Family Forum / Parenting / Children's Health / September 2008

Both Parties Need Planks to Restore Scientific Integrity at the CDC

NEW YORK, Aug. 27  -- According to the Fluoride Action Network (FAN),
there is a crucial need for both political parties to restore
scientific integrity to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on
several policies. The most egregious is their continued unscientific
support for water fluoridation.

"The simplest and quickest way to restore public trust in the CDC is
for both Democrats and Republicans to put a commitment to end
fluoridation into their party platforms," says Paul Connett, Ph.D.,
FAN's Executive Director.

According to Connett, "Fluoridated water contains 250 times more
fluoride than in mothers' milk. In 1950, when the Public Health
Service first endorsed fluoridation, no studies had investigated
possible adverse health effects.  Today, many published studies show
fluoride is harmful, but the CDC is ignoring these studies and
continues its relentless promotion and funding of this outdated
practice."

The only risk that the CDC acknowledges is dental fluorosis – a tooth
discoloration – which impacts 32% of American children (1). Both the
ADA and the CDC now advise that fluoridated water not be used to
prepare infant formula (2,3).

According to Connett, "this marking of the enamel indicates a child
has been over-exposed to fluoride. We are concerned about how fluoride
may be affecting the rest of the child's body. Over 20 studies show
that fluoride can lower IQ (4,5)."

A 2006 National Research Council fluoride report revealed many health
risks, including potential damage to the bones, brain and thyroid
gland. The panel concluded that drinking fluoridated water can pose
risks to those with thyroid or kidney disorders, diabetics, high water
drinkers and infants and recommended that the US EPA lower their safe
drinking water standard (6).

This new research has prompted over 1,800 professionals to call for an
end to fluoridation worldwide (7).

Meanwhile, researchers reporting in the British Medical Journal (Oct
2007) showed that tooth decay has come down as fast in non-fluoridated
countries as fluoridated ones (8).

"It is clear that the CDC's Oral Health Division is misleading the
public about the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation," says
Connett.

"They must be held accountable for this. We need both political
parties to resist the well-heeled dental lobby.  Our children's health
and the public's trust in government health agencies is at stake,"
says Connett.

SOURCE:  Fluoride Action Network  http://www.FluorideAction.Net

References:

1) CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2008. Enamel
fluorosis among persons aged 6-39 years, by selected characteristics –
United States, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,
1999-2002. Table 23 from MMWR Weekly, Populations Receiving Optimally
Fluoridated Public Drinking Water --- United States, 1992--2006,
57(27): 737-741. July 11, 2008 .

2) ADA (American Dental Association). 2006. Interim guidance on
reconstituted infant formula. E-gram. November 9.
http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/epubs/egram/egram_061109.pdf

3) CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2007. Background:
infant formula and the risk for enamel fluorosis. August 9.
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm

4)  Tang QQ, Du J, Ma HH, Jiang SJ, Zhou XJ. 2008. Fluoride and
children's intelligence: a meta-analysis. Biological Trace Element
Research. August 10. [Epub ahead of print].
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18695947?dopt=AbstractPlus

5) Fluoride, Quarterly Journal of the International Society for
Fluoride Research, April-June 2008,
http://fluoridealert.org/fluoride.v41.2.2008.pdf. See also
http://www.Fluoridealert.org/brain

6)  National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in drinking water: a
scientific review of EPA’s standards. Committee on Fluoride in
Drinking Water, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology,
Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council of the
National Academies. March.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11571.html?onpi_newsdoc03222006

7)  Fluoride Action Network. 2007-2008. Professionals’ statement
calling for an end to fluoridation and Congressional hearings.
http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html

8)  Cheng KK, Chalmers I, Sheldon TA. 2007. Adding fluoride to water
supplies. British Medical Journal 335(7622): 699–702. October 6.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/335/7622/699