Benefits of fluoride on dental caries are not apparent"Fluoridation is the ultimate triumph of Madison Avenue advertising and public relations 'engineering of consent.' How else could the most educated people on the face of the earth be conditioned to clamor for their daily dose of a cumulative enzyme poison which the US Dispensatory classified as a violent poison to all living tissue?" - Gladys Caldwell and Philip E. Zanfagna, MD, in Fluoridation and Truth Decay , Top-Ecol Press, Reseda, CA, 1974.The claims of benefit for fluoride lie solely in its supposed ability to protect children's teeth from the effects of caries-causing bacteria. But just how strong is the evidence to support this contention as far as fluoridating drinking water is concerned? We often hear statements by proponents of fluoridation to the effect that "more than 50 years of research and practical experience have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that fluoridation is effective in preventing tooth decay". And "Hundreds of studies have demonstrated reduction in tooth decay of 60-70% in communities with either natural or controlled fluoridation" (1). But it is very difficult to find proof of such statements, as the most recent investigations of the status of children's teeth have found little benefit from living in a fluoridated area. Workers at the Turner Dental School in Manchester found no significant benefits on tooth decay with up to 2 parts per million of fluoride in drinking water(2) . The Harvard School of Dental Medicine also reported that fluoride had no beneficial effect (3). These two studies were conducted on rats but a similar lack of benefit has also been demonstrated in human studies. A study in Arizona of tooth-decay rates in 12- to 14-year-olds in high- and low-fluoride areas found no significant difference between them(4). Dennis H Leverett, chairman of the Department of Community Dentistry, Rochester, New York, published a table in 1982 (Table I) demonstrating that the dramatic declines in dental caries, which have been attributed to fluoride use, have also happened in unfluoridated areas(5).
The US National Institute of Dental Research figures for over 39,000 children from 84 locations in the USA indicated no difference in the numbers of decayed, missing and filled teeth (DMFT) between those who lived in fluoridated, partially-fluoridated or non-fluoridated communities. Dr. Bette Hileman stated: "The average decay rates for all children aged 5-17 were 2.0 teeth for both fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas "(6). The Director of the Division of Dental Health Services for British Columbia showed that DMFT for both fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas was falling -- but the areas which had the fewest bad teeth were those which were not fluoridated(7). And a report from Holland stated: "Dutch scientists found essentially no reduction in caries when the fluoride users and non-users had been carefully matched"(8). In the early 1960s Dr Albert Schatz studied the effects of water fluoridation in Chile. His work demonstrated that fluoride did not reduce caries, it merely postponed them by an average of 1.2 years. He also showed that fluoride increased death rates. In 1964 Dr Schatz wrote to the editor of the Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA) with a view to publishing his findings. The editor did not reply. In the first three months of 1965, Dr Schatz sent three copies of his report to JADA. They were all refused and sent back unopened. Dr Schatz says : "Such a response is typical of the proponents of fluoridation. The professional sanctions for opposing fluoridation can be severe, and it is best not to even acknowledge evidence of harm or ineffectiveness."(9) Dr Schatz, proved that fluoridation only delayed the onset of caries. In 1993 he declared: "The data clearly showed that fluoridation only delays the appearance of caries . . . Fluoridated children develop the same amount of tooth decay as their non-fluoridated counterparts over their lifetime. The only difference is that caries start developing approximately 1.2 years later." He continued: "There is no economic benefit for such actions. Since fluoride does not reduce caries . . . both groups will therefore require the same amount of dental treatment. People in fluoridated areas therefore pay for the same amount of dental treatment plus the added cost of fluoridation." Dr. John Colquhoun, was Chief Dental Officer of the Department of Health for Auckland. As President of the New Zealand Fluoridation Society he was, of course, a fervent supporter of fluoride. However, he discovered a number of worrying signs which led him to question the advisability of fluoridation. As a result of what he discovered he came out against fluoridation. Dr. Colquhoun explained why he had done so in a public lecture given in Fife, Scotland on 4 September 1996. In Auckland, Dr. Colquhoun had seen a dramatic decline in decay rates, but he noticed that it was not confined to the fluoridated areas. In both the fluoridated and unfluoridated parts of the city the declines were similar. It was suggested to him that this was due to the use of fluoride toothpaste by children living in the unfluoridated part of the city. But he knew that in the unfluoridated part, very few children used fluoride toothpaste, most had not received fluoride applications to their teeth and hardly any had been given fluoride tablets. When he received the figures for Auckland, Dr. Colquhoun says: "To my horror, they showed that fewer fillings had been required in the unfluoridated part of Auckland than in the fluoridated part". So he asked for the national figures for tooth decay rates of all 5-year-olds in New Zealand obtained from dental clinics throughout the country for the period 1930-1990, together with data on water fluoridation and fluoride toothpaste use. After he had analysed the figures Dr Colquhoun saw there had been a decline in decay rates over the whole period, beginning well before fluorides started to be used. When he received these figures, they came with a warning that they were not to be made public. Dr Colquhoun realised why, he says, when he examined them: "They showed that in most Health Districts the percentage of children who were free of tooth decay was greater in the unfluoridated parts of the district". As part of his grooming for the post of Chairman of the national Fluoridation Promotion Committee, he was sent on a fact-finding world study tour. He found the sorts of evidence presented here. When Dr. Colquhoun came out against fluoridation it was a great and courageous step on his part. Men in far less public positions had been summarily dismissed and shunned by their peers for speaking out against fluoride. Lies, damned lies and statistics One way to gauge the quality of children's teeth and the effects of fluoride is the "DMFT Index". DMFT is a measure of the average number of D ecayed, M issing and F illed T eeth per child in the population being studied. One of the mainstays of the pro-fluoride lobby's case is a study, conducted in the 1960s, that compared Hartlepool and York (10). This showed that Hartlepool (naturally fluoridated at 2 ppm) had much less dental decay than unfluoridated York. The author ascribed this to the fluoride in Hartlepool's water. Throughout any country it is not difficult to find a variety of levels of tooth decay in both fluoridated and unfluoridated areas. The United Kingdom Dental Health League Table, published in November 1997 by the British Fluoridation Society lists 208 districts, their levels of dental caries in 5-year-olds and levels of fluoridation. Top of the list with 0.54 decayed, missing and filled teeth (DMFT) is fluoridated Bromsgrove & Redditch; bottom with 3.96 DMFT is North Manchester which is unfluoridated. If one picks a fluoridated area with a low level of tooth decay and an unfluoridated area with a high level, disregarding any other differences between them, it is not difficult to "prove" that fluoride prevents caries. But there are several comparable districts, fluoridated and unfluoridated, where levels of carious teeth are the same. Gateshead and Liverpool are demographically quite similar and 5-year-olds in both towns have an average 1.85 carious teeth. But Gateshead's water is 100% fluoridated while Liverpool's water has no fluoride. So when comparing towns, one has to look more closely at other possible confounding factors. Doing this we find that in the 1960s, when the Hartlepool/York study was conducted, the biggest employer in York was the sweets manufacturer, Rowntree's. Rowntree's employed a sizeable proportion of the city's population. Not only did it allow its workers to eat as much confectionary as they wished while they were at work, they were also allowed to collect all the bits left over at the end of the week to take home. Thus it is likely that their friends and relatives also had a higher intake of sweets than most. So was the reason that York had a higher tooth decay rate than Hartlepool the lack of fluoride in its water supply, or was it because of its greater intake of caries-causing sweets? Other British studies were conducted which were not so contrived and they tell a different story. A major study conducted for the Ministry of Health measured tooth decay rates in 8- to 10-year-olds in five towns, while 9- to 14-year-olds' teeth were studied in Kilmarnock(11) . Neither showed a significant beneficial effect from fluoride. Another bit of cheating involves the choice of statistics on 5-year-olds' teeth to support the fluoridation recommendations. Teeth in the very young are deciduous, destined to drop out and be replaced by permanent teeth. It has also been demonstrated that where water is fluoridated, this delays babies' teething by several months. This, in turn, means that by the age of five, their teeth have not been subjected to caries-causing foodstuffs for so long. To get a truer picture of the benefits, if any, of fluoride, it is much more meaningful to look at the effects of fluoride on older children's permanent teeth. The World Health Organisation monitors decayed, missing and filled teeth regularly. Its figures for Europe, this time looking at 12-year-olds' teeth, are at Table II below. Table II: Comparison of Decayed, Missing And Filled Teeth (DMFT) in 12-year-olds in European Countries (Source: World Health Organisation, Noncommunicable Disease Division)
The Republic of Ireland is the only country in Europe to have a large degree of fluoridation of its drinking water and it has been fluoridated for over 30 years. Yet, in terms of the numbers of decayed, missing and filled teeth, it ranks only sixth in Europe behind countries which are not fluoridated. And in terms of reductions in DMFT, which is where the benefits of fluoridation are claimed, Ireland drops to seventh place behind Norway; and the next most fluoridated country, the UK, drops from third to sixth place. These figures provide no support for the claim that fluoridation of drinking water helps to preserve children's teeth. Fluoride damages teeth! One of the largest studies into tooth decay and fluoride levels ever carried out showed that far from protecting teeth, fluoride could harm them(12). Researchers at Tokyo Medical and Dental University examined the teeth of 20,000 students. They found that there was more tooth decay in students who came from areas with more than 0.4 parts per million fluoride in the drinking water than in students from areas where the levels were lower than 0.4 parts per million. Similarly another study in Ottawa, Kansas(13), found that in just three years after drinking water was fluoridated, the numbers of DMFT in 5- to 6-year-old children more than doubled. In trials which purported to demonstrate that fluoridation lowered tooth decay, a review of the data showed the reduction in decay to be due, not to the fluoride, but to regular toothbrushing. "I observed that . . . the percentage of children who were free of dental decay was higher in the unfluoridated part of most health districts in New Zealand," Dr. John Colquhoun The protection of children's teeth is the only reason given in defence of fluoridation of drinking water -- and it doesn't! The case for fluoride is so badly flawed as to be indefensible. References: 1. Martin B. Scientific Knowledge in Controversy. The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate . State University of New York Press, New York, 1991. p16 2 . Hardwick JL, Bunting DM. Effects of fluoridation of drinking water or of a cariogenic diet on caries experience in rats. J Dent Res . 1971; 50 (Suppl 5): 1212. 3. Sweeney E, et al. Effect of alloxan diabetes on fluoride retention and caries incidence in rats. J Dent Res . 1962; 41 (4): 866-74. 4. Galagan D. Climate and controlled fluoridation. J Am Dent Assn . 1953; 47: 159-70. 5. Leverett DH. Fluorides and the Changing Prevalance of Dental Caries. Science . 1982; 217: 26-30. 6 . Hileman B. New studies cast doubt on fluoridation benefits. Chem Eng News 1989; 67: 5. 7. Gray A. Fluoridation: time for a new baseline? J Can Dent Assn . 1987; 10: 272-279. 8. Tijmstra T, et al . Effect of socioeconomic factors on the observed caries reduction after fluoride tablet and fluoride toothpaste consumption. Comm Dent Oral Eidemiol . 1978; 6: 227-30. 9. Schatz A. Affidavit attesting to the high infant mortality rate of children in Chile after fluoridation of the drinking water, 1993. 10 . Murray J. Adult dental health in fluoride and non-fluoride areas. Br Dent J . 1971; 131: 437-42. 11. Yiamouyiannis JA. Fluoride: The Aging Factor. pp 112-3 12. Imai Y. Relation between fluoride concentration in drinking water and dental caries in Japan. Koku Eisei Gakkai Zasshi. 1972; 22 (2): 144-196. 13. Scrivener C. Unfavourable report from Kansas Community using artificial fluoridation on city water supply for three-year period. J Dent Res . 1951; 30 (4): 465.
NATIONAL PURE WATER ASSOCIATION'S Admin Office: 12 Dennington Lane, Crigglestone, Wakefield, WF4 3ET, UK Phone: 01924 25 44 33 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Registered office: Croft End,
Lowick Bridge, Cumbria LA12 8EE
A not for profit Company
This document may be freely copied