Fluoride Abundant in Foods, Beverages, Dental Products; Fluoridation Unnecessary

Total fluoride intake should be determined before prescribing more, reported former New York State Department of Health Dental Director, J. Kumar, He wrote: “Because of the availability of fluoride from multiple sources, practitioners should prescribe other forms of fluoride therapy based on an understanding of patients’ total exposure to fluoride and the need for it,” (NYS Dental Journal February 1998). Few dentists, if any including him, heed that advice.

The American Dental Association concurs: "It also is critical that the dentist assess a child’s total fluoride exposure from all sources (beverages, food, toothpaste, supplements, topical applications and so forth..." (Journal of the American Dental Association 2014)

Never is fluoride intake tallied when communities are pressured to continue or start fluoridation. Legislators should know much fluoride children already ingest before feeding them more via their water supply. 

The daily upper limits (UL) for fluoride are listed below, according to the National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements (Taking more than the UL can be harmful and not recommended) 

Life Stage	Upper Limit
Birth to 6 months	0.7 mg
Infants 7–12 months	0.9 mg
Children 1–3 years	1.3 mg

Fluoride sources are many:

Absent from labels, fluoride is in virtually all foods and beverages, including, soda, baby foods and all infant formulas, It’s high in tea (up to 6 mg/L, according to the US National Institutes of Health), ocean fish and soy products. And, because of fluoride-containing pesticide residues, all grapes and its products (raisins, juice, wine, jellies, jams) have a significant fluoride content. (Cryolite, the fluoride-containing pesticide used on grapes was voluntarily withdrawn from the market by the manufacturer in 2021)

EPA allows extremely high amounts of fluoride pesticide residues on foods  See "Fluoride tolerances approved by US EPA as of July 15, 2005"

Fluoride is even in chocolate, french fries, sea salt, Himalayan salt, and ready-to-drink coffee (up to 1.5 mg/L)

Foods made with mechanically separated (boned) chicken, such as canned meats, hot dogs, and infant foods, also add fluoride to the diet (J Agric Food Chem Sept 2001) "A single serving of chicken sticks alone would provide about half of a child's upper limit of safety for fluoride," the researchers report.

Fluoride ingested daily from toothpaste ranges from 1/4 to 1/3 milligram (National Institutes of Health) “Gels used by dentists are typically applied one to four times a year and can lead to ingestions of 1.3 to 31.2 mg fluoride each time.” 

"Following Silver Diamine Fluoride  application, the serum fluoride concentrations ranged from 6 to 36ng/mL(0.006 to 0.036 ppm)"

Tooth filling material - glass ionomer cement (GIC) leaches out fluoride over time. 

Fluoride is in 20% of medicines, food packaging and inhaled from air pollution 

Other sources come from feed regimens of animal products, animal products; food storage containers (Teflon-coated containers); and food packaging (migration of perfluorochemicals into food).

Paper cups lined with water-proofing chemicals give off fluoride ions, when exposed to hot liquids. And Paper straws contain fluorinated compounds. 

Some calcium supplements contain fluoride

"eggshells also contain trace amounts of minerals that promote bone health, such as strontium, fluoride, magnesium, and selenium...their powdered form is used in dietary supplements"

Fluoride in other sources, according to "A Concise Overview Of Fluoride Contamination And Its Adverse Effects On Human Health And Plant Biochemistry," (European Chemical Bulletin 2020)

Various spices, including Almond, Garlic, Ginger, Coriander, Cumin Seeds, Turmeric, and Black Salt, are known to contain fluoride. The fluoride concentrations in these spices are as follows: Coriander at 2.3%, Cumin Seeds at 1.8%, Ginger at 2.0%, and Garlic at 5.0% (Mahapatra, 2007).

Additionally, nuts and oilseeds such as almond, coconut, mustard oil, and groundnut exhibit elevated levels of fluoride. The fluoride concentrations in these items are 4.0% for Almond, 4.4% for Coconut, 5.7% for Mustard Seeds, and 5.1% for Groundnut (Mahapatra, 2007)

Human activities such as industrialization, motorization, fluoridating drinking water sources, fluoridating dental goods, refrigerants, and fire extinguishers, among others, can lead to man-made fluoride contamination," (International Journal of Innovative Research in Technology)

How much is too much? 

According to the National Academy of Sciences, “without causing unwanted side effects including moderate dental fluorosis,” (yellow splotched teeth), the adequate daily intake of fluoride, from all sources, should not exceed: (But does) 

 -- 0.01 mg/day for 0 – 6-month-olds (which is in every infant formula – concentrated or not) 

-- 0.5 mg/day for 7 through 12 months 

-- 0.7 mg/day for 1 – 3-year-olds 

-- 1.1 mg/day for 4 – 8 year olds 

This is what moderate dental fluorosis looks like, according to the US Centers for Disease Control 

The US Department of Health and Human Services (1991) estimated that total fluoride exposure in fluoridated communities ranges from 1.6 to 6.6 mg/day 

Further, parents need to know that fluoride supplements have “not been found by FDA to be safe and effective.” 

No evidence proves anyone is or ever was fluoride-deficient. Fluoride isn’t a nutrient or essential for decay-free teeth – meaning that fluoride-free diets do not cause cavities. Fluoride is a drug with side effects. In fact, 70% of US kids are fluoride overdosed and afflicted with dental fluorosis – white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth which created a lucrative market for cosmetic dentistry because fluoride is everywhere. But tooth decay is still epidemic 

The EPA regulates water fluoride levels to protect against fluoride-caused bone damage. So It's important to know that fluoride concentration in drinking water does not equate to an individual's daily dose. Fluoridation should never begin without fore knowledge of the community's fluoride intake from all sources.

Foods originating from Mexico have higher concentrations of fluoride than those found in US foods

FLUORIDE SOURCES IN THE ENVIRONMENT

According to "Fluoride contamination, consequences and removal techniques in water: a review," in the journal Environmental Science: Advances (Issue 5, 2022),

"The sources of fluoride in the environment include industrial plants, aluminum smelters producing glass brick, hydrofluoric acid, tile works and phosphate fertilizer plastic factories, textile dyeing, and industries that consume high sulfur non-coking coal for thermal power. 

Currently, high-tech companies developing semiconductors and integrated circuits produce significant fluoride-containing industrial wastewater.

Cigarettes, which contain an average of 236 ppm fluoride, play a significant role in human fluoride consumption. 

Teflon-coated cookware may potentially increase the fluoride absorption in humans. The fluoride concentrations in Teflon-coated cookware is as high as almost 3 ppm, whereas it is lower in aluminum cookware. 

Also, the fluoride concentrations are high in stainless steel and Pyrex ware, although to a lower extent. In normal and high quantities, fluoride in water may cause aluminum to leach from cooking utensils and copper from pipework."

                                                   END 

Confronting the Myths of Water Fluoridation Promoters

The following are excerpts adapted from the recently-released book, The Case Against Fluoride by Paul Connett, PhD; James Beck, PhD; and H. S. Micklem, DPhil (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2010) from an excerpt published in its entirety on the truth-out website

Proponents of fluoridation have made a number of claims that have been effective with an ill-informed public. Let’s take a look at them.

Claim 1: Fluoride is “natural.” We are just topping up what is there anyway.

There is nothing “natural” about the fluoridating chemicals. They are obtained largely from the wet scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer industry. The chemicals used in most fluoridation programs are either hexafluorosilicic acid or its sodium salt, and those silicon fluorides do not occur in nature. What is more, under international law they cannot be dumped into the sea.

Claim 2: Fluoridation is no different than adding iron, folic acid, or vitamin D to bread and other foodstuffs.

There is a world of difference:

1. Iron, folic acid, and vitamin D are known essential nutrients. Fluoride is not.
2. All of those substances have large margins of safety between their toxic levels and their beneficial levels. Fluoride does not.

3. People who do not want those supplements can seek out foods without them. It is much more difficult to avoid tap water.

Claim 3: The amount of fluoride added to the public water system, 1 ppm, is so small it couldn’t possibly hurt you.

Promoters use analogies such as 1 ppm is equivalent to one cent in $10,000 or one inch in sixteen miles to make it appear that we are dealing with insignificant quantities of fluoride. Such analogies are nonsensical without reference to the toxicity of the chemical in question. For example, 1 ppm is about a million times higher than the safe concentration to swallow of dioxin, and 100 times higher than the safe drinking water standard for arsenic; it is also up to 250 times higher than the level of fluoride in mother’s milk.

Claim 4: You would have to drink a whole bathtub of water to get a toxic dose of fluoride.

Here again, proponents are confusing a toxic dose with a lethal dose—that is, a dose causing illness or harmful effect as opposed to a dose causing death. Opponents of fluoridation are not suggesting that people are going to be killed outright from drinking fluoridated water, but we are suggesting that it may cause immediate health problems in those who are very sensitive and, with long-term exposure, persistent health problems in others.

Claim 5: Fluoridated water is only delivered to the tap. No one is forced to drink it.

Unfortunately, that is not a simple option, especially for families of low income who cannot afford bottled water or expensive fluoride filtration systems. Even those who can afford alternatives cannot easily protect themselves from the water they get outside the home. Fluoridated tap water is used in many processed foods and beverages (soda, beer, coffee, etc.). 

Claim 6: Fluoridation is needed to protect children in low-income families.

This is a powerful and emotional argument. However, it ignores the fact that poor nutrition is most prevalent in families of low income, and the people most vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects are those with a poor diet. Thus, while children from low-income families are a special target for this program, they are precisely the ones most likely to be harmed. Moreover, some of the many distressing newspaper accounts of children suffering from tooth decay in low-income areas located in cities that have been fluoridated for over thirty years. In fact numerous state oral health reports indicate the continued disparity in tooth decay between low-income and high-income families, even in states with a high percentage of the population drinking fluoridated water.

Claim 7: Fluoridation has been going on for over sixty years; if it caused any harm, we would know about it by now.

Such statements would start to be meaningful only if fluoridated countries had conducted comprehensive health studies of their fluoridated populations. Most have not. Only a few health studies have been performed in the United States, most many years ago; very few health studies have been performed in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the UK; and none has been performed in Colombia, Ireland, Israel, or Singapore (all coun tries with more than 50 percent of the population drinking fluoridated water).

Claim 11: Every major dental and medical authority supports fluoridation.

Here we return to the dubious nature of endorsements not backed up by inde pendent and current reviews of the literature. Many of the major associations on the list frequently cited by the American Dental Association endorsed fluoridation before a single trial had been completed and before the first health study had been published, in 1954.

Claim 12: When fluoridation is stopped, tooth decay rates go up.

There now have been at least four modern studies showing that when fluo ridation was halted in communities in East Germany, Finland, Cuba, and British Columbia (Canada), tooth decay rates did not go up.

Claim 13: Hundreds (or thousands) of studies demonstrate that fluoridation is effective.

On the contrary, the UK’s York Review was able to identify very few studies of even moderate quality, and the results were mixed.

Claim 14: Fluoridation reduces tooth decay by 20–60 percent.

The evidence for fluoridation’s bene fits and found is very weak. Even a 20 percent reduction in tooth decay is a figure rarely found in more recent studies. Moreover, we have to remember that percentages can give a very misleading picture. For example, if an average of two decayed tooth surfaces are found in a non-fluoridated group and one decayed surface in a fluoridated group, that would amount to an impressive 50 percent reduction. But when we consider the total of 128 surfaces on a complete set of teeth, the picture—which amounts to an absolute saving in tooth decay of a mere 0.8 percent—does not look so impressive.

Claim 15: Hundreds (or thousands) of studies demonstrate that fluoridation is safe.

When proponents are asked to produce just one study (a primary study, not a governmental review) that has convinced them that fluoridation is safe, they are seldom able to do so. Apparently, they have taken such assurances from others at face value, without reading the literature for themselves. The fact is, it is almost impossible to prove conclusively that a substance has no ill effects. A careful and properly controlled study may show that, under the conditions and limitations of the investigation, no harm is apparent. A hundred such studies may permit a considerable degree of confidence—but in the case of fluoridation, very few studies have even been attempted. As fluoride accumu lates progressively in the skeleton and probably the pineal gland, studies need to extend over a lifetime. Meanwhile, fluoride at moderate to high doses can cause serious health problems, leav ing little or no margin of safety for people drinking fluoridated water. 

Claim 16: Opponents of fluoridation do not have professional qualifications.

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. Currently, over 3,000 individuals from medicine, dentistry, science, and other relevant professions are calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide. Furthermore, many opponents without professional qualifications have educated themselves on the science relevant to fluoridation and are qualified to evaluate many aspects of it.

Claim 17: Opponents of fluoridation get their information from the Internet.

No one denies that plenty of rubbish appears on the Internet. But just because a published study can be found using the Internet does not invalidate it. In fact, scientists now do much of their reading of the scientific literature online. The Fluoride Action Network maintains a Health Effects Database on its Web site, which provides citations, excerpts, abstracts, and in some cases complete pdf files of many published studies. Proponents would do well to read some of these papers, rather than trying to dismiss them because they are available online.

Claim 18: There is no evidence that fluoride at the levels used in fluoridation schemes causes any health problems.

There are three weaknesses to this argument. First, it does not make clear that fluoridating countries have done few basic health studies of populations drinking fluoridated water. Absence of studies does not mean absence of harm. Second, just because a study is conducted at a higher water fluoride level than 1 ppm does not mean that it is not relevant to water fluoridation. Toxicologists are nearly always extrapolating from high-dose animal experi ments to estimate safe doses for humans. In the case of fluoride, we have the luxury of a large number of human studies conducted in countries with moderate to high levels of exposure to naturally occurring fluoride. What is required here is a “margin-of-safety” analysis to see if there is a sufficient safety margin between the doses that cause harm and the doses likely to be experienced in fluoridated communities. In our view, there is not. And third, it is not true that there is no evidence of ill effects from fluoride at present levels of fluoridation.

Claim 21: Skeletal fluorosis is very rare in fluoridated countries.

It is difficult for promoters of fluoridation to deny that high natural levels of fluoride have caused severe bone damage in millions of people in India, China, and several other countries. However, proponents insist that skeletal fluorosis is a rare occurrence in countries with artificial fluoridation like the United States. What they really mean by this is that the crippling phase (stage III) of this condition is rare in the United States; they fail to recognize that the earlier phases (stage I and stage II) are associated with pains in the joints and bones, symptoms identical to the early symptoms of arthritis, a condition that affects many millions of adults in the United States.The 2006 NRC review recommends that stage II skeletal fluorosis be considered an adverse effect: “The committee judges that stage II is also an adverse health effect, as it is associated with chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, slight calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones.” No fluoridating country has undertaken a study to see if there is a relationship between fluoridation and arthritis.

The complete chapter can be found here: 

http://www.truth-out.org/confronting-myths-water-fluoridation-promoters65562?print

Pres Obama's Science Czar on Fluoridation

John P Holdren is now President Obama's Science Adviser or "Science Czar"

The following is from a book Holdren co-wrote in 1977, "Eco Science" with Paul R Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich:

(page 575 "Direct Assaults on Well-Being")

Fluorides

Fluoridation of public water supplies for partial protection against tooth decay is an emotion-charged subject. The scientific evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of mass fluoridation at the generally recommended level of 1 milligram per liter of water (1 ppm) is not as good as it ought to be, but neither is there convincing evidence that it is harmful. although there are certainly some cranks in the antifluoridation school, there are also some serious and competent scientists and responsible laymen who have been unmercifully abused because of the position they have taken on this controversial issue. Perhaps the strongest argument against mass fluoridation of drinking water is that individual treatment with fluoride is simple and can be supplied cheaply on public funds for those wishing to use it.

There is no question that fluoride is toxic in high concentrations, and fluoride pollution from a variety of industrial activities is a significant problem. Fluorides are discharged into the air from steel, aluminum, phosphate, pottery, glass, and brick works. These sources together emit perhaps 150,000 tons of hydrogen fluoride annually, and the same activities emit some tens of thousands of tons of fluorides annually into waterways. Intentional addition of fluorides in fluoridation programs makes a modest but not negligible contribution of perhaps 20,000 tons per year to the human-caused fluoride inputs to the environment.

The main problems encountered in trying to evaluate health threats from fluoride pollution are familiar ones: the boundary between safe and unsafe levels is a fuzzy one; some individuals are more sensitive than others; and fluorides may act in combination with other pollutants to do damage at concentrations where the fluorides alone would not be harmful.

Fluorides have been shown to concentrate in food chains, and evidence suggesting a potential for significant ecological effects is accumulating. Harm to terrestrial plants and algae at concentrations encountered in polluted environments has been documented, and the ability of certain plants and microorganisms to synthesize particularly toxic organic fluorides has been demonstrated. The toxicity of inorganic and organic fluorides to soil organisms is essentially unexplored and is a potential danger point.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18564724/Eco-Science-One