.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

UK Against Fluoridation

Thursday, May 06, 2021

I am Suing the US EPA Over Fluoride Added to Our Drinking Water

Brenda Staudenmaier, Contributor

Studies show that the unnecessary fluoride chemicals purposely added to the Madison drinking water supply is health-harming in many ways; but most critically to infants’ developing brains. Several organizations and individuals sued the Environmental Protection Agency to recognize fluoride’s neurological effects when setting safe water fluoride standards. Plaintiffs include myself and children, Ko and Hayden Staudenmaier. The case heads back to federal court on Aug. 26, 2021.

Fluoridation began in the 1940s with the mistaken belief that ingested fluoride was essential to reduce tooth decay. It doesn’t. Fluoridated toothpastes might help, but not fluoridated water. In today’s polarized environment, politics, not science, keeps fluoridation policies in place............................ 

Tuesday, May 04, 2021

Friday, April 30, 2021

Call for ‘sugar free’ schools and nutritional guidelines for packed lunches

 Schools should be doing more to ensure they are “sugar free”, leading dental surgeons have said.

The Faculty of Dental Surgeons (FDS) at the Royal College of Surgeons of England also said it would support the publication of nutritional guidelines for packed lunches and supervised tooth brushing sessions in schools.

And leading dentists at the British Dental Association said that sugary food and drinks have “no place in our schools”.

The call comes amid concerns over tooth decay and rising levels of childhood obesity...........

Port Macquarie Hastings Council to spend $90k on 'crazy ...


Flood-ravaged town to spend $90k on ‘crazy’ fluoride poll

A NSW council of a region with a $50 million flood damage bill is set to blow $90,000 on a ‘ludicrous’ poll asking residents if they want fluoride in their water.

Fluoride Exposure to IQ Loss

Recent US Government Funded Studies Link Fluoride Exposure to IQ Loss

An interview with Paul Connett, Ph.D.

Fluoride is a harmful pollutant—not a nutrient. So why are we discussing it again in a nutrition magazine? Because most people are not aware that many human studies have shown a strong link between both fetal and infant exposure to fluoride and lowered IQ in children. And it is our civic duty to inform them. For any other pollutant such evidence would have forced a ban on its use but this “protected pollutant” is still deliberately added to water in the U.S. and has been since 1945......................................


F.A.N. Newsletter

 From Womb To Tomb

Fluoridation Causes Harm

Fluoride isn't just a neurotoxic risk in pregnant women and infants, 
new Swedish Study finds 50% higher rates of hip fractures in older women

  • A study from Sweden ... found 50% higher rates of hip bone fractures in post-menopausal women.
  • The Swedish women with higher fluoride exposure had slightly higher BMD (Bone Mineral Density), but also higher fracture rates despite the higher BMD.
  • “About 30% of people with a hip fracture will die in the following year”
  • “Hip fracture rates among the US population are the highest in the world”

A study from Sweden, published this month, found 50% higher rates of hip bone fractures in post-menopausal women in an area with up to about 1 mg/L fluoride in drinking water [Helte et al 2021].  The high-quality cohort study used detailed information from more than 4,000 older Swedish women enrolled starting in 2004 and followed through 2017.  Their largest source of exposure was from naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water, at concentrations at or below 1 mg/L.  Their total exposures fell within the same range as women living in areas with artificial fluoridation.

Concern for fluoride’s effect on bone quality was raised 25 years ago based on animal studies: “[O]ne cannot help but be alarmed by the negative effects of fluoride on bone strength consistently demonstrated in animal models” [Turner 1995FAN review animals]. The animal findings prompted human studies.  This new Swedish study builds on previous studies that found increased risk of bone fractures in older people with long-term fluoride exposure [FAN review 1FAN review 2FAN review 3].  It is also consistent with extensive experience from Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) done in the 1990s that attempted to decrease fracture risk for those with osteoporosis by giving patients relatively high doses of fluoride.  Instead of decreasing fracture risk, those studies found increased risk, especially for hip fractures, and the attempts to use fluoride as a medication against osteoporosis have been largely abandoned.  Researchers concluded that although fluoride can increase bone mineral density (BMD), it simultaneously decreases bone quality and bone strength, despite the greater density.  This new Swedish study was at much lower doses than the RCTs, but the women had much longer exposures, which appear to have the same effects as high-dose short-duration exposures.  The Swedish women with higher fluoride exposure had slightly higher BMD, but also higher fracture rates despite the higher BMD.

This study overcomes limitations of most of the previous epidemiological studies, some of which found no increased risk of bone fractures.  Many previous studies had relatively crude group-level exposure measures rather than this study’s individual-level exposures.  This study is also the first to measure urine fluoride concentration, which provides an estimate of total fluoride intake.  Also, to better address long-term exposure, extended residential histories of drinking water fluoride concentration and estimates from detailed dietary questionnaires were used as a second exposure measure.  Fluoride is stored in bones and builds up steadily over many years.  It can reach levels above 1000 parts per million (ppm) in people living in areas with water fluoride of around 1 mg/L, which was the maximum level of most of the women in this Swedish study.

The study not only measured fluoride exposure more carefully than most previous studies, it also controlled for an extensive variety of potential confounding factors, including age, weight, smoking history, physical activity, alcohol intake, calcium intake, Vitamin D supplements, estrogen use, and other factors.  No previous studies have controlled for so many potential confounding factors.

The 50% increased risk of hip fracture was found in the highest tercile (1/3rd) exposed women, compared to the lowest tercile exposed women.  It was a statistically significant difference.  The study also found 10 to 20% higher rates of fractures for all types of bone fractures, and for those types commonly associated with osteoporosis.

This new study has serious implications for the practice of fluoridation.  Its findings suggest that long term consumption of fluoridated water may be responsible for 50% or more of hip fractures experienced by older people.  There are about 2 million osteoporotic fractures in the US per year, of which about 300,000 are hip fractures [Lewiecki 2018].  Hip fractures in the elderly are a leading cause of disability and death.  “About 30% of people with a hip fracture will die in the following year” [Brauer 2019].  “Of those who survive, many do not re-gain their pre-fracture level of function. About 50% of patients with hip fractures will never be able to ambulate without assistance and 25% will require long-term care” [Lewiecki 2018]. Water fluoridation may literally be killing older people, taking years off their lives or leaving them confined to wheelchairs.  “Treating hip fractures is also very expensive. A typical patient with a hip fracture spends US $40,000 in the first year following hip fracture for direct medical costs and almost $5,000 in subsequent years” [Brauer 2019].

Widespread fluoridation in the US might help explain why “Hip fracture rates among the US population are the highest in the world” [Dhanwal 2011].

Just as with the fluoride neurotoxicity studies that are finally being taken seriously, and funded by government agencies, this new study could help spur more high-quality studies on bone effects of fluoride.  But there is already more than enough evidence of risk to the brain, and now to bone health, that there is no justification to continue intentionally adding fluoride to drinking water for the sole purpose of trying to reduce tooth decay.

Chris Neurath
Science Director
Fluoride Action Network

Thursday, April 29, 2021

From Ann Wills

 Daily Mail  28.4.21  ‘Letters’  “OPEN (YOUR WALLET) WIDE”

Due to moving home, my friend has been looking for an NHS dentist to no avail.  She was told my one dentist that every practice is in the same boat & nobody is taking on NHS patients due to lack of funds.  After having paid £250 for an X-ray & 2 fillings on a private basis, she’s now experiencing severe pain & faces another giant bill to get it sorted.  She’s 68-years-old & has paid National Insurance for her entire working life.   By: Nicholas Anderson, Suffolk.


Wednesday, April 28, 2021

From A Wills

 We have a limited number of new home-produced anti-fluoridation badges 

that we can send to anyone who would wear one. 

The badges are plastic & measure 2 inches (5.5 cm across.)   

If you’d like one, please email me & I’ll email you back our postal address. 

Then write to us enclosing an envelope addressed to yourself 

& please enclose two 2nd class stamps to cover our postage & materials.  

(It’s classified as a “large” letter costing 96p, as the badge makes it over 5mm thick!)  

Best wishes,  Ann.   awills@willsfamily.org.uk


Fluoride. Friend or Foe?


If you knew someone gave you a “drug” without your consent would you be angry?


What if you found out that this “drug” could potentially cause abnormal health outcomes?

And what if you found out you have been taking this “drug” for most of your life?

Well for those of you that have not been drinking your water from a well that is exactly what has been happening. The fluoride that is put into our water supply is supposed to prevent tooth decay.

It is considered a medical treatment and it is being administered to us without our consent. According to The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) there are numerous health risks associated with fluoride exposure.


This makes me very angry!


The CDC and the American Dental Association highlight the benefits of fluoridated water in relation to decreasing the level of cavities in our children.

But is it the fluoridated water that should be credited or is it the increase in fluoridated products on the market and the availability of dental care to lower-income populations?

Topically, fluoride is very effective in reducing cavities but ingesting it has little effect according to the Journal of Paediatrics & Child Health

I personally don’t think that I should have to ingest something that carries a warning label as a toxic substance to protect those that don’t brush their teeth.

Don’t get me wrong I do think we need to protect our children but the studies around the effects of cognitive development in children make me question if we are doing the right thing for these kids.

“In a meta-analysis, researchers from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and China Medical University in Shenyang for the first time combined 27 studies and found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children.” Check it out.

There are just as many studies that demonstrate the benefits of fluoride in the water in decreasing the rate of cavities in children.

My concern is the health risks to the fetus in utero, those that have renal insufficiency, the effects on a children’s neuro and cognitive development, increased risk of fractures, and in general the overall long-term effects.

“In 2015, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a recommendation for the optimal fluoride level that should be in drinking water to prevent tooth decay.

This new recommendation is for a single level of 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water, as opposed to the 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams per liter recommendation issued in 1962, which is now the standard.”

I guess if there is one message I would like to deliver it is that you are being administered a “drug” and there are risks as well as benefits.

You may choose to continue to ingest fluoride but if you wish to prevent or at least decrease your exposure to fluoride there are things you can do.

Your standard water filter like Brita or Pur will not remove fluoride. Boiling or freezing will not take fluoride out and may actually make it more concentrated. There are 3 techniques you can implement:

1. Purchase a filter. There are special types that are designed to remove fluoride. We bought ours from Pure Water Freedom and hubby installed it.



Pure Water Freedom

2. Purchase bottled water. Beware though many brands do contain some fluoride so you want to ensure it has less than 0.2 ppm. Check here for a list of brands that are fluoride-free.

3. Water distillation – A distillation unit will remove most, if not all, of the fluoride. These units depending on size can cost as little as $200 and can run in excess of $1,000. This system is rated quite well on Amazon and costs under $250.

I am lucky my husband is handy and he installed a unit that was relatively inexpensive and now I feel much better knowing that I am fluoride free (except for my toothpaste that is).

NSW ADA Praises and Condemns Local Water Fluoridation Decisions

 The New South Wales chapter of the Australian Dental Association (NSW ADA) praised the Oberon town council for moving forward on its plans to begin water fluoridation and condemned the Port Macquarie-Hastings council’s decision to poll its residents about whether they think fluoride should be removed from their local water supply.

“The move by Oberon Council to start water fluoridation is excellent news for the oral health of Oberon residents. Water fluoridation gives everyone a fair go when it comes to having healthy teeth,” said ADA NSW president Dr. Kathleen Matthews.

“Tooth decay is one of the most common health problems in NSW, Australia, and the world. It can result in pain, infection, and tooth loss, which can severely impact overall well-being and quality of life. Fluoridated water is a key part of protecting against tooth decay,” Matthews said.

“Current research in NSW and Australia has reaffirmed a continued benefit of water fluoridation in tooth decay prevention. These findings show that tooth decay was lower among children in areas with water fluoridation than non-fluoridated areas,” she said.

“There is no evidence of any negative health effects associated with water fluoridation at recommended levels in Australia. Several international reviews over the last 25 years have examined the evidence on fluoridation and general health, with none finding that fluoridation poses a known health risk,” she said.

“Water fluoride is a safe and effective means of improving oral health and has health benefits for everyone who drinks it. Fluoridated water especially helps the people most vulnerable to decay: children, the elderly, the disabled, the socially disadvantaged, and indigenous Australians,” she said.

“Like all Australians, Oberon residents deserve the right to good oral health. This decision will help protect the oral health of Oberon residents of all ages,” Matthews said, adding that Oberon residents should continue caring for their oral health.

“Good health starts with what you put in your mouth, and good oral health is key to overall well-being,” she said. “ADA NSW reminds residents of Oberon and the Central West that water fluoridation is only one part of overall oral health, along with minimizing sugary treats and drinks, regular brushing, flossing, and regular checkups with your dentist.”

Meanwhile, Matthews noted that the Port Macquarie-Hastings council’s decision to poll its residents is a huge backward step for the community.

“Holding this community poll, while non-binding, is a huge waste of time,” Matthews said, reiterating the safety of water fluoridation and how it is key to helping prevent tooth decay, which is the most common chronic condition in Australia.

“People have every right to question the health benefits of what they put in their bodies. Water fluoridation, however, is a safe, effective, and equitable means of preventing dental decay in children, adolescents, and adults at a community level,” she said.

“ADA NSW also notes that Port Macquarie-Hastings Council has estimated the cost of organizing the poll would cost about $90,000. ADA NSW has previously questioned spending this amount of money on a non-binding poll, given that a 2019 NCOSS study indicated that about one in seven Port Macquarie residents are living in economic disadvantage and there would seem more pressing things on which to divert resources,” she said.

“ADA NSW is disappointed that Port Macquarie-Hastings councilors have decided to progress with this poll and will continue to strongly advocate for fluoride’s benefits in the local community,” she said.

Related Articles

Tablet Delivery System Improves Water Fluoridation Efforts

Fluoride, Science, and the NTP's Agenda

OHF Applauds UK Government's Plans to Remove Water Fluoridation Barriers



Tuesday, April 27, 2021

F.A.N. Newsletter

 Good news! Last Thursday, the Judge granted Plaintiffs’ motion to add additional standing evidence into the case, which should help fully satisfy the Judge’s prior concerns on this issue and ensure that the case is resolved on the merits. The Judge also made clear that he is very keen to read the National Toxicology Program’s finalized report on fluoride's neurotoxicity, which is expected sometime later this year, as well as other new science on the issue, including an upcoming pooled analysis of the NIH-funded birth cohort studies. In order to consider this new science, the Judge discussed having a “phase 2 trial” where Plaintiffs and EPA can introduce additional expert testimony on the NTP report and other developments. The next status hearing will be on August 26 at 10:30AM (Pacific US).

While the plaintiffs believe they have already presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that fluoridation poses an unacceptable risk, they appreciate the seriousness with which the Judge is taking the case, and his commitment to having the science govern the result.

Since its formation in 2000, the Fluoride Action Network has believed that when scientists and the public learn of the poor science underpinning water fluoridation, that the practice would fall under its own weight. That belief has steadily grown as more and more scientific research has shown the dangers fluoride poses to a number of tissues including the teeth, the bone, the kidneys, the endocrine system and particularly the brain. All of this science we have meticulously cataloged in our health database and shared with visitors to our website. But this educational exercise has not been a simple matter – against us every step of the way has been an entrenched lobby, including both dental interests and the public health bureaucracies in largely English speaking countries – who refuse to give up this practice. For them fluoridation has always been and always will be “safe and effective." No amount of science will change their minds. Given a level playing ground they would be laughed out of court. Hitherto, they have had the power to convince the world that "black is white."  But now we are actually in court and it is a level playing field! 

In light of this, the Judge’s keen interest in following the science has been, and remains, a welcome development. Although he didn’t say it, the Judge’s comments suggest that he doesn’t want to hear any more obfuscation from EPA in lieu of science, and that they can’t win this case by simply appealing to their authority.

Thank you, 

Paul Connett, PhD
Fluoride Action Network

Folic Acid - Question – in the House of Lords

Photo of Lord McColl of DulwichLord McColl of Dulwich Conservative

My Lords, as fluoride has been added to drinking water to reduce dental caries, surely the Minister agrees that preventing spina bifida is more important, as a former colleague of mine, Professor Richard Smithells, pointed out nearly 60 years ago. Is it not time to act?

Photo of Lord BethellLord Bethell The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care

My Lords, I take on board the point that it is time to act. That is why we are working hard on the matter. As I said, I hope to return to the House on this soon.

Very old video but worth viewing again

Friday, April 23, 2021

From Ann Wills UK

 Now that there are local elections in some areas & we’re getting leaflets through our doors from candidates, it would be good if anti-fluoridationists could contact their candidates to tell them about their concerns on the upcoming fluoridation threat.   (Most candidates probably won’t even know about it!)

Many of the election leaflets give the candidate’s contact details, so it would be easy to contact them.

Also, in our campaigning we can give a website address   www.ukfffa.org.uk  which stands for “Freedom from Fluoride Alliance.”

Best, Ann

Wednesday, April 21, 2021

F.A.N. Newsletter

 TSCA Trial Hearing This Thursday

The next court status hearing for our TSCA lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over fluoridation’s neurotoxicity is scheduled for Thursday, April 22 at 1:30pm (Pacific US). The focus will be on FAN's motion to amend our petition to the EPA, which the Judge recommended before he placed the trial in abeyance. The amended version will have a more detailed list of plaintiffs, and will include recent studies that were part of the trial last summer.  While the hearing cannot legally be recorded, you can use the Zoom info below to watch the live proceedings.  FAN will also be providing updates on our Twitter page and in a future bulletin.

Zoom link for the hearing:


Webinar ID: 161 991 1861
Password: 912881

NEW VIDEO: Top Scientists On Fluoride's Risk To The Developing Brain 

FAN has just released a new "must watch, must share" video that's very relevant to our court case over fluoride's neurotoxicity. This short video features twelve quotes from prominent brain research scientists on fluoride's risk to the developing brain. For full quotes and citations visit FAN's webpage on fluoride neurotoxicity quotes.

(Click on graphic to watch video)

It is vital that pregnant women and parents/carers who formula-feed infants be warned of fluoride’s serious risks to the developing brain.  Pregnant women and infants should not be consuming fluoridated water.  Numerous experts in the field of developmental neurotoxicity have equated the loss of IQ from fluoridation to that from childhood lead poisoning.  They include Bruce Lanphear MD, MPH, Christine Till PhD, and Linda Birnbaum PhD, the former director of NIEHS and NTP.

Loss of IQ has lifelong consequences for the individual, and a profound effect on the social and economic well-being of the nation. We urge our supporters to get this warning into the hands of any scientist, doctor, public health official, educator, media outlet or legislator (at any level) they know.

Thank you, 

Jay Sanders
Education & Outreach Director
Fluoride Action Network

Study: "Safe" Water Fluoride Levels Linked to Hip Fractures

 NEW YORK, April 20, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- Natural water fluoride levels (ranging from 0 to 1 mg/L), considered safe in the US, are linked to hip fractures in Swedish elderly women when total fluoride intake is calculated, concludes a new study published in the Journal, Environmental health Perspectives (April 2021), by Helte, et al., reports the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF).

Fluoride from foods, beverages and tap water consumed were calculated. Urine fluoride levels were measured. Swedes mostly drink tap water and shun bottled. Coffee, tea and tap water accounted for 78% of their fluoride intake. Hip fractures increased among those with the highest urine fluoride excretions and highest estimated fluoride intake from foods and beverages relative to women with the lowest levels of each exposure, they report. Both urinary and dietary fluoride were associated with hip fractures.

The World Health Organization says 1.5 mg/L is safe but cautions "A person's diet, general state of health as well as the body's ability to dispose of fluoride all affect how the exposure to fluoride manifests itself."

NYSCOF President Paul Beeber, Esq. says, "Without evidence of safety or efficacy, the US government encourages artificial fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L in a failed effort to reduce tooth decay." Because US children are fluoride-overdosed and afflicted with dental fluorosis (discolored teeth), artificially fluoridated water levels were reduced from 1 mg/L to 0.7 mg/L in the US. But the therapeutic range is narrow and consuming high naturally fluoridated water increases the risk of skeletal fluorosis (a bone damaging disease) which few US physicians are trained to detect.

Helte's research team writes, "Our findings which are consistent with the effects of high fluoride exposures observed in [other studies] …suggest that long-term consumption of tap water with a fluoride concentration of 1 mg/L…may adversely affect bone health in postmenopausal women."

Studies which found no association were mostly ecological with potential biases, explains Helte, whose study is a "comprehensive prospective population-based study." Beeber says, "Claims of fluoridation's absolute safety for everyone over a lifetime is not only false; but can be deadly." "About 30% of people with a hip fracture will die in the following year" (Journal of the American Medical Association April 2015).

For more information: http://fluoridealert.org/issues/health/bone-fracture/

Contact: Attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President, nyscof@aol.com 516-433-8882 http://twitter.com/nyscof

SOURCE New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.

Tuesday, April 20, 2021

House of Commons


Photo of Matthew HancockMatthew Hancock Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue. We have maintained access to urgent dental treatment throughout the pandemic. We put in place dental centres to be able to do that in the first peak and dentistry was not closed in the second peak—indeed, we have put in place an incentive to get dental practices really motoring. Of course there is infection prevention and control that needs to be updated as the prevalence of the disease comes down, but making sure that we have those check-ups is incredibly important, because it is one of the most important preventive measures there is, especially for children. Given her interest in and enthusiasm for this subject, I hope she will support the proposals for much more widespread fluoridation of water, which we are proposing to put into legislation when parliamentary time allows and which was part of the White Paper we published in February, because that is one of the biggest steps we can take to protect dental health.

One in eight Bedford three-year-olds has rotten teeth

Missed appointments, lockdown diets and the suspension of public health programmes mean things are set to "go from bad to worse"

 One in every eight three-year-olds in Bedford has rotten teeth, a survey suggests.

The British Dental Association (BDA) says dental health inequalities across the country could "go from bad to worse" after the coronavirus pandemic if the Government does not support services which have faced disruption.

Public Health England data shows that 12.2 per cent of children surveyed in Bedford over the last two school years had experienced some form of dental decay.

Public Health England data shows that 12.2 per cent of children surveyed in Bedford over the last two school years had experienced some form of dental decay

Public Health England data shows that 12.2 per cent of children surveyed in Bedford over the last two school years had experienced some form of dental decay

Where decay was reported, the youngsters had an average of three rotten teeth.

Figures also show the oral health of pre-schoolers in Bedford has declined since the survey was first carried out by PHE in 2013. That year, 10.8 per cent of children had tooth decay.

Those surveyed in 2019 and 2020 were among 3,500 three-year-olds across the East of England to be examined, where 6.7 per cent of children had rotten teeth on average.

The authors of the report wrote: “Dental decay is largely a preventable disease.

“Poor oral health impacts on children and families affecting children’s ability to eat, smile and socialise and causing pain and infection with days missed at nursery, and for parents work, to attend the dentist and hospital to have teeth out.”

The British Dental Association says tooth decay is the number one reason for child hospital admissions nationally.

Eddie Crouch, BDA chairman, said: "In a wealthy 21st century nation there's no reason why decay and deprivation still go hand in hand.

"Sadly, millions of missed appointments, lockdown diets and the suspension of public health programmes mean things are set to go from bad to worse when it comes to health inequality.

"It's time for real commitment from the Government if we're going to avert an oral health crisis."

Mr Crouch added that ministers must offer support for services "facing a deeply uncertain future" to prevent an oral health decline.

A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “The Government is committed to the effective measures to improve the oral health of children, which is why we will be consulting on supervised toothbrushing and removing barriers around water fluoridation.

“We have also taken significant action to reduce the sugar content in food and drink almost 44 per cent of sugar cut from drinks thanks to the Soft Drinks Industry Levy."

They added that a new NHS rule requiring dental practices to hit 60% of their pre-Covid activity until October "is expected to improve access to vital dental services and target groups with the highest needs".

Shame there is no translation

Monday, April 19, 2021

F.A.N. Newsletter

 National Toxicology Program (NTP): Cowed by dental interests?

Unprecedented move by NTP to issue incomplete report that lacks neurotoxicity hazard conclusions

After almost five years of effort by a half dozen NTP staff and almost 50 contract specialists that involved identifying and sifting through hundreds of studies about fluoride neurotoxicity, the NTP has suddenly announced they will no longer complete the task they set out to do.

From the beginning of this long process the primary goal has been clear– to reach an “NTP hazard identification conclusion”:

“The overall objective of this evaluation is to undertake a systematic review to develop NTP hazard identification conclusions on the association between exposure to fluoride and neurodevelopmental and cognitive effects ....” [NTP 2020, p 4]

On February 22, 2021, FAN learned of a brief statement that reveals that NTP, instead of reaching a hazard conclusion, will issue a “state of the science report”.  Hidden behind the term “state of the science report” is the real intent, which was revealed to a reporter from the news service InsideEPA.  An unnamed NTP source admitted that the final “state of the science report” would not include any hazard conclusion.  FAN only learned of this statement from an attachment to a motion EPA’s lawyers filed in the TSCA lawsuit.  The statement itself is dated February 9, 2021.

Serious questions raised

For a statement that has the potential to influence a federal lawsuit and regulations to protect children from damaged brains, the way this was handled raises serious questions.  Here are some questions for which we have been seeking clear answers:

• How come the statement was not made available on the NIEHS or NTP website on February 9, 2021, or any day since?  (NIEHS is The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NTP is a division of NIEHS.)

• Who at the NTP or NIEHS authored the statement?

• Who else at NTP or NIEHS knew of the statement before it was issued?

• Why was no scientific rationale or documentation provided to explain this major change?  Instead of any reason offered for the change, the statement makes a claim about dental benefits which was never part of the NTP's stated objectives.

• How did the EPA get a copy of this statement?

• What, if any, conversations took place between the NTP and the EPA or any other party (CDC, NIH, DHHS, FDA, NASEM, ADA) before this statement was released?

• Why was there no public comment or consultation, and no notice to FAN despite FAN being the original nominator of fluoride for NTP review and a key stakeholder?

• How did a false claim about the NASEM report get into the NTP statement?  The February 9 statement incorrectly says the NASEM peer review did not support the NTP conclusion of presumed hazard.  In truth, the NASEM committee never said they did not support the NTP conclusions.  What NASEM really said was that they wanted NTP to more clearly and transparently explain how they reached their conclusions.

If there were no irregular or illegitimate pressure put on the NTP to alter the goal of its monograph then these questions should be easy to answer.  If no answers are forthcoming FAN believes that there needs to be a full public enquiry into this matter.

Will the NTP’s change affect the TSCA lawsuit?

FAN doesn’t believe that NTP’s alteration of its monograph will have a major impact on the TSCA lawsuit.  Ironically, by removing all hazard conclusions NTP might even help our case because NTP’s report would then provide a clean slate for the science to be evaluated on its own, without filtering or subjectivity.

In particular, NTP’s untenable claim that at exposures below 1.5 mg/L the evidence is “inconsistent” and “unclear” will be eliminated.  It was always an absurd claim that was easily refuted by NTP’s own evidence.  NASEM castigated NTP for making these claims without any rigorous dose-response assessment to back them up.  FAN has demonstrated that with NTP’s own data, the high-quality studies finding loss of IQ at exposures below 1.5 mg/L are just as consistent and numerous as those above 1.5 mg/L.  Over 90% of the low-dose studies found loss of IQ.

As far as the argument about hazard at any level is concerned, the judge made it clear during the June 2020 trial phase, that there was no doubt that fluoride presented a neurotoxic hazard at some level.  He told the EPA lawyers:

“I’m letting you know in my mind the critical question to me -- I don’t think it’s much disputed that fluoride can be a hazard.  I don't think anybody disputes that.  At some level it’s a hazard, a neurological hazard.”

“The question ultimately is this one: At the community water fluoridation levels at the .7, or around there, and given the way it’s used and exposed and consumed by bottle, et cetera, et cetera, does it present an unreasonable risk?  ...  that’s the critical question to me.” [TSCA trial, June 17, 2021]

The judge’s “critical question” was never going to be answered by an overall hazard conclusion from NTP that did not adequately consider dose.  This is a case of “the dose makes the poison”, as Paracelsus first stated centuries ago.  High quality studies reviewed by NTP fully support a conclusion that the doses from artificial water fluoridation can cause loss of IQ.

Another fundamental principle in toxicology is that you must apply a safety factor to the level found to cause harm in a study that used a limited sample of people (or animals).  That’s because there is a large variation in individual susceptibility and exposures to any toxic agent.  A safe level must protect not just the average person, but also the most vulnerable subgroup.  A minimum safety factor of 10x is standard, which means even if there were only studies showing harm at 1.5 mg/L and higher, a level low enough to protect the most vulnerable would need to be ten times lower, or 0.15 mg/L.  That is well below the common artificial water fluoridation level of 0.7 mg/L.

There is also a more direct way of estimating the lowest exposure levels causing harm, called the Benchmark Dose method, or BMD method.  The judge in the case specifically asked that the BMD method be applied to the highest quality studies to help him decide whether water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L posed an unreasonable risk of harm to any subpopulation.

FAN’s expert witnesses in the lawsuit were able to do exactly what the judge requested and found that the strongest studies, when pooled, demonstrate an unacceptable loss of IQ exists down to about 0.2 mg/L [Grandjean et al 2020 preprint].  So, whether one uses the default 10x safety factor or a rigorous BMD analysis, the scientific evidence supports a conclusion that fluoride exposures well below the levels found in fluoridated water are likely causing neurological harm in some children.

The next step in the lawsuit is a hearing on April 22, at which the admissibility of the NTP monograph will likely be discussed.

The public is STILL not being warned by US Health agencies

Meanwhile, no U.S.  government health agency – at any level – is warning the public that U.S. government-funded studies have provided very strong evidence that fluoridation may pose a risk to the mental development of the next generation of America’s children.

It is vital that pregnant women and parents/carers who formula-feed infants be warned of fluoride’s serious risks to the developing brain.  Pregnant women and infants should not be consuming fluoridated water.  Numerous experts in the field of developmental neurotoxicity have equated the loss of IQ from fluoridation to that from childhood lead poisoning.  They include Bruce Lanphear MD, MPH, Christine Till PhD, and Linda Birnbaum PhD, the former director of NIEHS and NTP.  Read their Op-ed: It is time to protect kids’ developing brains from fluoride.

We urge our supporters to get this warning into the hands of any scientist, doctor, public health official, educator, media outlet or legislator (at any level) they know.  No task deserves a higher priority than this.

Loss of IQ has lifelong consequences for the individual, and a profound effect on the social and economic wellbeing of the nation.  A shift downwards of 5 IQ points would halve the number of gifted children (IQ > 130) and increase by nearly 60% the number of children who may require special services (IQ < 70).  The former would decrease our effectiveness to compete in a global economy and the latter would stretch our already over-burdened social services.

As far as equity is concerned, the last thing that children from low-income homes need right now is another factor which would impact their mental development.