The following FOIA-obtained emails seems to show how the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) works closely with the American Dental Association (ADA) and the PEW Foundation to protect fluoridation rather than the American public whose health they are entrusted to protect. The documents also reveal the disdain and lack of respect for people (me) who ask valid questions concerning fluoridation. I added the red parts to further identify the major
players.
From: Duchon, Kip (CDC/ONDIEH/NCCDPHP) [CDC National Fluoridation Engineer, Oral Health Division]
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 11 :53
AM
To: 'McGinley,
Jane' [RDH, MBA, Manager,
Fluoridation and Preventive Health Activities, American Dental Association]
Cc:
Bailey, William (CDC/ONDIEH/NCCDPHP) Dentist, Acting Director, CDC Oral Health Division
Subject: FW: Chinese Fluoride
I
regret to inform you that
Carol Kopf seems to have gotten my email and she sent this directly to me, the first such instance, but no
doubt, not the last. I am forwarding a copy of my response to you for you of
all people probably need to know she is digging deeper into this issue. I think she was very displeased to hear about the Belgium
This was a combined investigative
effort of Dave Hellmann and me to identify them
and find out about their product They really have not been marketing in the US,
but the AWWA committee is working to get the word out for they produce
their product using the old Solvay method and looks like a very nice product.
I'm not too sure, but wouldn't it be great if it was
actually a byproduct of chocolate manufacturing, but it is unlikely.
Kip Duchon, P.E.
National Water
Fluoridation Engineer
----------------------------
From: Duchon, Kip (CDC/ONDIEH/NCCDPHP)
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2.010 11:06 AM
To: 'Carol
S. Kopf
Subject: RE: Chinese Fluoride
Dear Carol
Normally requests for information should come in through
our public information box so that the
correct person can answer the question you
might have. That can be found at http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/contact.htm
I am
probably the correct person for this particular question, so I will be glad to answer your question.
Since the EPA terminated their additives program in 1988, they simply do not have the
resources to track the over 50 additives used in water treatment facilities. NSF
International is a standards organization and does not track this type of information
but they do monitor the activities of the certifying entities and report to the
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators and EPA. Both NSF (a
different entity from NSF International) and UL, which combined represent over 85%
of the water fluoridation additive certification activities, do not publically report on tonnage or marketing.
CDC does not have an additives monitoring program but we compile some limited information on the topic, and
I will attempt to give you
my best opinion on these answers, but please understand this is my opinion and
not the opinion of
CDC since we don't actually have a formal additives program.
My understanding is that the Chinese sodium fluoride that is NSF Standard 60 certified is derived from a full neutralization of fluorosflicic acid using caustic soda, but I have not actually been to the production facilities to
confirm that information.
Sodium fluoride products with Standard 60 certification are
derived from either full neutralization of fluorosilicic acid, or neutralization
of hydrogen fluoride.
A majority of the sodium fluoride being used in
the US is derived from
fluorosilicic acid and an AWWA survey of water plant operators using
sodium fluoride in saturators
that is currently being
compiled has preliminary results showing that a majority of operators are
satisfied with the fluorosilicic acid derived product, but there seems to be a preference for the hydrogen fluoride
derived product. These products are not by-products but are specifically made
for uses including water fluoridation.
At this time, product is available from China Japan Belgium
and a US domestically produced product is certified from a facility in Illinois
The AWWA survey is part of our effort
to periodically review our standards and if there is change or difference in the products and if an update is
needed. That survey is in progress and results are not yet
complete.
Sodium fluorosilicate with Standard 60 certification is derived
from partial neutralization of fluorosilicic acid. It is not a byproduct but is specifically manufactured for use including water fluoridation.
At this time the overwhelming source is domestically US produced, but NSF
certified product is also available from China Belgium
NSF Standard 60 certified Fluorosilicic is overwhelmingly
produced in the US
a great science fiction tale. Less than 5% of the product is
from gas partitioning of silica-tetrafluoride from hydrogen fluoride and less
than 1% is from hydrogen fluoride etching of silica products. The product is
available from US, Mexican,
and Canadian sources.
Kip Duchon, P.E.
National Water Fluoridation Engineer
----------------------------------
From: Carol S. Kopf
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 9:32AM
To: Duchon,
Kip (CDC/ONDIEH/NCCDPHP)
Subject: Chinese Fluoride
Kip
Both the EPA and NSF International haven’t been able to answer
this question for me. Hope you will.
It is about the Chinese fluoride. Is it derived from phosphate
fertilizer? If not, what is it derived from.
Also the CDC's website says that most of the fluoridation
chemicals are collected from fertilizer companies; but not all. What are the
other sources of fluoridation chemicals?
Are they made specifically for fluoridation or are they a
by-product of some other manufacturing process?
A Louisiana State Legislator said on the floor of the State
Senate yesterday that some fluoridation chemicals are purchased from Belgium
Please name all the countries that import fluoridation chemicals
into the US
Thank you for your assistance
·
Carol Kopf
From: Bill Maas (Consultant) mailto:BMaas-consultant@pewtrusts.org]
[former
Director, CDC Oral Health Division and now consultant to the Pew Foundation to promote fluoridation]
Sent: Thursday, May O5,
2011 01:04PM
To: Judy Sherman (ShermanJ@ADA.ORG) ShermanJ@ADA.ORG [Judy Sherman is, a now retired, ADA
Cc: Bailey, William (CDC/ONDIEH/NCCDPHP); Lewis Lampiris (lampirisl@ada.org) [In 2006, Lampris began working with the American Dental
Association as director of the Council on Access, Prevention and
Interprofessional Relations; he held this appointment until 2012.]
Subject: Implications of CDC demotion, as seen through eyes of CWF opponent
I don't want to overreact
to the rantlngs of a long time
anti-fluoridationist, but l.came across something that may get traction in contributing to perceptions about what HHS and CDC really believe about fluoridation now {since to save face, it is unlikely to retract its 1999 proclamations about fluoridation as a great public health achievement}.
Councilman Vallone, of NY City, has proposed discontinuation of CWF in NYC. Dr. Neal Herman, a former city dental director, wrote Vallone a letter, which Vallone's office has shared with many long-standing opponents of fluoridation, including Carol Kopf, who wrote the attached letter. [Apparently the NYC Dental Director shared my letter with Bill Maas. Why? You can read my whole letter here http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html ]
As usual, it includes a difficult-to-separate mix of correctly quoted statements from credible scientific reports along with misleading assertions about health risks or lack of health benefits from fluoridation.
As usual, it includes a difficult-to-separate mix of correctly quoted statements from credible scientific reports along with misleading assertions about health risks or lack of health benefits from fluoridation.
But, what caught my eye as new was the following:
"You mention that the Centers for Disease
Control recognizes fluoridation as one of the ten greatest and effective public health
innovations ever. Then why has tooth decay
rates gone up since that statement was made and why was the CDC’s
oral health Division demoted to a branch no longer working for children. It seems that
statement just doesn't hold water. It's just words strung together that has no
scientific basis."
About the only good thing l can say about the reorganization is that the Division of Population Health is to include what used to be the Division of Adolescent and School Health, but I
don't know how visible that will be to counter the charge that this is a Division not "working for children".
This certainly is relevant to the
recommendations of the IoM committee to HHS that perceptions matter. CDC’s
reorganization sends a message about one of the gret public health achievements
of the 20th century that may be difficult to counter.
Bill Maas
----------------------
From: Bailey, William (CDC/ONDIEH/NCCDPHP)
Sent: Thursday,
May 05, 2011 1:34 PM
To: 'BMaas~consultant@
pewtrusts.org';
'shermanj@ ada.org'
Cc: 'lampirisl@ ada.org'
Re: Implications of CDC demotion, as seen
through eyes of CWF opponent
So true.
---------------
From: Bill Maas (Consultant) [mailto:BMaas-consultant@pewtrusts.org]
Sent: Thursday,
May 05,
2011 01:09 PM
To: 'Sherman, Judy C.'
Cc: Bailey, William (CDC/ONDIEH/NCCDPHP); Lampiris, Lewis N.
Subject: RE: Implications of CDC demotion, as seen through
eyes of CWF opponent
Yes, it reveals how carefully fluoridation's opponents watch organizational actions like that of CDC, and how readily they will use that to undermine public health.
----------------------------------
From: Sherman, Judy C. [mailto:shermanj@ada.orgl [ADA Lobbyest]
Sent: Thursday, May O5, 2011 1:07 PM
To: Bill Maas (Consultant)
·Cc: 'wdb9@cdc.gov'; [William Bailey]; Lampiris, Lewis N.
Subject: Re: Implications of CDC demotion, as seen
through eyes
of CWF
opponent
Thank you for this. May I share with people on the Hill?
---------------------------------------
These emails were part of 2600 pages of
documents obtained by Dan Stockin, MPH, and revealed at the 5th
Annual Fluoride Action Network conference on September 6-8 in Washington DC.
FOIA Documents here
Stockin PowerPoint
Posts
