Recently there was an editorial piece by the Boston Globe Editorial Board on How we learned to stop worrying and love fluoridated water. This compared anti-fluoridationists to people from the anti-vaccine movement and ended with
At a minuscule cost, fluoridation has improved the lives of millions of Americans, and should remain a key part of the public-health toolkit.
Dr Paul Connett who is the director of the Fluoride Action Network wrote a long reply back in the comments. It is rare to see Paul comment, so what annoyed him with this simple editorial piece? It might have been too close to home. Many of his points have been debunked many times over but he continues to spread his misinformation.
Paul Connett’s reply
Sadly the Globe’s editorial board is simply parroting the propaganda dished out by the dental lobby (i.e. the ADA and CDC Oral Health Division) at face value. According to WHO data the so-called “gains” from the American fluoridation program have been no greater than those obtained in the vast majority of countries that are unfluoridated, including 97% of Europe.
The Globe’s claim that “It would require chugging gallon after gallon of fluoridated water to reach even a potentially dangerous level” is utter nonsense. A Harvard meta-analysis (Choi et al, 2012) shows that the mean value of 20 studies associating a lowering of IQ with consumption of fluoride in water is less than the EPA’s current safe drinking water standard of 4 ppm. This leaves no margin of safety to protect all American children drinking fluoridated water and getting fluoride from other sources.
The very last children who need their IQ lowered are those from low-income families and yet they are the children being targeted by fluoridation promoters.
With so many risks involved and with no randomized control trial (RCT) after 70 years demonstrating fluoridation’s effectiveness it is time to end this outdated and unethical practice.
Fluoridation is a red herring. The real cause of tooth decay is too much sugar, not enough fruit and vegetables and too little education on dental hygiene. When these real causes are tackled head on as in the Childsmile program in unfluoridated Scotland the results are both dramatic and cost-effective. Reducing sugar consumption also has the added benefit of tackling obesity and its costly and tragic health consequences.
I first questioned fluoridation while I was teaching environmental chemistry and toxicology at St. Lawrence University 19 years ago. The first fact that struck me was that, despite its abundance, nature had not used fluoride in any biological process in the body. It is not an essential nutrient. No disease occurs from fluoride deficiency. On the other hand there are plenty of biological molecules and processes that are harmed by fluoride. So why are we being forced to swallow it?
Perhaps the most telling fact of all is the level in mothers’ milk. It is remarkably small compared to the level used in fluoridation programs: 0.004 versus 1 ppm. In my view, nature is protecting the baby from fluoride, and water fluoridation removes that protection. This is a reckless thing to do.
Professor (retired) Paul Connett, PhD,
Director of the Fluoride Action Network,
Co-author of The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green, 2010).
If you think Paul had made some good points, think again. Steve Slott DDS wrote a long and detailed reply back to Paul targeting each of his points.
Reminded me of this – Brandolini’s Law
Steve Slott’s reply
Paul, you are claiming authoritative, factual information from the American Dental Association, and the United States Centers for Disease Control, two of the most highly respected healthcare entities in the world… to be “propaganda”, when, in reality, the problem is your lack of understanding of fluoridation, not with the information provided by these entities.
First, for the sake of disclosure, it must be noted that the existence of your “Fluoride Action Network”, its reportedly $150,000 annual budget, the salaries/stipends paid to you, your family, your paid lobbyist, William Hirzy, and whatever may be paid to others within your organization …whatever expenses “FAN” pays for your repeated visits to Australia, New Zealand, Europe, Canada, and all over the United States and sales of your non peer-reviewed book are all dependent on your ability to keep the fluoridation issue alive, and create “controversy” where none exists.
With that gross conflict of interest aside, let’s look at your comments.
1. “According to WHO data the so-called “gains” from the American fluoridation program have been no greater than those obtained in the vast majority of countries that are unfluoridated, including 97% of Europe.”
The cause and preventive measures involved in dental decay are myriad and diverse. The attempt by you and your followers to gauge the effectiveness of but one preventive measure, fluoridation, based on snapshots of WHO data which control for no confounding factors, is ludicrous.
2. “The Globe’s claim that ‘It would require chugging gallon after gallon of fluoridated water to reach even a potentially dangerous level’ is utter nonsense”
No, not as much as you like to portend.
Let me explain:
Simply put, water is fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter (ppm=mg/liter). Thus, for every liter of fluoridated water consumed, the “dose” of fluoride intake is 0.7 mg. The average daily water consumption by an adult is 2-3 liters per day. So, let’s go to an extreme and double that to an excessive 6 liters of fluoridated water consumption per day. This translates to 4.2 mg “dose” of fluoride intake per day from the water. The CDC estimates that of the total daily intake, or “dose”, of fluoride from all sources including dental products, 75% is from the water. Thus as 4.2 mg is 75% if the total daily intake from all sources, the total daily intake, or “dose” from all sources would be 5.6 mg for an individual who consumed an excessive 6 liters of fluoridated water per day.
The Institute of Medicine has established that the daily upper limit for fluoride intake from all sources, for adults, before adverse effects will occur, short or long-term, is 10 mg. Thus, even the excessive 6 liter per day consumer of water will still only take in a daily “dose” of fluoride that is slightly more than half the upper limit before adverse effects.
The range of safety between the miniscule few parts per million fluoride that are added to existing fluoride levels in your water, is so wide that “dose” is not an issue. Before the UL of 10 mg could be reached, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.
3. “A Harvard meta-analysis (Choi et al, 2012) shows that the mean value of 20 studies associating a lowering of IQ with consumption of fluoride in water is less than the EPA’s current safe drinking water standard of 4 ppm. This leaves no margin of safety to protect all American children drinking fluoridated water and getting fluoride from other sources”.
A. The Harvard study was actually a review of 27 Chinese studies found in obscure Chinese scientific journals, of the effects of high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in the well water of various Chinese, Mongolian, and Iranian villages. The concentration of fluoride in these studies was as high as 11.5 ppm. By the admission of the Harvard researchers, these studies had key information missing, used questionable methodologies, and had inadequate controls for confounding factors. These studies were so seriously flawed that the lead researchers, Anna Choi, and Philippe Grandjean, were led to issue the following statement in September of 2012:
“–These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S. On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard.”
–Anna Choi, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health at HSPH, lead author, and Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at HSPH, senior author
As it seems there have been no translations of these studies into English by any reliable, objective source, it is unclear as to whether they had even been peer-reviewed, a basic for credibility of any scientific study.
B. Seventy years of fluoridation, hundreds of millions having chronically ingested fluoridated water during that time, and no proven adverse effects. Clearly the “margin of safety” has been entirely sufficient.
4. “The very last children who need their IQ lowered are those from low-income families and yet they are the children being targeted by fluoridation promoters.”
There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that optimally fluoridated water “lowered IQ” of anyone.
5. “With so many risks involved and with no randomized control trial (RCT) after 70 years demonstrating fluoridation’s effectiveness it is time to end this outdated and unethical practice”.
A. There is no “risk” of adverse effects from optimal level fluoride.The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water was charged to evaluate the adequacy of the EPA primary and secondary MCLs for fluoride, 4.0 ppm and 2.0 ppm respectively, to protect against adverse effects. The final recommendation of this Committee was for the primary MCL to be lowered from 4.0 ppm. The sole reasons cited by the Committee for this recommendation were the risk of severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, and skeletal fluorosis, with chronic ingestion of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or greater. Nothing else. Had this Committee deemed there to be any other concerns with fluoride at this level, it would have been responsible for stating so and recommending accordingly. It did not.
Additionally, the NRC Committee made no recommendation to lower the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. one third the level which the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made no recommendation to lower.
B. Given that the only substances ingested as a result of fluoridation are fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water, and trace contaminants in amounts far below EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety, the question is… on what exactly do you wish there to be a “randomized control trial”? Fluoride ions which most people fave ingesting their entire lives, fluoridated water or not… or barely detectable trace contaminants in amounts which have already been deemed safe by the United States Environmental Protection Agency?
C. There is nothing “unethical” about local officials authorizing the raising of existing fluoride ions in public water systems under their jurisdiction, by a minuscule amount to a level which has been observed to provide maximum benefit, with no adverse effect. If anything, it is unethical for you to constantly insist that citizens of communities do not obtain the maximum benefit from a substance which they will ingest anyway.
6. “Fluoridation is a red herring. The real cause of tooth decay is too much sugar, not enough fruit and vegetables and too little education on dental hygiene”
The causes of dental decay are myriad. You haven’t the education, training, experience, or knowledge to credibly assess what is “the real cause of tooth decay”. Addressing the causes of dental decay, as has been done for at least the past century, certainly does not preclude the need for viable preventive measures of this disorder, as is the public health initiative of water fluoridation. Fluoridation strengthens teeth against the assault of acid secreting bacteria fed by sugar. In an ideal world, diets would be perfect, oral hygiene habits would be perfect, and access to proper dental care would be readily available to everyone. Given that we don’t live in an ideal world, we cannot simply stick our heads in the sand and ignore the lifetimes of devastating effects of untreated dental decay simply because you, or anyone else, erroneously assumes that the causes of dental decay are not being “tackled head on”.
7. “I first questioned fluoridation while I was teaching environmental chemistry and toxicology at St. Lawrence University 19 years ago. The first fact that struck me was that, despite its abundance, nature had not used fluoride in any biological process in the body. It is not an essential nutrient. No disease occurs from fluoride deficiency. On the other hand there are plenty of biological molecules and processes that are harmed by fluoride. So why are we being forced to swallow it?”
A. The purpose of water fluoridation has never been intended to be to correct any sort of fluoride deficiency. It is simply to provide additional strength to the teeth enabling them them to better resist the devastating effects of untreated dental decay.
B. Exactly how are you being “forced to swallow” fluoridated water? Does someone tie you down, pry your mouth open, and pour it down your throat? If so, you should report this to the appropriate authorities. No one is “forced” to do anything in regard to fluoridation. People are entirely free to consume it or not, their choice.
If fluoridation opponents truly believed all of the ridiculous claims they make about fluoridated water, assuming they are otherwise sane, they would not go within a mile of it, much less drink it. That you freely consume and otherwise utilize fluoridated water belies the claims of “concern” with safety which you constantly disseminate.
8. “Perhaps the most telling fact of all is the level in mothers’ milk. It is remarkably small compared to the level used in fluoridation programs: 0.004 versus 1 ppm. In my view, nature is protecting the baby from fluoride, and water fluoridation removes that protection. This is a reckless thing to do.”
Your personal opinion on what you deem,”nature to be doing”, notwithstanding, the content of “mother’s milk” is nothing but your own “red herring”.
“Mother’s milk” is deficient in Iron, Vitamin D, and Vitamin K to the point of breastfed infants requiring supplements. By your logic, “nature” intends for infants to be anemic, free bleeders, who develop Ricketts.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
He goes on to say in a further comment:
Paul Connett and his followers attempt to impose upon entire populations, their ideology against fluoridation by portraying it as a complex process involving the addition to drinking water of “foreign substances”, “medication”, etc. which have never had “clinical trials”, and other such nonsense, while intentionally using inflammatory terms such as “toxic waste” to erroneously describe the fluoridation compounds.
In actuality, however, fluoridation is simply the determining of the existing fluoride content of a water supply, adding whatever minuscule amount of fluoride ions it takes to raise that level up to the optimal level of 0.7 ppm at which maximum dental decay prevention will occur with no adverse effects, then strictly monitoring and maintaining that fluoride at that optimal level. In those water supplies which already have an existing fluoride content at or above the optimal level, fluoridation is not needed and is not done. In instances where the existing level of fluoride is found to be excessively high, not only is fluoridation not done, but the recommendation, or sometimes mandate, is made to lower that existing level, through filtration.
Thank you Steve for this long reply and your continued work of reducing the misinformation on the internet. For those who don’t know who Steve is, you will find him debunking misinformation around fluoridation in many of the comment sections on media websites. If you see one of his comments, go say thanks.
TLDR:
- Dr Paul Connett scaremongers.
- Science shows fluoridation is safe and effective.
- Dr Steve Slott is a fluoridation myth buster.
Edit:
We contacted Dr Paul Connett for a possible online debate against Dr Steve Slott. He refused saying “Please do not contact me again”.
Connett is pathetic in the way he lists his “achievements” (PhD, book authorship and director of an activist organisation) to endorse his arguments. Especially as in his book he accuses scientific supporters of fluoridation of relying only on endorsements!
Steve Slott has provided elegant arguments and facts debunking Connett’s claims. Connett rarely allows his opinions to be challenged on line in this way – he usually avoids comment sections on articles. I think this post shows why he avoids situation like this where he came be so completely exposed as a fraud.
The problem with Connett is that he sees the world from a view within a beaker or flask in his former chemistry lab. He’s never had to inject local anesthetic into a young child and see the alligator tears well up in the child’s eyes. He’s never had to extract a tooth from a young child who didn’t choose who his or her parents are or what socio-economic class that he or she was born into. Lastly, Connett doesn’t have a clue what public health is.
Like previous anti-fluoronistas like Bergstaller and Yianmounanis who are are 6-feet under, Connett is going to died an angry old man trying to convince the World that he’s “right” despite the overwhelming scientific consensus to the contrary.