Fact Check: 'Disappearing fluoridation schemes take toll on children’s dental health'

Item presented for fact-checking & analysis

Article: Disappearing fluoridation schemes take toll on children’s dental health

By: Janelle Miles

Publication date: November 13, 2016

Organisation: The Sunday Mail (Qld)

Country: Australia

Main contention

This article contends that poor dental health in Queensland children is a direct consequence of lack of public water fluoridation schemes across the state, and that by implication those who oppose or prevent artificial water fluoridation programs from being implemented are harming the dental health of the community.

Fact check & analysis

The first thing to do here is to broaden the scope beyond the narrow bandwidth of the water fluoridation status of Queensland. Once we do this, we quickly realise that the pro-fluoridation contention that lack of artificial fluoridation programs results in increased tooth decay, is false. Indeed, the best way to realise the absurdity of the contention is by taking an international perspective.

We could start with Australian researcher, Dr. Mark Diesendorf. In 1986, Diesendorf found that:

"Large temporal reductions in tooth decay, which cannot be attributed to fluoridation, have been observed in both unfluoridated and fluoridated areas of at least eight developed countries over the past thirty years" [1].

He published his findings in the journal Nature, yet after all these years the lie continues to be perpetuated in Australia that artificial water fluoridation programs are essential for dental health. We can also look at more modern international statistics and observe that a country's lack of artificial water fluoridation does not disadvantage it in any way:

"Fluoride advocates often claim that the reduction in tooth decay that has occurred since the 1950s is the result of the widespread introduction of fluoridated water. In 1999, for example, the Centers for Disease Control stated that "as a result [of water fluoridation], dental caries declined precipitously during the second half of the 20th century." What the CDC failed to mention is that tooth decay rates have "precipitously declined" in all western countries, irrespective of whether the country ever fluoridated its water. Indeed, most western countries do not fluoridate their water and yet their tooth decay rates have declined at the same rate as the U.S. and other fluoridated countries. This fact, which is widely acknowledged in the dental literature, can be quickly demonstrated by examining the World Health Organization’s (WHO) data on tooth decay trends in each country" [2].

In 2009, Warren et al. produced a study that found no worthwhile association between fluoride intake and caries reduction:

"These findings suggest that achieving a caries-free status may have relatively little to do with fluoride intake" [3].

The findings of Warren et al., of course, come as no surprise, considering it has been long acknowledged that the initial idea, which helped launch fluoridation many years ago – i.e. that systemic fluoride intake is required – is false [4]. The world doesn't end when water fluoridation programs are stopped. Instead, life simply goes on [5].

Summary

In summary, the evidence for the benefits of water fluoridation is – at best – very weak [5-6]. This can most easily be seen by comparing advanced modern countries, over time, and realising the simple truth – that they are, on the whole, doing just fine without injecting silicofluoride compounds into their public drinking water systems.

[1] The Mystery of Declining Tooth Decay

[2] Tooth Decay in F vs NF Countries

[3] The Iowa Fluoride Study

[4] Fluoride & Tooth Decay: The Facts

[5] Fluoridation Cessation Studies
[5] The evidence of benefit is very weak

[6] What about the so-called benefits?

Do any legitimate professionals oppose water fluoridation?

Whilst the fact that a certain number of professionals oppose or support measure X, Y or Z does not automatically constitute a valid argument one way or another, it is always worth noting when professional or expert voices have something detailed to say on a matter. Their arguments should at the very least be taken seriously and aired appropriately.

Since its inception, water fluoridation has been opposed by numerous well-qualified individuals and this continues into the present day. However, the media frequently neglects to mention the arguments put forth by such individuals and instead focuses on the rantings of unqualified fringe conspiracy nuts. The unfortunate consequence is that anyone who raises valid scientific or ethical objections to water fluoridation is automatically dismissed.

The idea that opponents of fluoridation do not have professional qualifications is blatantly incorrect:

"Some opponents of fluoridation do not have professional qualifications (of course); many do. Many highly qualified doctors, dentists, and scientists have opposed fluoridation in the past and do so today" [1]. 

"Some of the earliest opponents of fluoridation were biochemists. One of those early opponents was one of the world's leading authorities on enzyme chemistry, Nobel laureate Dr. James Sumner at Cornell University. He said: "We ought to go slowly. Everybody knows fluorine and fluorides are very poisonous substances... We use them in enzyme chemistry to poison enzymes, those vital agents in the body. That is the reason things are poisoned; because the enzymes are poisoned and that is why animals and plants die." Dr. James Sumner was one of at least 12 Nobel Prize winners in Chemistry and Medicine, who have either opposed fluoridation or expressed reservations about it. These include Giulio Natta (1963 Nobel Prize in Chemistry), Nikolai Semenov (Chemistry, 1956), Sir Cyril Norman Hinshelwood (Chemistry, 1956), Hugo Theorell (Medicine, 1955), Walter Rudolf Hess (Medicine, 1949), Sir Robert Robinson (Chemistry, 1947), James B. Sumner (Chemistry, 1946), Artturi Virtanen (Chemistry, 1945), Adolf Butenandt (Chemistry, 1939), Corneille Jean-François Heymans (Medicine, 1938), William P. Murphy (Medicine, 1934), and Hans von Euler-Chelpin (Chemistry, 1929). This listing makes absurd the ADA's claim that there is "no scientific debate" over this issue and that the only people who oppose it are 'crackpots'" [2].

Consider the example of Dr. Sumner's cautionary warnings (cited above) in light of the following 2010 extract from the journal, Chemico-Biological Interactions:

"Halfway through the twentieth century, fluoride piqued the interest of toxicologists due to its deleterious effects at high concentrations in human populations suffering from fluorosis and in in vivo experimental models. Until the 1990s, the toxicity of fluoride was largely ignored due to its "good reputation" for preventing caries via topical application and in dental toothpastes. However, in the last decade, interest in its undesirable effects has resurfaced due to the awareness that this element interacts with cellular systems even at low doses. In recent years, several investigations demonstrated that fluoride can induce oxidative stress and modulate intracellular redox homeostasis, lipid peroxidation and protein carbonyl content, as well as alter gene expression and cause apoptosis. Genes modulated by fluoride include those related to the stress response, metabolic enzymes, the cell cycle, cell-cell communications and signal transduction" [3].

It is therefore obvious that Dr. Sumner knew something that modern fluoridation promoters would prefer not to have mentioned in their well-funded public relations campaigns promoting the extension of water fluoridation programs.

So the next time someone tries to automatically dismiss your arguments on the basis that you have no professional support, let them know that many legitimate professionals – past and present [4] – actually agree with you. This alone should make them re-think their position. Furtheremore, don't forget to mention that these professionals have been willing to outline their arguments in sworn affidavits [5-6] and in many other ways for the public record.

[1] A Response to Pro-Fluoridation Claims, p. 252

[2] Fluoride: A Statement of Concern

[3] Molecular mechanisms of fluoride toxicity

[4] Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation
[5] Affidavits of Burgstahler et al, FIA Archive
[6] The Affidavit of Dr. Paul Connett, AFAM