schemes will be subject to funding being secured.

The Secretary of State will continue to be responsible for reimbursing water undertakers for costs associated with water fluoridation schemes, however the Bill provides the Secretary of State with a power to make regulations that could disapply this requirement in certain situations (to be specified in those regulations). Regulations made using this power would be subject to consultation and an affirmative resolution procedure to ensure there is appropriate scrutiny of any such proposal.

The Bill will also allow regulations to be made which would provide for future cost sharing with public sector bodies such as the NHS or local authorities. These regulations would be subject to consultation of any affected parties.

The Bill will also transfer the requirement from local authorities to the Secretary of State to consult water undertakers on whether any fluoridation scheme, or variation or termination to existing schemes are operable and efficient, prior to undertaking any public consultation.

The duty to consult on any future schemes will transfer to the Secretary of State and will allow for regulations to be made to provide more detail on the process and any requirements for consultation (and circumstances where consultation is not required). This will allow for consultations to be undertaken directly by central government.

The Bill will also allow for current water fluoridation arrangements held with water undertakers to be updated.

How these provisions will help to improve public health

The water fluoridation provisions in the Bill will streamline the process for the development of new fluoridation schemes and remove burdens from local authorities.

Our experience of the pandemic underlines the importance of a population health approach, informed by the evidence, supporting individuals and communities to improve their health, including their oral health. Water fluoridation is an effective and safe public health intervention recommended by the World Health Organisation that would benefit both adults and children, reduce oral health inequalities and offer a significant return on investment. 

Iowa cities must tell citizens before they stop adding fluoride

 

Iowa cities must tell citizens before they stop adding fluoride to water, new law says

Ely and Tama among cities that recently stopped

Less than a century ago, it was unusual for a 30-year-old not to have dentures, according to Dr. Bob Russell, Iowa’s public health dental director.

A lot has changed in oral hygiene, but one of the most sweeping changes and one that helps poor and wealthy people alike is the fluoridation of drinking water. Boosting the natural fluoride in drinking water hardens the enamel on people’s teeth and makes teeth less vulnerable to cavities.

Less than a century ago, it was unusual for a 30-year-old not to have dentures, according to Dr. Bob Russell, Iowa’s public health dental director.

A lot has changed in oral hygiene, but one of the most sweeping changes and one that helps poor and wealthy people alike is the fluoridation of drinking water. Boosting the natural fluoride in drinking water hardens the enamel on people’s teeth and makes teeth less vulnerable to cavities..................