Fluoride & Babies: DON'T MIX

Many government, health, dental and other groups now caution that routinely mixing infant formula with fluoridated water puts babies at risk of developing discolored teeth (dental fluorosis - white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth) without any benefit of less tooth decay (See citations*). Parents also need to know that hidden fluoride in baby foods can cause fluorosis.

According to Dr. E. Angeles Martinez-Mier of the Indiana University School of Dentistry and a dental scientist who has worked more than 20 years on fluoride research, "the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation of not using fluoride in baby formula was made because a study found that fluoride is not effective when the person has no teeth. She said she participated not only in that study but in four of the five CDC studies on fluoridation."(A) 

A CDC slogan is often used to promote fluoridation. However, the CDC wants you to know that “It is not CDC’s task to determine what levels of fluoride in water are safe”

In fact, carefully reading CDC reports reveals fluoride doubts. CDC writes: “Fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted…”  and that ingested fluoride emerges from saliva to bathe teeth topically but that level is too low to prevent tooth decay, CDC says.

The CDC also admits that “The prevalence of dental caries in a population is not inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in enamel, and a higher concentration of enamel fluoride is not necessarily more efficacious in preventing dental caries.”

Preferably, fluoridation should be stopped because it has been proven a dismal failure

*Citations

Dr. Howard Koh, Assistant Secretary for Health, US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in a video commentary published on Medscape.com, March 8, 2011 says “…tooth enamel formation occurs from birth until about 8 years old. This is also the time when dental fluorosis may occur with excess fluoride consumption.”

Koh says, "if the child is exclusively consuming infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water, there is an increased potential for mild dental fluorosis."

Reference: Government Perspectives on Healthcare;HHS: Proposed Guidelines on Fluoride in Drinking Water,A Commentary By Howard K. Koh, MD, MPH http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/738322



-----

From the US Centers for Disease Control

“Recent evidence suggests that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water on a regular basis may increase the chance of a child developing the faint, white markings of very mild or mild enamel fluorosis.”

http://www.cdc.gov/FLUORIDATION/safety/infant_formula.htm#1
 

------

Academy of General Dentistry

“If you add fluoridated water to your infant's baby formula, you may be putting your child at risk of developing dental fluorosis...”

http://www.qualitydentistry.com/library/agd/fluoride.html
-------------------------

Mayo Clinic 

“Regularly mixing a baby's formula with fluoridated tap water can provide enough fluoride to cause fluorosis — mild white streaks on the teeth or more severe pitting or staining of tooth enamel. Fluorosis can affect both baby teeth and permanent teeth.” 

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/infant-formula/MY00193/NSECTIONGROUP=2 

--------------------------------------

Vermont Department of Health

“The Vermont Department of Health recommends mixing powdered or concentrated baby formula with water that is fluoride-free, or contains very low levels of fluoride, for feeding infants under 12 months of age. Recent studies have discovered the possibility that infants in this age group may be consuming more fluoride than necessary.” 

http://healthvermont.gov/news/2006/120806fluoride.aspx

---------------

New York State Department of Health

Parents who are concerned about the risk of enamel fluorosis, can mix liquid concentrate or powdered infant formula with water that is fluoride free or contains low levels of fluoride. Examples are water that is labeled purified, demineralized, deionized, distilled or reverse osmosis filtered water.

http://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/dental/fluoride_guidance_during_infancy.htm

-----------------------

California Dental Association

"...mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with
fluoridated water on a regular basis for infants primarily fed in this
way may increase the chance of a child’s developing enamel fluorosis,"
according to the CDA's Feb 2010 Report, Oral Health During Pregnancy
and Early Childhood: Evidence-Based Guidelines for Health
Professionals. ( http://www.cdafoundation.org/library/docs/poh_guidelines.pdf
(Page 12)

-------------------------------- 

National Research Council In March 2006, the National Research Council (NRC) cautioned that infants can fluoride-overdose via reconstituted baby formula. The American Dental Association (ADA) passed this information on to its members in a November 2006 e-gram

http://www.ffo-olf.org/files/ADA_InfantsEgram_20061109.pdf
------------ 

Delta Dental 

If parents and caregivers are concerned about the potential for increasing a child’s risk of developing enamel fluorosis, breast feeding, ready-to-feed formula or powdered or liquid concentrate formula reconstituted with water that either is fluoride free or contains low concentrations of fluoride are an alternative. This type of water is often labeled “purified,” “demineralized,” “deionized,” “distilled” or “produced through reverse-osmosis.” 

http://oralhealth.deltadental.com/Search/22,DD63

---------------- 

Minnesota Dental Association 

If liquid concentrate or powdered infant formula is the primary source of nutrition, it can be mixed with water that is fluoride free, or contains low levels of fluoride to reduce the risk of fluorosis. Examples are water that is labeled purified, demineralized, deionized, distilled or reverse osmosis filtered water. Many grocery stores sell these types of drinking water for less than $1 per gallon.         

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/57490.php

---- 

Maryland Government Agency 

Regularly mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water may increase your child's risk of developing faint white markings or streaks on the teeth -- a sign of mild enamel fluorosis.If you're concerned about fluorosis, you can minimize your baby's exposure to fluoride by using ready-to-feed formula. You can also alternate using tap water and nonfluoridated water for formula preparation, or mix powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with low-fluoride water most or all of the time. CDC also recommends that parents can use low-fluoride bottled water some of the time to mix infant formula; these bottled waters are labeled as de-ionized, purified, demineralized, or distilled.

http://phpa.dhmh.maryland.gov/oralhealth/SitePages/community-water.aspx#formula

------------------ 

Chester Water Authority (Chester, Pennsylvania)

"The ADA and the CDC recommend the following for the parents of infants: Parents should consider preparing powdered or liquid concentrate infant formulas using water that contains no or low levels of fluoride"

http://www.chesterwater.com/waterquality/CCR2013.pdf

----------------------------- 

American Public Health Association: Policy Statement Database 

Recent evidence suggests that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water on a regular basis for infants primarily fed in this way may increase the chance of a child’s developing the faint white markings of very mild or mild enamel fluorosis. 

http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1373

--- ---

Des Moines Water Works 

Powdered or liquid concentrate infant formula can be mixed with water that is fluoride free or contains low levels of fluoride. These types of water are labeled as purified, demineralized, deionized, distilled or reverse osmosis filtered water http://www.dmww.com/upl/documents/water-quality/lab-reports/fact-sheets/fluoride.pdf 

--------------- 

Broomfield, Colorado 

The American Dental Association has recommended that for infants being fed primarily reconstituted infant formula, a fluoride-free water source such as demineralized or distilled water be used to reduce fluoride intake. 

http://www.broomfield.org/documentcenter/view/2378

------------------- 

Ormond Beach, Florida puts infant warning advisory on Annual Water Quality Report

http://www.ormondbeach.org/DocumentView.aspx?DID=2961

Dental Associations Advise Against Fluoride in Baby Formula

Although the American Dental Association and the Florida Dental Association both endorse fluoridated water as an effective way to prevent tooth decay, they have issued an advisory recommending that non-fluoridated bottled water be used in powdered or liquid-concentrate baby formula for infants.The advisories note that too much fluoride can cause fluorosis, resulting in a discoloration or streaks on teeth.

-----

The Colgate Oral Health Report, “Potential Fluorosis from
Fluoride Intake During Infancy and Early Childhood” Volume 21, Number 2, 2011 https://secure.colgateprofessional.com/app/cop/repository/article-651/frameset.jsp?middle=ocrindex.html

---


Reference:

A) "Experts testify in favor of water fluoridation in Valparaiso,"

By James D. Wolf Jr. Post-Tribune correspondent June 20, 2014 

http://posttrib.suntimes.com/news/porter/28190263-418/experts-testify-in-favor-of-water-fluoridation-in-valparaiso.html#.U6QT6_ldW2E

Hidden Fluoride in Baby Food can Damage Teeth

News Release:

Study: Hidden Fluoride in Infant Foods Can Mar Babies’ Teeth

New York – March 24, 2014 -- Babies risk dental fluorosis from unlabeled fluoride in infant foods, say researchers in General Dentistry, reports the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.  (NYSCOF)

Detectable fluoride levels, found in all 360 samples tested, is due to pesticides, fertilizers, soil, groundwater and/or fluoridated water used in processing, the researchers report.

Foods containing mechanically de-boned chicken and turkey were highest in fluoride because fluoride-saturated bone dust gets into the finished product.

Babies fed excess fluoride can grow white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth (dental fluorosis). Fluorosis is trending upwards in severity and incidence say researchers who measured .26 mg/fluoride in chicken baby food which is 65% of a 7-month-old’s recommended daily fluoride intake.

 “Consuming greater than 1 serving/day of the high fluoride concentration products in this study would cause children of the target age to exceed the recommended daily fluoride intake,” they write. Average 7-month-old’s shouldn't ingest more than 0.4 mg of fluoride daily, they advise

All infant formula, infant juices and virtually all beverages and foods contain fluoride. Most US public water supplies are fluoridated. Some fluoridated bottled waters are marketed specifically for babies’ consumption.

Often ignored is the American Dental Association’s (ADA) advice that fluoride therapy and prescribing be based upon children’s total fluoride intake.  "Caries-free children in fluoridated areas are not likely to benefit from topical fluorides," according to NYS DofH dentist J. Kumar.

Instead of reducing exposure, more is encouraged by advising that a toxic 22,600 parts-per-million fluoride varnish be painted on babies’ teeth as they emerge and then brushing daily with a rice-sized dab of fluoridated toothpaste (.1 mg fluoride) that inevitably will be swallowed. Blood fluoride levels also spike after varnish application.

Although never FDA approved, the ADA recommends fluoride supplements starting at six months. The ADA backtracked its own 2006 guidance to avoid mixing infant formula with fluoridated water to reduce fluorosis risk.

“…a person’s greatest susceptibility to fluorosis occurs within the first 2 years of life, as a result, fluoride intake from all sources should be monitored closely during this critical period,” the researchers caution.

This information rarely reaches the public.

“America’s children are fluoride-overdosed; yet tooth decay is a growing epidemic,” says attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President.  “Whose interests are being served by selling more fluoride?”

Fluoridation opponents and proponents agree that too much fluoride can damage bones and teeth. But proponents fail to educate consumers about studies which show foods can have teeth-damaging fluoride levels and that all fluoride sources must be considered before more is prescribed.  See examples below.

Contact: Paul Beeber, JD, nyscof@aol.com

http://www.fluoridation.webs.com 

 

SOURCE:  NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.

1) "to reduce the risk of dental fluorosis, dental and medical practitioners should be cautious about prescribing dietary fluoride supplements to preschool-aged children in nonfluoridated areas who consume large quantities of carbonated soft drinks," Journal of the American Dental Association, Nov 1999,  Assessing fluoride levels of carbonated soft drinks,

2) "Infant foods, especially those containing chicken, should be considered when determining total fluoride intake," Journal of the American Dental Association, July 1997,Fluoride concentrations of infant foods,

3) "Children's ingestion of fluoride from juices and juice-flavored drinks can be substantial and a factor in the development of fluorosis," Journal of the American Dental Association, July 1996 Assessing fluoride concentrations of juices and juice-flavored drinks

4)  "42% of the samples had more than 1 ppm of fluoride."Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, Fall 1991Fluoride levels and fluoride contamination of fruit juices,

5) "dietary fluoride supplements should be considered a targeted preventive regimen only for those children at higher risk for dental caries and with low levels of ingested fluoride from other sources," Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Winter 1995 Sources of fluoride intake in children,

6) "most of the iced teas studied contained considerable fluoride concentrations,"  Caries Research, 2002, Fluoride concentration and pH of iced tea products.

7) "Infant foods had the highest fluoride content followed by chicken sticks, luncheon meats, and canned meats," Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2001, Fluoride content of foods made with mechanically separated chicken.

8) "In spite of the fact that an individual lives in a low fluoride community, the risk of fluorosis exists through fluoride consumption in beverages," General Dentistry (1998). Impact of imported beverages on fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities.

9) "to limit fluoride intakes to amounts <0 .1="" avoid="" class="highlight" day="" fo="" is="" it="" kg="" mg="" necessary="" span="" to="" use="">fluoridated water (around 1 ppm) to dilute powdered

infant formulas," Journal of Dentistry for Children , Jan-Feb 2001,

Fluoride content of infant formulas prepared with deionized, bottled mineral and fluoridated drinking water,

10)  "Prolonged exposure to high intakes of fluoride during infancy is much more common now than in the past," Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Fall 1999, Fluoride intake by infants

11)  "The estimated mean daily fluoride intakes from beverages for children 2-3, 4-6, and 7-10 years of age were 0.36, 0.54, and 0.60 mg, respectively," Journal of Dental Research, July 1992

Fluoride intake from beverage consumption in a sample of North Carolina children

12) "Some infant foods/drinks, when reconstituted with fluoridated water, may result in a F intake in infants above the suggested optimum range (0.05-0.07 mg F/kg body weight) and therefore may put infants at risk of developing dental fluorosis," Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, October 2012, Impact of water fluoride concentration on the fluoride content of infant foods and drinks requiring preparation with liquids before feeding 

A very abbreviated news release went out via PRNewswire here:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/study-hidden-fluoride-in-infant-foods-can-mar-babies-teeth-251923331.html

 

New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF)

NYSCOF News Releases

NYSCOF on Twitter

NYSCOF on Facebook

Virginia Dep't of Health Report Doubts Fluoridation Safety

In 1980 the Virginia Department of Health asked toxicologist Brian Dementi. PhD, to review the available literature relating to the health effects of fluoride.  Dementi concluded: “With regard to fluoridation, this writer is of the opinion that the evidence of adverse health effects is of such magnitude and human beings so varied in their individual constitution, state of health at any moment, eating and drinking habits, etc., that it is inappropriate to say that fluoridation is a totally healthful and safe practice for all."

Further, Dementi writes, "Widespread exposure to fluoride coupled with an inadequate data base substantiating it to be safe is a cause of great concern.  The public consumes fluoride from drinking water, tooth paste, mouth washes, etc. with little or no advice as to how much fluoride is enough or too much. The evidence as cited herein indicates some adverse health or metabolic effects right at, or very close to, the 1 ppm level, with no margin of safety respecting such effects established of the nature generally sought for toxic substances. It is possible that many individuals out of the large number consuming fluoridated water are suffering in varying degrees health detriment attributable to this recognized toxic substance.”  http://www.scribd.com/doc/16925697/Dementi-Fluoride-Report

Dementi writes, “Every effort has been made in this report to adhere to the ideal of presenting only scientific information and discussion pertaining to it. “

‘This report is not complete. The evaluation of the health effects of fluoride must continue as long as the substance is found in drinking water, tooth paste, mouth rinses, etc., and concern exists as to its safety.”

‘Furthermore, where the kidney is concerned persons with impaired kidney function may suffer from acute fluoride toxicity when consuming water containing as little as 2 ppm fluoride”

‘The finding of Hirata in Japan of a decrease in white blood corpuscles and neutrophils in children of prepuberty age, which was correlateable with the extent of dental mottling observed where the drinking water containing 1-5 ppm fluoride, is a serious and important finding.”

‘There is the added question of Down’s syndrome to be reckoned with. Work has been cited showing a dose related association between fluoride and the incidence of Down’s syndrome where fluoride levels in the drinking water ranged from 0.1 to 2.6 ppm. Though this work has been seriously criticized, the fact remains that no study satisfactorily refutes the findings. The possibility of a fluoride related increased incidence of Down’s syndrome remains.”

'Since it appears that a serious question remains concerning a possible causative relationship between fluoride ingestion and Down's syndrome, one would think that, in view of the widespread human exposure, efforts directed toward obtaining definitive results should have been undertaken or certainly should be in progress."

‘The Physicians Desk Reference (1979) indicates fluoride may cause a variety of symptoms such as skin eruptions, eczema, gastric distress, headache, weakness, etc. in hypersensitive individuals.”

' Out of 110 million persons consuming water containing fluoride, there may be many experiencing such symptoms who have no idea that fluoride in the drinking water may be the cause.”

"In discussing the effects of fluoride upon the kidney, it seems appropriate at this point to indicate that whereas the kidney fulfills the important task of removing toxic substances, such as fluoride, from the system.  There is the consequent danger of fluoride tintoxication in those individuals with impaired renal function who ingest fluoride...It is evident that fluoridated water poses an enhanced threat to those among the populace who have impaired kidney function."

"In referring to average blood fluoride levels little consideration is given to individuals who, for one or more of a variety of reasons, may have fluoride levels well above the average...Arguments such as these suggest that fluoride levels in the blood of a certain fraction of human drinking fluoridated water may be within the range where perturbation of DNA repair is manifest and that at some point in the time such perturbations may have serious consequence.

Fluoridation: Follow the Money, by Carol S. Kopf, BS, MA

Multi-billion dollar international conglomerates, which benefit from tooth decay and fluoride sales, pour money into organized dentistry, which is behind virtually every fluoridation initiative. Money makes dentistry politically powerful and enables them to get laws  passed to benefit dentists' bottom line. 

The American Dental Association (ADA), many of its over 250 constituent state and city  associations are  benefactors of corporate dollars along with other fluoridation-promoting dental groups, schools and organizations.

Dentists, inside and outside of government and industry, seem to have vast amounts of money and influence to promote fluoridation. Where does it come from?

The ADA and the ADA Foundation received over $28 million from pharmaceutical companies, dental equipment manufacturers and insurance companies, from 2006 – 2009, according to a January 20, 2010, letter from the ADA’s Chief Financial Officer to U.S. Senator Charles Grassley.

Grassley wants more accountability and transparency between the ADA and industry. The ADA didn’t comply with Grassley’s request to publish its corporate funders on its website. However, Grassley listed them on his own website http://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/about/upload/2011-05-04-CEG-Letter-to-American-Dental-Association.pdf

Fluoride-selling pharmaceutical giants listed include: Colgate, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, Pfizer, and others.

ADA’s Seal of Acceptance

Several companies on Grassley’s list paid a “Seal Program Maintenance Fee,” totaling $574,000 for four years (2006-2009). 

The ADA requires a one-time, non-refundable submission fee before reviewing over-the-counter products ($14,500 per product).  If given the ADA’s Seal of Acceptance, companies are required to pay an annual maintenance fee of $3,500 per product, according to Jan Lord, Manager, Acceptance Program, ADA’s Council on Scientific Affairs.

Approximately, 260 items appear on the ADA’s current Accepted “Shopping List.”   A large number are fluoride products.

More Legal Financial Exchanges between the ADA and Industry

Sometimes the ADA joins into “Cause-Related-Marketing” with for-profit companies. For example:  the William Wrigley Company agreed to donate a percentage of its ADA Accepted chewing gum products to the ADA’s Give Kids A Smile program, according to Guidelines Governing the American Dental Association’s Corporate Relationships. 

Wrigley paid the ADA $36,000 to review some of Wrigley’s sugar-free chewing gum studies to get the ADA’s Seal of Acceptance, according to CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta.  Gupta writes, “The ADA stands by its seal and told us any company can apply for the seal, as long as the company pays for it.

Johnson & Johnson gave $900,000 to fund the ADA’s annual session’s distinguished speaker series (2006-2009).

In 2007, Barbara Walters and Lance Armstrong Headlined the ADA’s Distinguished Speaker Series

Many prominent journalists and politicians have been paid to speak at ADA conventions. In 2013 former President Bill Clinton was the main event. Some might say it’s a good way to buy influence.

Colgate funds the ADA research institute newly renamed after dentist Anthony R. Volpe, who recently retired as Vice President of Clinical Research and Scientific Affairs at Colgate-Palmolive Company. 

Colgate’s Volpe and a Henry Schein, Inc. representative serve on the Board of Directors of Forsyth Institute which bills itself as “the only independent research institute in America specializing in oral health and its impact on overall wellness.” Forsyth is where Dr. Phyllis Mullenix’s research found that fluoride can cause brain deficits in rodents. Mullenix was fired for publishing her results in a peer-reviewed, respected journal, against the orders her Forsyth boss, explained in the first chapter of “The Fluoride Deception.”

Dental Schools are corporation-subsidized

Henry Schein, Inc.,the largest distributor of healthcare products and services to office-based practitioners gave the NYU Dental School a six figure gift in 2000 and a million dollars the year before.

The NYU Donor Honor Roll reveals that Colgate-Palmolive Company and Nobel Biocare USA, Inc gave from $1 to 4$ million (2011-2012).

Centers for Disease Control

If a community elects to stop fluoridation, invariably a dentist and his posse shows up intimidating them into re-starting fluoridation. As ammunition, they state that “CDC has recognized water fluoridation as one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.”

That statement may sound impressive. However it was made by dental professionals within the CDC’s Oral Health Division, who are paid to promote fluoridation.  The CDC also says, “It is not CDC's task to determine what levels of fluoride in water are safe.”

The CDC’s Oral Health Division may be a stepping stone into a more lucrative career promoting fluoridation for outside interests. When forced to defend fluoridation with words and not hide behind catch-phrases and government credentials, two former CDC Oral Health Division Directors fell short.

a) Dentist William Kohn - Now with Delta Dental, a dental “insurance” company that strongly supports fluoridation financially, Kohn does a poor job of convincing anyone to endorse fluoridation in a series of Delta Dental YouTube videos. I’ll bet he makes way more money in his new job.

b) Dentist William Mass was equally impotent when asked to defend fluoridation before a county legislature in his new job as Fluoridation Consultant to the billion-dollar Pew Foundation’s Dental Policy group. Under his guidance, Pew fluoridation initiatives in Portland, Oregon and Wichita, Kansas failed when voters rejected fluoridation 60% to 40% despite the vast amount of money spent trying to convince them to swallow the fluoride.

Dentists Doing Very Well, Thank You, Despite Fluoridation

Fluoridation hasn’t hurt dentistry’s bottom line at all. In fact, dentistry is big business today despite 7 decades of water fluoridation and a glut of fluoridated dental products. Americans spent about $108 billion on dentists in 2011, an inflation-adjusted increase from $64 billion in 1996, according to the General Accounting Office. But a dental crisis still exists.

Since fluoridation doesn’t reduce tooth decay, whose best interests are served by protecting fluoride’s image?

  

The Global Toothpaste Market is expected to reach $12.6 billion by 2015, according Global Industry Analysts, Inc.

And, as you know, toothpaste isn’t the only fluoridated dental product on the market.

The global dental equipment market is predicted to exhibit a compound annual growth rate of 9% to reach over $13 billion by 2016

Cosmetic dentistry continues to surge with an annual U.S. expenditure of $2.75 billion. 

Fluoridation has created a lucrative new market for cosmetic dentistry. Fluoride-overdose symptoms, dental fluorosis (discolored teeth) has increased in incidence and severity over the years.  WebMD writes, “Although fluorosis is not a disease, its effects can by psychologically distressing and difficult to treat. Parental vigilance can play an important role in preventing fluorosis.”

Sales of fluoride varnish are soaring as organized dentistry lobbied legislators to increase, require or allow their use among more practitioners – even though the varnish contains a hugely toxic 22,600 parts per million fluoride and has never been FDA approved for cavity reduction or safety tested. http://www.cda.org/Portals/0/pdfs/ab667_topical_fluoride_faq.pdf

Money is Power

Why does the ADA need so much money?  Money is power in American politics. The ADA’s Political Action Committee is considered a Heavy Hitter by the Center for Responsive Politics. It seems that organized dentistry lobbies mostly for laws that benefit their member dentists. Some legislation masquerades as a public benefit. Fluoridation wears such a mask.

The New York State Dental Association brags about its legislative victories on its website

The New York Times reported about the NY Dental Association’s political clout and sleazy politicking, in 2008.

The Greater New York Dental Meeting which is billed as the largest dental conference in the country generates millions of dollars. Exhibitors look like a who’s who in the dental industry

 A National Journal article (1/20/2014) explains how organized dentistry heavily funds two dentists (Reps Mike Simpson and Paul Gosar) in the US House of Representatives. In 2012, The Wall Street reported that Simpson helped stall funding for a piece of the new health care law which the dental lobby opposed. In 2013, the American Dental Association listed two "action alerts" on its website, urging its members to write in support of legislation. Both bills were authored by Gosar, and Simpson was among the earliest cosponsors of both.

Simpson co-authored a dental bill that included fluoridation in 2004 and earlier

Gosar spearheaded a failed 2001 push to fluoridate Flagstaff, Arizona.

Gosar and Simpson co-signed a letter to all Congress encouraging water fluoridation. 

Healthy Diets Make Healthy Teeth without Fluoride

Even the ADA admits good dental health begins in the womb. It’s important for pregnant women to receive sufficient amounts of tooth-building nutrients, including calcium, protein, phosphorous and vitamins A, C and D  But dentists are mostly focused on fluoride, a drug with adverse side effects, that is not even essential for healthy teeth. American children are especially deficient in  Vitamin D and calcium, which is linked to more tooth decay.

But there’s no money in selling nutrients and healthy eating.

So it’s not surprising that the U.S. is experiencing a tooth decay epidemic along with a fluoride-overdose epidemic. Up to 60% of adolescents have dental fluorosis. Yet 51% of them have tooth decay.

Nearly 9,500 new dental providers are needed to meet the country’s current oral health

needs, according to a report by US Senator Bernie Sanders (Dental Crisis in America February 2012)

Who’s in Charge?

No government agency has direct oversight of fluoridation. The CDC it’s not responsible for fluoridation safety. The FDA regulates fluoride as a drug for topical application and considers ingested fluoride such as fluoride supplements, an unapproved drug. The EPA regulates fluoride in water supplies as a contaminant.  Organized dentistry, fueled by corporate cash, protects fluoride’s image and promotes fluoridation but not the American public.

So Why Fluoridation? 

The dental crisis America faces today is because dentistry has become a luxury service that most Americans can’t afford.  80% of dentists refuse to accept Medicaid patients, 130 million lack dental insurance.  Many with dental insurance can’t afford dentistry’s high out of pocket fees.  The answer is simple - legalize Dental Therapists in the US as they have been for decades in other first world countries.  They just need 2 or 3 years training to do simple dentistry. They will go into mouths and areas dentists refuse to go. Studies show they are highly effective and more affordable.

However, organization dentistry, with its pockets full of corporate cash, lobby long and hard to keep affordable dentistry an oxymoron in the US.  Dentists lobby against dental therapists because, some say, they infringe upon dentists lucrative monopoly.

END