The study, published in the American Medical Association’s paediatric journal, claims to link higher levels of fluoride exposure in pregnant women to lower IQ scores in young children.

‘Experts have been quick to push back over the paper’s shortcomings,’ explains MSoF president Daniel Ryan. ‘In fact, it was accompanied by an extraordinary and unprecedented editor’s note. That suggests that even the journal’s editorial panel struggled with whether or not to publish.’

While some commentators say the study’s methodology is credible, others, including a panel from the UK’s Science Media Centre, found the data simply does not support the contentious conclusions.

MSoF’s science adviser Dr Ken Perrott has examined the paper and says the controversy has been caused by the study authors’ apparent statistical manipulation of the data. He agrees with SMC expert Thom Baguley, Professor of Experimental Psychology, Nottingham Trent University who said the type of analysis the researchers used is ‘frowned upon’ and that their ‘claim that maternal fluoride exposure is associated with a decrease in IQ of children is false.’ Another expert called the findings ‘weak’ and ‘borderline’. Reviewers were troubled, for example, that researchers reported a drop in IQ for boys but not for girls, questioning why gender would affect the results.

Critical commentators say at best the study is interesting but there’s no need for anyone to avoid fluoride, which has a valuable and proven role in preventing tooth decay.

‘We need to see if future research can reach the same conclusion,’ says Mr Ryan. ‘A single study that’s had so much backlash should simply not change anyone’s mind about the benefits and safety of fluoridation.’

‘The science is complex,’ he added. ‘It’s important to have reliable commentators that bring a balanced view to topics that can incite strong reaction.’

The post Fluoridation Safety Remains Intact appeared first on Making Sense of Fluoride.

Thousands of rigorous studies – including recent large-scale data from Sweden and Canada (as well as our own famous Dunedin Study) confirm that community water fluoridation improves oral health and has no detrimental effect on IQ.

Making Sense of Fluoride President Daniel Ryan is spreading that message to counter the misinformation of anti-fluoride activist Paul Connett who is currently touring the country.

“Paul’s up to his old tricks of trying to confuse the public with shonky information,” says Mr Ryan. “This time he’s armed with a study carried out in Mexico that’s been criticised for basic flaws; for example, not identifying where the participants got their drinking water and not considering other risk factors. The Mexican study simply cannot be compared to community water fluoridation in New Zealand.”

“What’s more,” says Mr Ryan, “Lead authors of that study have gone on the record supporting fluoridation. This shows Connett’s claims to be nonsense.”

“Paul Connett relies on the lack of expertise of the media and the public to promote an ideological view that denies the evidence. Compare that to the overwhelming scientific consensus that fluoridation is an effective way to improve the dental health of children and adults.”

“We encourage anyone dealing with Paul Connett to be skeptical, question his sources and not to take his claims at face value,” says Mr Ryan. “And above all, be assured that community water fluoridation is safe.”

For more information please contact:

Dr Ken Perrott
Science adviser, MSoF
[email protected]

Daniel Ryan
MSoF President, MSoF
[email protected]

Edit: Corrected link to the Canada study.

The post Activist Spouts Nonsense – The Evidence Supports Fluoridation appeared first on Making Sense of Fluoride.

An extraordinary press release from Fluoride Free NZ highlights the inconsistency of the group’s position on science – and then attempts to re-write local history.

The release this week cites the new data from the highly-respected Dunedin longitudinal study showing that exposure to lead in the ‘70s reduced children’s IQ by about 4 points.

The lobby group’s release attempts to compare the danger of lead to exposure to water fluoridation – yet the group has repeatedly rejected the same Dunedin study’s finding that water fluoridation has no effect on IQ and in fact improves lives by reducing the burden of tooth decay.

“It’s ridiculous that FFNZ is trying to have it both ways,” says Making Sense of Fluoride president Daniel Ryan. “You can’t accept the results you like from a study and then turn around and dismiss the ones you don’t, especially when the data is from the same source.”

The dangers of lead poisoning have been known since the 19th century, though lead was slow to be recognised as a hazardous fuel additive. The FFNZ release goes on to make a further remarkable claim: that the Royal Society of NZ supported opposition to lead’s removal from petrol – when in fact, the Society commissioned its own study and in 1986, recommended removing all lead from gasoline (which occurred in 1996).

“Perhaps FFNZ has made this claim because they’ve never accepted the Royal Society’s 2014 review finding that fluoridation is safe and effective,” says Mr Ryan. “Once again, they are misrepresenting data and even history to support their opposition to fluoridation. It’s time they faced reality.”

For more information please contact:

Dr Ken Perrott, Science adviser, MSoF

[email protected]

Daniel Ryan, President, MSoF

[email protected]

The post Fluoride Free NZ makes astonishing claim appeared first on Making Sense of Fluoride.

The safety of water fluoridation has been given a huge boost by the US Environmental Protection Agency which has just struck down a major challenge by lobbyists.

Making Sense of Fluoride President Daniel Ryan says it’s a ruling with ramifications here, as a parliamentary committee will soon begin hearings on a move that should extend fluoridation and its proven benefits to more New Zealand communities.

A petition to the EPA from a coalition of activist groups – including the Fluoride Action Network, which has affiliations with Fluoride Free NZ – basically sought to have fluoridation outlawed by reclassifying it as a toxin.

The EPA formally rejected the petition, saying it ‘has not set forth a scientifically defensible basis to conclude that any persons have suffered neurotoxic harm as a result of exposure to fluoride in the U.S. through the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water or otherwise from fluoride exposure in the U.S.’.

In a 40 page pre-publication response, the EPA went on to systematically explain the flaws or irrelevance of the studies cited by petitioners, and the way the petitioners misrepresented the findings of other studies.

Responding to the petition’s further claims, the EPA reasserted the benefits of fluoridation including a detailed explanation of how it works and leads to ‘having fewer cavities, less severe cavities, less need for fillings and removing teeth, and less pain and suffering due to tooth decay,’.

Mr Ryan says the EPA’s ruling is a huge victory in these days of ‘alternative facts’.

’Opponents have once again tried to use bad science and misinformation but have been told in no uncertain terms that they and their citations are wrong’, he says. ‘These are the same scare tactics lobbyists have used incessantly in New Zealand and that they will be trying to use again when the Health Select Committee hears submissions later this year about transferring decision-making on fluoridation from local bodies to district health boards.’

Mr Ryan says the EPA’s ruling is a further endorsement of the improvements in dental health that New Zealanders will enjoy when the amendment becomes law.

The EPA response may be viewed at: http://americanfluoridationsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/EPA-fluoridetsca21_frn_prepub_2017-02-17.pdf

For more information please contact:
Dr Ken Perrott
Science adviser, MSoF
[email protected]

Daniel Ryan
President, MSoF
[email protected]

The post US Ruling Deals Blow to Local Anti-Fluoride Lobby appeared first on Making Sense of Fluoride.

Our group supports the intent of this bill because:

• Community water fluoridation (CWF) is a cost-effective, safe, beneficial social health measure (of greatest benefit to our most deprived);
• Current community consultation processes have been plagued by misrepresentation and distortion of scientific and other factual information by values-based activists;
• Local body staff and elected councillors do not have the necessary scientific and health related expertise for appropriate evidence-based decision-making on CWF.

However, there is a danger that the problems of fluoridation consultation and decision-making by councils could simply be transferred to District Health Boards.

• District Health Boards remain vulnerable to the tactics of anti-fluoridation lobbyists. These groups use a variety of means (Armfield 2007¹) to maintain public anxiety about community water fluoridation. The high likelihood of continuing scare tactics and the election of single-issue DHB candidates means that a legislative protection of evidence based policy-making is recommended.
• District Health Boards should be proactive in their roles as promoters of public health. Fluoridation is a measure vulnerable to ignorance and misunderstanding. An expectation placed upon DHBs to foster public understanding and education on the benefits of this measure would make the ground for misrepresentation less fertile.

We believe the Bill could be amended to prevent this.

Making Sense of Fluoridation, Inc. (MSoF):

I make this submission as President of Making Sense of Fluoride (MSoF), an incorporated society that includes academics, scientists, health professionals and everyday citizens. MSoF’s aim is to counter the misinformation about CWF and actively advocate for this significant public health measure, given the longstanding scientific consensus on its safety and efficacy. MSoF evolved from individuals disturbed by the Hamilton City Council CWF debacle (2012–2014), and also by the disestablishment of the National Fluoridation Information Service at a time when CWF continues to be under attack by pseudo-science lobbyists.

MSoF has an executive of 8 members, and all members are volunteers.

This submission was read and approved by executive members.

We wish to make the following comments on Clause 8 insert 69ZJA

We support the general intent of this clause. Local body councils have been ill-equipped to effectively evaluate fluoridation or to handle public controversy around the issue. Councillors themselves repeatedly say they are not qualified to make these decisions.

District Health Boards (DHBs) have staff better qualified to research and make meaningful recommendations to boards. They also have better access to data on the local situations regarding dental health, the likely effectiveness of fluoridation and the likely cost-effectiveness.

However, individual DHB members may feel no better qualified to make these decisions than councillors, and may also lack specialist knowledge.

As consideration of fluoridation issues by DHBs will inevitably be public and involve a degree of community consultation, DHBs may well end up with exactly the same problems that local councils have faced over fluoridation.

One solution would be: to divide the responsibilities of consideration between the central government and DHBs. Local issues, such as local oral health and fluoridation’s cost-effectiveness (including taking into account the parameters of water service delivery) should ideally be decided locally and the DHBs are the appropriate body for this. However, the scientific issues are best considered centrally, by the MoH or national science bodies, where there is better expertise. Or, when necessary, by scientific consultation at the national level. A national scientific consultation process could be necessary when there are important new scientific findings or a need for updated review of the scientific literature. This would further ensure that a complex, important issue is canvassed in an appropriate national forum rather than subject to the limitations of local community outlets or social media.

Arguments on the scientific aspect have been the most contentious for local bodies and are likely to continue for DHBs. Transfers of the scientific considerations to a national level should radically improve the decision-making process for the DHBs. The DHB consideration of the scientific aspect could then rely on the expert recommendations from central bodies, rather than by board meetings pressured by activist groups.

We believe the requirement to take recommendations from central bodies about the science while retaining the DHB’s responsibility to consult locally on other matters could be handled by the following text change:

In 69ZJA – change the clause (2)(a) to read;

“… scientific evidence and recommendations from the Ministry of Health and/or national scientific bodies on the effectiveness of adding fluoride to drinking water in reducing the prevalence and severity of dental decay; and …”

Conclusion

DHBs are a more logical place for regional decisions of community water fluoridation than local body councils. We, therefore, support the main thrust of this bill.

However, there is still a danger to DHBs considering fluoridation that activist groups will cause costly disruption and confusion as they have for councils.

Most of the confusion arises from misinformation promoted by activists about the science behind fluoridation; its effectiveness and possible health effects. While consensus remains clear, this science is complex and DHB decisions should be based on recommendations from expert national health and scientific bodies.

With the concerning rise of ‘alternative facts’, we strongly suggest a change in wording because of the importance of expert scientific and health sources when fluoridation decisions are made by DHBs.

Daniel Ryan, President, Making Sense of Fluoride, Inc.

¹ Armfield JM. When public action undermines public health: a critical examination of antifluoridationist literature. Australia and New Zealand Health Policy. 2007;4:25. doi:10.1186/1743-8462-4-25.

The post Submission on the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill appeared first on Making Sense of Fluoride.

For Immediate Release

A new fluoride-free toothpaste has changed its advertising after being challenged to provide evidence to back its claims that it reduces plaque and tooth decay.

The toothpaste, called Grin, launched earlier this year and relies on propolis, manuka oil and sea salt as its key ingredients.

A complaint filed with the Advertising Standards Authority challenged Grin’s claims that those ingredients are effective and the company voluntarily withdrew most of its claims to settle part of the complaint.

However, the ASA agreed with the complainant that Grin’s continuing claim that manuka oil could help oral hygiene was not backed up by evidence and was, therefore, likely to ‘mislead and exploit the lack of knowledge of consumers’.

Grin had provided a single study conducted in vitro rather than in the conditions of a human mouth, which the ASA considered well short of its social responsibility to consumers.

The advocacy group Making Sense of Fluoride welcomed the ASA ruling, noting that fluoride toothpaste has a well-documented effect in reducing tooth decay and ideally should be part of everyone’s daily routine for a healthy smile.

“People can certainly choose to use a fluoride-free toothpaste,” says MSoF President Daniel Ryan, “but they should do so in the full knowledge that the only protection they’re really getting is the act of brushing itself, rather than from the product. Experts advise all ages to use a full fluoride toothpaste twice a day.”

Grin has recently launched a range of toothpaste especially for children, which Mr Ryan says is particularly concerning. “Grin has a vigorous social media campaign and well-meaning parents may unwittingly put their children’s oral health at real risk because the marketing doesn’t tell you how ineffective a fluoride-free toothpaste actually is. As well as preventing cavities, fluoride helps developing teeth grow strong – so if parents don’t even know they’re using an ineffective toothpaste, children’s teeth are extra vulnerable. That’s beyond sad when it’s so easily preventable.”

For more information please contact:
Dr Ken Perrott
Science adviser, MSoF
[email protected]

Daniel Ryan
President, MSoF
[email protected]

The post Fluoride Free Toothpaste doesn’t do the job appeared first on Making Sense of Fluoride.

20 August 2016

A decision by the NZ Press Council this week is a timely reminder to news media to be wary of lobbyists attempting to hijack the concept of balance.

An article titled Focus on Fluoride Fears, published last month by Sun Media, was the subject of a successful complaint to the Press Council for presenting a view that is contrary to that held by the vast majority of dental health professionals.

Daniel Ryan, president of Making Sense of Fluoride, welcomes the Press Council ruling and encourages the media to not present what he calls ‘false balance’.

‘I understand that journalists often feel they need to present two sides to a story’, says Ryan. ‘But that can be a dangerous trap; reporters should not give equal weight to both sides of an argument when one side is factually incorrect.’

He notes the criticism levelled recently at Radio NZ for airing anti-vaccine views when the story being reported was supposed to be about a measles outbreak. ‘Unfortunately journalists are under deadline pressure and they’re not always scientifically literate. Lobbyists are often quite skilled at presenting their message in a way that seems convincing, but actually, is not backed up by evidence. We see it time and time again – climate change is another classic example.’

Mr Ryan urges senior news managers to take these recent incidents seriously and to help their staff find reliable sources of factual information. ‘In these days of instant but often inaccurate information, it’s more important than ever that journalists thoroughly understand that balance is not the same as truth.’

Press Council ruling:
http://www.presscouncil.org.nz/rulings/sarah-bronte-against-sunlive

For more information please contact:
Dr Ken Perrott, Science adviser, MSoF [email protected]
Daniel Ryan, President, MSoF [email protected]

The post Beware of False Balance appeared first on Making Sense of Fluoride.

Recent calls for children to use full strength fluoride toothpaste have been criticised by a fringe group calling itself the Fluoride Information Network for Dentists.

Making Sense of Fluoride president Daniel Ryan says media and the public need to be aware the so-called network run by anti-fluoride dentist Stan Litras has a minimal membership and does not represent the overwhelming scientific consensus on fluoride nor the position of the vast majority of his New Zealand colleagues.

The New Zealand Dental Association has a clear position supporting water fluoridation and fluoride toothpaste, and while the Dental Council allows individuals to express their own opinions, its code of ethics requires practitioners to clearly state when their opinion is contrary to that of their colleagues.

“Litras is associated with Fluoride Free New Zealand and encourages media and the public to accept his dubious statements,” says Ryan, who urges news editors to use reliable sources on fluoride rather than publicising Litras’s claims.

Ryan reiterates that the call for full strength toothpaste for children is based on sound evidence that follows Ministry of Health guidelines, which in turn echo a recent move by the American Dental Health Association to urge parents to use full strength fluoride toothpaste as soon as their babies’ teeth come through to help prevent tooth decay.

“Tooth decay is the most prevalent disease affecting children,’ says Ryan. “And yet it’s totally preventable when kids and their parents get reliable dental health information – including advice to brush with full strength fluoride toothpaste, “ he adds.

For more information please contact:

Dr Ken Perrott
Science adviser, MSoF
[email protected]

Daniel Ryan
President, MSoF
[email protected]

The post Fluoride Information Group Questions ‘Dentist Group’ appeared first on Making Sense of Fluoride.

Pat McNair, the Fluoride Free NZ Hamilton Coordinator, said this:

We’re happy to explain: you can have it both ways. Dental decay remains the single most prevalent chronic (and irreversible) disease among New Zealanders of all ages. No one has said that water fluoridation will solve all problems of tooth decay. While fluoride is not a silver bullet, it is an important part of reducing dental caries. Water fluoridation, at the levels used in New Zealand, reduces both the prevalence and severity of tooth decay. It is a great first step for a community to take, as it is the most cost-effective measure available and it helps the whole population, including the vulnerable.

Removing fluoride would just make things worse.

The post Tooth decay is harming children in a fluoridated area?! appeared first on Making Sense of Fluoride.

This is the main coverage in the media, just don’t read the comments

Bay of Plenty Times
14th April
Editorial: DHBs best on fluoride choice
Water fluoridation in hands of health boards

16th April
Fluoridation decision takes away rights says campaigner

Dominion Post
14th April
Editorial: It’s right to switch the fluoride debate from local bodies to DHBs

Hawke’s Bay Today
13th April
Fluoridation possible: DHB

Hawkesbay
12th April
Changes to Napier’s drinking water part of “mandatory fluoridation by stealth”‘, says anti fluoride lobby
Napier’s ‘unadulterated’ water supply to be fluoridated?

Manawatu Standard
13th April
DHB’s possible fluoride decisions also to be met by vigorous lobbying

Nelson Mail
13th April
NMDHB supportive of decision to take control of water fluoridation

15th April
Fluoridation move leaves bad taste for TDC

Newshub
12th April
Govt wants DHBs to control fluoride
Fluoridation a no brainer says dentist / Govt praised for giving DHBs fluoride responsibility

14th April
PHA: Fluoridation battle not over

Newstalk ZB
12th April
DHBs given power to decide on fluoridation

13th April
DHBs may need more help to deal with fluoridation – Labour

NZ Herald
12th April
Govt proposes to give District Health Boards power to decide on water fluorination

14th April
Editorial: Government ought to show spine on fluoride

16th April
Nano Girl Michelle Dickinson: The quality of science

NZCity
12th April
Fluoride decisions to be shifted to DHBs
Stoushes over fluoride in water

Otago Daily Times
12th April
DHBs to decide on fluoridation
Concerns over cost of adding fluoride

15th April
Saving our children’s teeth

Radio Live
12th April
It’s now up to DHBs to decide on fluoride in water

13th April
DHBs to make fluoride decision “a step in the right direction”

RNZ
12th April
DHBs could make call on fluoridating water
Fluoride responsibility shifts to DHBs

13th April
More communities likely to fluoridate – DHB head

Rotorua Daily Post
13th April
Bill reopens fluoride debate

14th April
Editorial: Kids’ teeth a concern we must all share

Stuff
12th April
Water fluoridation: DHBs to take control from councils under Govt proposal

13th April
Health boards to handle water fluoridation
Why has Government proposed DHBs decide on water fluoridation? And what is fluoride anyway?
Southland and Gore districts face possible water fluoridation

14th April
Canterbury water could be fluoridated by 2018

15th April
Poll shows most oppose adding fluoride to Christchurch water

18th April
Health Minister Jonathan Coleman says DHBs ‘more motivated’ than councils to fluoridate water

Sun Live
14th April
DHBs could decide water fluoridation

Taranaki Daily News
14th April
Taranaki’s mayors delighted fluoridation of water debate is off their agendas

15th April
Ross Henderson: Government’s decision to put fluoridation decisions into DHB hands a good call

The Northern Advocate
16th April
Northland DHB upbeat on fluoride issue

The Press
14th April
Editorial: Fluoride’s benefits beyond doubt but Government’s approach weak-kneed

The Southland Times
13th April
Southlanders speak: yes or no to fluoride?

14th April
Fluoridation costs will fall on ratepayers

15th April
Fluoridation – it’s a health debate

The Wanganui Chronicle
15th April
Bill puts fluoridation in DHBs’ hands

Timaru Herald
14th April
SCDHB welcomes government proposal on fluoridation

TVNZ
12th April
DHBs to have control over fluoride in water, not local councils
‘If we can get more fluoride in the water tooth decay will decrease by 40% in children’

Whakatane Beacon
15th April
Fluoride debate not yet over

The post Surge of fluoridation news in NZ appeared first on Making Sense of Fluoride.