Search Results

ADVOCATES FOR THE RIGHT TO INFORMED CONSENT Many Canadians are actively pursuing a ban on fluoridation in their municipalities and Fluoride Free Canada offers its support. Feel free to use the following information as resources. Our Director of Fluoride Free Canada , Dr. Bob Dickson, is also the President of Safe Water Calgary. He is interviewed here on his involvement in Human Rights. SAFE WATER CALGARY ​ Safe Water Calgary is dedicated to working with City officials and qualified experts to ensure that our water is the SAFEST POSSIBLE given our available resources. Various individuals and groups on occasion attempt to influence City Council to re-introduce fluoridation chemicals to our water. This website is dedicated to providing the most relevant, verifiable and least biased data available about the nature and physiological effects of fluoride ions and fluoridated water. ​ Contact: SafeWaterCalgary@gmail.com ​ CALGARY CAMPAIGN to Vote NO on Oct, 2021 plebicite ​ MEDIA BIAS IN CALGARY - We're not taking this lying down! FLUORIDE FREE WINDSOR-ESSEX ​ ​Fluoride Free Windsor is dedicated to keeping citizens of Windsor and Essex County up-to-date on their campaign to have their water supply free of the product called hydrofluorosilicic acid. Environment Canada calls this product "hazardous waste" but the Public Health Unit has convinced the Windsor Council and Windsor Utilities Commission that it is effective at preventing tooth decay and safe for all citizens to ingest every day for their lifetime. However, this is not true. This industrial waste has not been properly tested for safety and has not been shown to be effective, as you will see if you read the entries on this website. ​ Media Article: September 1st, 2021 CTV News: September 1st, 2021 Media Article: September 2nd, 2021 ​ Contact us through Facebook: Fluoride Free Windsor Ontario ​ VIDEO : Public Health Officer Admits Fluoridation Chemical is NOT Tested nor Regulated by Health Canada, 2011 QUEBEC COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE WATER MANAGEMENT ​ ​November 1996 provoked many debates until giving birth to the Coalition for a Public Debate on Water, which in 1997 became the Quebec Coalition for Responsible Water Management - Eau Secours! The mission of Eau Secours in Quebec, is to promote the protection and responsible management of water from a perspective of environmental health, equity, accessibility and collective defense of the rights of the population. ​ Contact: direction@eausecours.org ​ CTV NEWS VIDEO : Petition calling on Montreal to remove fluoride from water, August 2021 ​ "WHEN CITIZENS GET INVOLVED" December 2021 – An article published by The Nouvelliste in Three-Rivers, QC in which the journalist recalls many "David & Goliath" citizens’ battles including that against fluoridation in Trois-Rivières which lasted 6-year. Yes, six years against a powerful and obstinate mayor and all the money of the Health Ministry and Public Health. The contract to the builder was already allocated, but because Public Health could not respond properly to our challenge, the project was abandoned at the very last minute. Also, 20,000 signatures proved to them that the social acceptability was not there. Conclusion...never quit! [Article in French ] FLUORIDE FREE LETHBRIDGE ​ The mission of Fluoride Free Lethbridge (Alberta) is to inform the public and our city officials of the hazards of fluoridation and to put a stop to this egregious practice. Get involved. We’re in this together. ​ Contact us through Facebook: FluorideFreeLethbridge ​ VIDEO : Lethbridge Fluoridation Forum 2013 FLUORIDATION FREE OTTAWA ​ We are working to end the injustice of fluoridation for healthier drinking water. See the evidence about fluoride in our drinking water. You will never look at tap water the same way again. ​ Contact: info@ffo-olf.org FLUORIDE FREE REGINA ​ Regina City Council moved to implement water fluoridation in August, 2021. Fluoride Free Regina was formed in October to bring the message to the citizens of Regina, to ask their citizens to contact their councillor to have them repeal the motion, and to get signatures for a referendum. Unfortunately not enough signatures were obtained. Fluoride Free Canada has stepped in to offer their resources. ​ Contact: fluoridefreeregina@gmail.com or via Facebook FLUORIDE FREE MONTREAL ​ Hello and welcome to Fluoride Free Montreal, this group is set up around one clear goal: ending water fluoridation in Pointe-Claire and Dorval, thus ultimately ending it for the Island of Montreal. These are the last two locations on the Island of Montreal where that is happening. With those two locations being two of only four places left in the entire province of Quebec. Fluoride Free Canada has stepped in to offer their resources. ​ Contact: Ralston@live.ca or via Facebook END FLUORIDE TORONTO ​ We are ordinary citizens who believe that medication should never be added to the water supply under any circumstance. We are fighting to get fluoride out of Toronto's water supply. We are fighting for our health. We are doing this out of our own pockets, and out of our own hearts. The scary truth is that fluoride is not medication; fluoride is poison plain and simple. Fluoride is actually a chemical waste called "hydrofluosilicic acid" and it comes from smokestacks. ​ There is a reason your toothpaste says "Poison: Do Not Swallow." Please read all the studies provided in this website. Questions or comments? Please visit our Contact Us page to send Danny a direct message. You can also visit our Facebook page, Fluoride Free Toronto . VANCOUVER – CHALLENGING THE MEDIA ​ Article in the CBC News inferring Metro Vancouver is the "Rotten tooth capital of Canada". Challenge from the Director of Fluoride Free Canada, Dr. Bob Dickson, MD, CCFP, FCFP to the Producer of the story. Response from CBC's Shiral Tobin and further challenge to Jack Nagler, CBC Ombudsman. CITIES ON A WATCH LIST ​ Fluoridation Free Canada is also supporting the following cities where the local government is in the process of mandating water fluoridation: ​ Kingston, Ontario

DENTAL FLUOROSIS A Dental Disaster As both the numbers of Americans and percentage of the population drinking fluoridated water swelled, dental fluorosis also grew, disproportionately and with worse severity in Black and Latino populations. Dental fluorosis is a defect in the tooth due to cell death during the formative stages. Those with dental fluorosis have higher bone fractures as well as higher rates of learning disabilities. Dental fluorosis is the visible evidence of similar defects due to cytotoxic effects that occur in bones and brains during critical periods of development, i.e. prenatal, infancy and early childhood. ​ Dental fluorosis is also a leading indicator of higher dental costs as these unattractive and brittle teeth will require costly veneers and crowns in young adulthood. Per 2011-2012 NHANES figures released in 2017, one in five (23%) American teens have brown mottling and perhaps pitting on at least two fluorosed teeth due to childhood exposure. ​ RESOURCES 1962 Memo: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/1962_01_10_Blacks_Fluorosis.pdf “Negros in Grand Rapids had twice as much fluorosis - indices 0.15 v. 0.35” 2005 CDC MMWR: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm “Prevalence of enamel fluorosis has increased in cohorts born since 1980.” 2010 CDC Report: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.pdf “(All levels of) dental fluorosis were higher among adolescents aged 12–15 in 1999–2004 than in 1986–1987.” 2015 “Agua Potable o Veneno” (part 2 of 3): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGswvGZPL-M Ethnic Breakdown: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm#tab23 2017 Dental fluorosis is result of apoptosis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5770627/ 2018 Increase: http://jdh.adha.org/content/92/1/23 Conclusion: “There was a difference of 31.6% in dental fluorosis prevalence between 2012-2011 when compared to data from 2002-2001 in adolescents aged 16 and 17 years. The continued increase in fluorosis rates in the U.S. indicates that additional measures need to be implemented to reduce its prevalence.” May 23, 2018 When fluoridation first began, the proponents promised the American public that the only and worst risk from the program was that something less than 10% of children might have a few faint white spots on their ‘cavity resistant’ teeth which many would find adds an attractive sparkle. ​ Also of note, the researchers in the early fluoridation trials treated African American children differently from the outset, writing that it was common knowledge that Negros have stronger teeth more resistant to decay. ​ It didn’t take long for those involved to realize that something was very wrong, but their reaction per 1962 memo that noted high rates of fluorosis that was doubled in the African American children emphasized protecting the fluoridation program.

THE U.S. LAWSUIT AGAINST WATER FLUORIDATION — Food and Water Watch, et al. vs Environmental Protection Agency TRIAL TIMELINE In the Fall of 2016, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), under provisions in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prohibit the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to the public drinking water, because they posed an unacceptable risk to the brain. Hard copies of approximately 300 animal and human studies were offered in support of this petition. In 2017, the EPA rejected the petition. FAN, along with several other groups and individuals, appealed this decision in Federal Court (the 9th District, located in San Francisco). The case was heard (via Zoom) in June 2020 over a period of two weeks, with Judge Edward Chen presiding. Even though the weight of evidence on fluoride’s ability to harm the human brain was very convincing, FAN’s case was greatly bolstered in September 2017, when the first of several U.S. Government-funded mother-offspring studies was published (Bashash, 2017). This was the first major study that had examined exposure to fluoride during pregnancy (i.e. exposure at the fetal change). The results were very striking and could not have been more helpful to FAN’s case. Bashash found a strong relationship between the level of fluoride exposure to pregnant women (as measured in their urine) and a lowered IQ in their offspring. The studies were very rigorous (confounding variables were controlled for and all measurements were made at the individual level). Moreover, the mothers’ exposures were at levels commonly experienced in artificially fluoridated communities in Canada and the USA. FAN’s case was furthered bolstered by three other studies published before the trial began (Bashash, 2018; Green 2019 and Till 2020). In the June trial, FAN was able to produce expert testimony of two of the key authors of the mother-child IQ studies (Bruce Lanphear (Green 2019 and Till 2020) and Howard Hu (Bashash, 2017). They also had expert testimony from two risk assessment specialists, Kathleen Thiessen, PhD, a member of the National Research Council that researched fluoride toxicity in 2006 (NRC 2006) and Philippe Grandjean, a key author of the Harvard meta-analysis of IQ studies published in 2012, and the lead author for the Benchmark Dose (BMD) analysis (subsequently published in 2021). The big surprise was the that EPA chose not to use any of its own fluoride experts in defending their position but instead hired the company Exponent to do so. Exponent is renowned for defending a whole range of very toxic products and by-products for the chemical industry (Dow, Dupont, Monsanto etc.) which have included: dioxins, PCBs, glyphosate and PFAs. Even though the Exponent lawyers did their best to muddy the waters by arguing that FAN had failed to perform a state of the art systematic review of the literature before declaring that fluoride was a neurotoxic hazard, even they had to conceded in cross-examination, that the National Institute of Environmental Health Science (NIEHS)-funded studies mentioned above, were the most important and rigorous studies conducted to date. The Judge surprised those watching the case via zoom, when he interrupted the EPAs lawyer in her closing argument when she was trying to establish that fluoride was not a neurotoxic hazard. The judge opined that (1) fluoride was clearly a neurotoxic hazard citing, what both parties had agreed were the strongest studies conducted to date; and (2) argued that the EPA was demanding a standard of proof that even the best epidemiological studies cannot provide: namely, cause and effect. To the plaintiff’s ears, this sounded like a victory, however the judge has postponed his final verdict until he has seen two more documents: the National Toxicology Program's (NTP) systematic review of Fluoride’s Neurotoxicity (requested by FAN in 2016) and a published version of the BMD analysis (risk assessment to determine a safe reference dose for fluoride based upon the pooled data in two of the mother-child studies (Bashash , 2017 and Green, 2019). The BMD analysis was published in June, but we are still waiting for the final report from the NTP. The judge has indicated that when the studies are in his hand (and possibly other mother-child studies being conducted), that he would probably entertain some more expert testimony from both sides on these published findings. To date all attempts by the EPA to throw out the plaintiff’s case on the issue of standing have failed as well as the EPA's argument that FAN should refile their petition, because key evidence has been published since the original petition was filed in 2016. Throughout the proceedings, the judge made it clear that he is interested in what the best science has shown, rather than EPA's arcane arguments about what constitutes systematic reviews. Hence he insists on waiting for the NTP’s own review, before he makes his ruling. The National Toxicology Program (NTP) Review is expected before the end of this year and the final ruling possibly in early 2022. DECEMBER 31, 2021 SEPTEMBER 19, 2022 ​ The next status hearing for our federal TSCA lawsuit against the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to end the use of fluoridation chemicals was originally scheduled for this upcoming Tuesday, September 20th, but has again been rescheduled by the Court. While I suspect that you are as frustrated as all of us here at the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) about the two year delay since our trial was held, we have some promising news. ​ First, the next hearing before the Court is now scheduled for Thursday, October 20th, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. (US Pacific) / 4:30 (US Eastern). ​ Second, the October hearing is expected to be more than a typical status update from both parties. For the past two years, the Court has been awaiting the final publication of the National Toxicology Program’s review on fluoride's neurotoxicity . This final publication was expected at the end of 2021, then promised again earlier this year, with May being the long-awaited release date. However, May came and went without any sign of the NTP report. For this reason, the Court continued to postpone our status hearings throughout the Summer. ​ In response to this indefinite postponement, last week FAN's attorneys filed a motion asking the Court to take the case out of abeyance and to restart it with an abbreviated second trial to review the latest scientific studies and NTP review. The NTP report is the culmination of years of research and work, and has already gone through at least three peer reviews. There is no longer a reasonable justification to wait for the powers-that-be to decide when, or if, it should be released to the public. We feel there is enough evidence available from the publicly available draft NTP reports and from other materials since the trial in June 2020 to complete the case and for the Court to render a decision. We’re confident the evidence is also strongly in our favor, including from the NTP’s review. ​ In short, we’ve patiently waited for the National Institutes of Health and the NTP to finalize this review of fluoride's neurotoxicity. We’re done waiting. It’s time for justice to be served, and we’re hoping that the October hearing will bring us closer to that end. ​ Thank you for your continued support, ​ Stuart Cooper Executive Director Fluoride Action Network OCTOBER 31, 2022 BIG NEWS! The Court ruled in favor of our motion, and the lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in federal court is moving forward, bringing us another step closer to a final ruling. ​ If you missed Wednesday's exciting hearing in federal court, you will be able to watch it. The court recorded the proceedings and will release it to the public. I was waiting to include a link to the recording in this bulletin, but it hasn't been released yet. When it is, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) will immediately share it with you in an email and on social media. Stay tuned! In the meantime, here's what happened. ​ At the end of the initial trial in June of 2020, the Court put a stay/abeyance on the proceedings, wanting to wait for the National Toxicology Program (NTP) to finalize its review of the science on fluoride and human neurotoxicity. At the time, lawyers for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) told the Court that the review would be forthcoming, and based on the NTP's typical review process, the delay on our trial ought to have been short-lived. However, in unprecedented fashion, the NTP has subjected their fluoride report to at least three separate peer-reviews, with a fourth currently ongoing. This is in contrast to previous NTP Monographs on other chemicals, where there has only been one public peer-review culminating in a public vote by a panel of scientists. More than two-years after the Court was assured a final document, the NTP has yet to publish one. ​ FAN and our attorneys felt that we had waited patiently for long enough. Prior to Wednesday's hearing, our attorneys filed a motion asking the Court to take the case out of abeyance and to hold a second trial where our experts can comment on the latest scientific studies, including existing versions of the NTP review. If the Court wasn't inclined to hold a second phase of the trial, we also expressed support for a ruling based on the existing record rather than continue waiting for the NTP. ​ The EPA objected to ending the stay, preferring the Court to either wait for the final NTP review or make a ruling based on the existing court record. The EPA were not in favor of reopening the trial to more expert testimony, new evidence, or any version of the NTP report but the "final" version, if one is ever published. That timeline would have likely delayed the trial into late 2023 or beyond. ​ On Wednesday, the Court ruled in favor of our motion to lift the stay on the proceedings . Not only did this signal the Court's desire to move forward with our case, but the Court specifically reopened discovery so attorneys and the Court could examine an updated version of the NTP's review, without it needing to be published. The EPA's objections to using any version of the NTP report besides the "final" version was based on their concern that the NTP's findings would be made public prematurely. To circumvent this objection, the Court placed the NTP's review under protective order so that it will only be available to the parties involved, the Court, and expert witnesses. The public will not have access unless the Court decides otherwise, or if FAN wins a separate pending legal case on our Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA) for the report. ​ Thankfully, the Court made it clear to both parties that it expects to be provided with the NTP review before the next status hearing set for early January, regardless of what process is used to get it. The Court urged both parties to come together and find a way to get the current NTP review into the Court's hands "voluntarily," but our attorney, Michael Connett, was also told that if he needs the Court's help "using subpoenas or a motion to compel," he knows where to find the Judge. This was another victory for our side, as the Court clearly agreed with our argument that the updated NTP draft was worth looking at, and took action to obtain it. ​ In agreement with FAN's position, the Court reiterated its preference for a phase-two of the trial, with additional expert testimony. The Court also wants the NTP Director to explain in detail the remaining timeline for publishing their "final" review and the criteria for determining whether the review will be published or not. ​ Once the Court has the NTP review, the Judge will read it, as well as consider the NTP Director's responses to his questions. A determination will then be made whether to wait a little longer for the NTP to publish a "final" report, or admit the NTP draft as evidence, allowing us to immediately move the trial into the next phase. ​ We should find out at the next status hearing, scheduled for Tuesday, January 10, at 2:30PM (Pacific). For more information about lawsuit, including a trial timeline and documents, click here . For more information on the NTP's Review, click here . Thank you for your continued support, Stuart Cooper Executive Director Fluoride Action Network ​ PS: Video of the Motion on October 26th now available (below). OCTOBER 26, 2022 In this video you will see our attorney, Michael Connett, argue successfully on behalf of our motion to end the stay on the trial and reopen discovery so attorneys and the Court could examine the final draft of the NTP report that was supposed to be published in May of 2022. You will also see the attorney for the EPA, Brandon Adkins, argue to keep the trial suspended, and argue against additional expert testimony on new evidence, and against the National Toxicology Program having to turn over their final draft from May. The Department of Justice--on behalf of the EPA--has since complied with the Court and turned over a copy of the unpublished NTP report, though it is under a protective order and not available to the public at this time. NOVEMBER 30, 2022 JULY 5, 2023 In the following interview, Paul Connett, PhD , a retired professor of chemistry specializing in environmental chemistry and toxicology, gives an update on the lawsuit with the Environmental Protection Agency, and details VERY passionately his experiences and frustration in dealing with government agencies. JANUARY 13, 2024 In this video, lead attorney on the case, Michael Connett , sits down with Children’s Health Defense President, Mary Holland to pull back the curtain on fluoride and provide a blow-by-blow review of documents unearthed by the Freedom of Information Act. These documents show that a landmark federal review of fluoride’s hazards to the brain has been blocked by political leadership at the highest levels of the Department of Health & Human Services. Several shocking interviews of federal health experts deposed in the case, including representatives for the Center for Disease Control and the Environmental Protection Agency, reveal the unsettling truth about fluoride. JANUARY 30, 2024 One day before the start of the trial, lead attorney Michael Connett was interviewed on The Kim Iversen Show . He talked about those who are the most vulnerable to ingesting fluoride: pregnant mothers, formula-fed babies and those with kidney disease. He also explained fluoride's correlation to hip fractures and hypothyroidism. JANUARY 31 to FEBRUARY 14, 2024 — T H E T R I A L Follow the fascinating "blow-by-blow" documented on the Fluoride Action Network's (FANs) website . Below are interviews with a few of FANs expert witnesses at trial: Dr. Howard Hu, Dr. Bruce Lanphear and Dr. Philippe Grandjean. DR. HOWARD HU was the principal investigator in the Mexican ELEMENT study, a pregnancy and birth cohort on fluoride’s impact on neurobehavioral development. The research was funded by the EPA and the National Institutes of Health. Hu has also been involved in research on lead toxicity and anti-social behaviour. DR. BRUCE LANPHEAR is a public health physician and pediatric epidemiologist who specializes in environmental exposures including lead and other toxic chemicals. Dr. Lanphear has an M.D. from the University of Missouri at Kansas City and an M.P.H. from the Tulane School of Public Health. He is an expert on lead toxicity whose own work has been used by the EPA to develop their standards on lead. DR. PHILIPPE GRANDJEAN is a Danish scientist working in environmental medicine. He is the head of the Environmental Medicine Research Unit at the University of Southern Denmark and adjunct professor of environmental health at the Harvard School of Public Health. Grandjean has an extensive history of researching mercury. FEBRUARY 20, 2024 - THE TRIAL CLOSING STATEMENTS The TSCA Fluoride Lawsuit wrapped up on Tuesday, February 20, 2024 after a 3-hour hearing featuring interactive closing statements from both parties. NOW AWAITING JUDGE EDWARD CHEN'S DECISION. Timeline The Latest SEPTEMBER 24, 2024 - THE RULING - WE WON! History has been made . After 7 years of pursuing legal action against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the risk posed to the developing brain by the practice of water fluoridation, the United States District Court of the Northern District of California has just ruled on behalf of the Fluoride Action Network and the plaintiffs in our precedent-setting court case . A U.S. federal court has now deemed fluoridation an "unreasonable risk" to the health of children , and the EPA will be forced to regulate it as such. The decision is written very strongly in our favor, and we will share it in its entirety tomorrow. Below is an excerpt from the introduction of the ruling: ​ "The issue before this Court is whether the Plaintiffs have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the fluoridation of drinking water at levels typical in the United States poses an unreasonable risk of injury to health of the public within the meaning of Amended TSCA. For the reasons set forth below, the Court so finds. Specifically, the Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”) – the level presently considered “optimal” in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children..the Court finds there is an unreasonable risk of such injury, a risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage with a regulatory response...One thing the EPA cannot do, however, in the face of this Court’s finding, is to ignore that risk." ​ ​ PRESS RELEASE Laissez l'avocat des plaignants, MICHAEL CONNETT , vous annoncer la formidable nouvelle suivante dans l'interview vidéo avec Del Bigtree du The Highwire, où il déclare : « La Cour a ordonné à l'[EPA] d'entamer une procédure d'élaboration de règlements pour éliminer ce risque pour le cerveau lié à l'ajout de produits chimiques fluorés à l'eau potable.»

Help Us $ave Your Children's Brains from Fluoride's Neurotoxicity ​ PREFERRED DONATION METHOD: Use your online banking to: eTransfer to info@fluoridefreecanada.ca (We then get your complete donation without PayPal fees.) ​ OR USE THE BUTTON BELOW TO: ​ Donate with PayPal Donate with Debit or Credit Card We happily volunteer our time and talents for Fluoride Free Canada, but funds are required for operating costs. For example the annual costs for this website. Rest assured that we will also let you know when we start any major initiatives requiring funds.

What's New – A log of postings A simple way for you to see what's new on our site! Last published Newsletter: September 27th , 2024 Updated the New Science page with the following: February 2021–Fluoride exposure and duration and quality of sleep in a Canadian population-based sample | June 2023–Health Canada expert panel meeting on the health effects of fluoride in drinking water October, 2024 View Updated Court Case page with information on the decision from the US Federal Court, including a video of Michael Connett, the plaintiff's lawyer, on the "Fluoridation Win". September, 2024 View Added new February, 2024 study to Science page: Dose dependence of prenatal fluoride exposure associations with cognitive performance at school age in three prospective studies. September, 2024 View Added a link to a May, 2024 podcast hosted by former Ontario physician Dr. Trozzi with Director of Fluoride Free Canada, Dr. Bob Dickson. They discuss the full scope of fluoridation issues from the beginning to the current lawsuit with the Environmental Protection Agency. (Video no longer available.) June, 2024 Added to the home page video strip, a May, 2024 podcast (in French) where Gilles Parent ND, Director of Fluoride Free Canada, is interviewed by Franc Masson's "Eye Opener" podcast "Dans le franc des yeux". Dr. Parent is an expert in everything fluoride, from co-authoring "Fluoridation: Autopsy of a Scientific Error ", to being instrumental in Quebec being 99% fluoride-free. June, 2024 View Added two additional studies to the New Science page: (1) May 2024: Maternal Urinary Fluoride and Child Neurobehavior at Age 36 Months (2) July 2024: PKC-θ is an important driver of fluoride-induced immune imbalance of regulatory T cells/effector T cells. June, 2024 View Added to the home page "Presentations to Government Bodies", two presentations done by Windsor, Ontario; one in 2012 with a positive result (which was overturned in 2022; and one in May, 2024 showing current science. June, 2024 View Added to the bottom of the New Science page, a “sampling” of the scientific studies and reports relevant to water fluoridation, published since the US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) 2015 recommendation to lower the fluoridation target to 0.7 ppm; created by Brenda Staudenmaier, a Plaintiff in the US lawsuit against water fluoridation and maintained on her website fluoridelawsuit.com. February, 2024 View Added two additional Canadian studies to the New Science page: (1) January, 2024: Fluoride exposure and thyroid hormone levels in pregnancy; (2) November 2023: Systematic review of epidemiological and toxicological evidence on health effects of fluoride in drinking water February, 2024 View Added to the home page video strip, lead attorney Michael Connett's interview on the Kim Iversen Show where he talked about those who are the most vulnerable to ingesting fluoride; as well as his interview at trial and int erviews by FAN's expert witnesses at trial: Dr. Howard Hu, Dr. Bruce Lanphear and Dr. Philippe Grandjean. February, 2024 View Updated the Court Case Progress page with the latest on the trial, including a chart of the trial timeline, and video interviews of FANs expert witnesses at trial: Dr. Howard Hu, Dr. Bruce Lanphear and Dr. Philippe Grandjean. February, 2024 View Added to the History page, a February, 2024 article for Druthers newspaper, written by Dr. Bob Dickson, summarizing the history and challenges of water fluoridation and why fluoridation is NOT safe. February, 2024 View Added to the New Science page, a January, 2024 report: The Lotus Study which is the largest fluoride study ever conducted, concluding NO meaningful benefit to water fluoridation. February, 2024 View Added to the home page, the Zoom link to the live Court Case, and added a video to the end of the Court Case updates page, where Michael Connett is being interviewed a day before the trial. February, 2024 View Added to the home page, a mini documentary by Michael Connett, the lawyer for the Plaintiff in the EPA trial, entitled: Fluoride On Trial: The Censored Science on Fluoride and Your Health January, 2024 View Added to the home page, a short video by the International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology on The National Toxicology Program and Fluoride Neurotoxicity. November, 2023 View Added "Sept. 23: One-Page Fact Sheet & Status" button to the lawsuit section on the home page . September, 2023 View Added July 5, 2023 video interview with Paul Connett PhD, with an update on the EPA lawsuit and detailing VERY passionately his experiences and frustration in dealing with government agencies. See "Fluoride in Water: The TRUTH" on the video strip. September, 2023 View Added August, 2023 Rumble.com podcast with Director of Fluoride Free Canada, Dr. Bob Dickson, containing excellent advice and tips for everyone! (Video no longer available) August, 2023 Added February, 2023 scientific study by Till and Hall on an association between fluoride exposure from tap water and hypothyroidism in pregnancy February, 2023 View Added a detailed report on Hexafluorosilicic Acid (Hydrofluorosilicic Acid): Raw Materials, Manufacture, Toxicity and Public Health Concerns as an Active Ingredient in the Fluoridation of Drinking Water to the History page February, 2023 View Sent out Notice of the Fluoridation Hearing with the US Environmental Protection Agency and the follow-up report. January, 2023 View Added the video of the October Hearing in the Court Case with the Environmental Protection Agency December, 2022 View The latest status of the Court Case with the Environmental Protection Agency (Merged all updates onto one page) November, 2022 View Added to video strip on home page: 5 Minutes of Hard Core Truth - Toxins in Water October, 2022 View Updated the status of the Court Case with the Environmental Protection Agency September, 2022 View Added Resource page of Highly Recommended Resource Materials (books) June, 2022 View Added End Fluoride Toronto to the Advocacy page and linked to their Facebook May, 2022 View Added Fluoride Free Montreal to the Advocacy page and linked to their Facebook April, 2022 View When Citizens Get Involved - Article added to Eau Secours on Advocacy page February, 2022 View Added Regina to the Advocacy page and linked to their Facebook February, 2022 View Added Vancouver to the Advocacy page and linked to Media Challenges February, 2022 View Added "Who is With Us" page to show organizations against fluoridation January, 2022 View Restructured homepage and added Memes and "What's New" button January, 2022 View Added "Case Status - Dec. 31/21" link in Court section of home page linking to video January, 2022 View Added Presentations to Government videos to bottom of homepage December, 2021 View Donate page updated with request to eTRANSFER to save PayPal fees December, 2021 View 1952 video on fluoridation posted as a link at the top of When Did Fluoridation Start December, 2021 View "Our Message" video posted - Intro on home page and full video on the About page October, 2021 View New Science page updated with Christine Till bio and video October, 2021 View Videos and Media articles posted to Advocacy page September, 2021 View 1st Newsletter Posted (link to Newsletter page in footer) September, 2021 View Website Live September 1st, 2021 View

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED RESOURCE MATERIALS The Following Books Can Be Read Online or Downloaded For Free The Following Books Can Be Purchased Online

THE NEW SCIENCE SHOWS FLUORIDE IS NOT SAFE T here are strong Canadian connections with most of the following studies. Christine Till, who was the lead author of both the Green and Till studies, teaches at York University; Bruce Lanphear (co-author of the Green and Till studies), an American citizen who teaches at Simon Fraser University in Vancouve r; and Howard Hu, the lead author of the Bashash studies, who did his research at the University of Toronto for many years. ​ July 2024: PKC-θ is an important driver of fluoride-induced immune imbalance of regulatory T cells/effector T cells – This Chinese study explored the mechanism of fluoride interference in the immune system and the key indicators of fluoride-induced immune damage. It represents the first evidence suggesting that Protein Kinase C-θ (PKC-θ) may be the key to immune imbalance in the body under fluoride exposure. May 2024: Maternal Urinary Fluoride and Child Neurobehavior at Age 36 Months – This study published in JAMA Network Open found that prenatal fluoride exposure may increase the risk of neurobehavioral problems among children living in an optimally fluoridated area in the United States. A 0.68 mg/L increase in maternal urinary fluoride during pregnancy was associated with nearly double the odds of borderline clinical or clinical neurobehavioral problems. February 2024: Grandjean, Hu, Till et al . Dose dependence of prenatal fluoride exposure associations with cognitive performance at school age in three prospective studies - This study merged data from a prospective Odense Child Cohort (OCC) with results from two previous birth cohort studies from Mexico and Canada to characterize fluoride’s dose-effect relationship, and found a statistically significant association between urine-fluoride and IQ. The study concluded that pregnant women and children may need protection against fluoride toxicity. January, 2024: The LOTUS Study – With 6.4 million study subjects, this is the largest fluoride study ever conducted . Its aim was to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of water fluoridatio n for adults and adolescents. Over 10 years, people receiving optimally fluoridated water experienced only a 2% reduction in the number of decayed, missing, and filled teeth, compared to those whose water was not fluoridated. The study found NO meaningful benefit to water fluoridation , nor any compelling evidence that water fluoridation reduced social inequalities in dental health. [ WATCH VIDEO - 1:37 minutes ] January 2024: Fluoride exposure and thyroid hormone levels in pregnancy – This is the first study to investigate sex differences in the association between fluoride exposure and maternal thyroid hormone levels in pregnancy. It found that 1 mg/L increase in urinary fluoride was associated with a 35% increase in thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) among women pregnant with girls. Urinary fluoride concentration is an objective biomarker of short-term fluoride exposure. It allows for more precise estimates of fluoride intake from multiple sources. *The MIREC Study, which started in 2007, is an ongoing study to examine the effects of prenatal exposure to environmental chemicals on the health of pregnant women and their infants. November 2023: Systematic review of epidemiological and toxicological evidence on health effects of fluoride in drinking water – This Canadian study identifies both dental fluorosis and reduction in children's IQ scores as key endpoints for establishing a health-based value (HBV) for fluoride in drinking water. The authors state that neurodevelopmental cognitive effects may warrant special consideration in determining HBV. They suggest a “point of departure” of 1.56 mg/L for fluoride in drinking water for establishing a reference dose and public health safety guidelines, based only on the lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) for moderate and severe dental fluorosis. They do not address the potential impact on IQ scores. September, 2023 – A study by University of Calgary researchers found “poorer inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility” in preschool children whose mothers were pregnant during times when the water was fluoridated in Calgary, Canada. The authors said their tests measured “executive function deficits [that have been] consistently associated with behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders such as ADHD, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), intellectual disability, and specific learning disorders”. Executive dysfunction disrupts the ability to manage thoughts, emotions, and actions, including the ability to pay attention, solve problems, listen, and multitask. June 2023: Expert panel meeting on the health effects of fluoride in drinking water – Health Canada engaged six experts to consider scientific evidence on fluoride exposure, dental fluorosis, and potential effects on neurocognitive development in children. They were also tasked with providing scientific recommendations for Health Canada to consider in deriving a health-based value for fluoride in drinking water. A supporting statement in the summary report notes that several studies have raised concerns regarding the potential neurocognitive effects of fluoride at community exposure levels and that some of these studies suggest adverse effects at lower exposure levels than those that cause dental fluorosis. The experts stated that the science concerning neurocognitive effects and fluoride is rapidly evolving, and consideration should be given to new studies as they become available. Till et al., April 2023 – Professor Christine Till and PhD student Meaghan Hall found an association between fluoride exposure from tap water and hypothyroidism in pregnancy . They say this latest study may explain an earlier study looking at maternal fluoride exposure in pregnancy and lower IQ in boys. “The findings are concerning because hypothyroidism is a known cause of brain-based disorders in children,” says Till. Hall and Till say they hope that policy makers will consider this new research when evaluating the safety of community water fluoridation. June, 2021 - Well-designed prospective cohort studies funded by both the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [NIEHS] in the USA as well as Health Canada, have shown a loss of IQ and increased symptoms of ADHD in offspring when pregnant women are exposed to fluoride at doses commonly experienced in fluoridated communities in Canada (Bashash, 2017, 2018 and Green, 2019). The consequences are shocking! According to Dr. Philippe Grandjean, from Harvard University, “Fluoride is causing a greater overall loss of IQ points today than lead, arsenic or mercury” , as detailed in this risk analysis . February, 2021 – Fluoride exposure and duration and quality of sleep in a Canadian population-based sample: This study examined associations between fluoride exposure and sleep outcomes among older adolescents and adults in Canada. It found that fluoride exposure may contribute to sleeping less than the recommended duration. Fluoride from dietary and environmental sources may concentrate in calcium-containing regions of the body such as the pineal gland. The pineal gland synthesizes melatonin, a hormone that regulates the sleep-wake cycle. Till et al., 2020 have shown a large reduction in IQ when children were bottle-fed as babies in communities which were fluoridated, compared with babies who were bottle-fed in non-fluoridated communities. According to Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., former Director of the U.S. NIEHS (2009-2019) and two leading public health researchers (Bruce Lanphear, MD, MPH, and Christine Till, PhD) who authored two key fluoride-IQ studies (Green, 2019 and Till, 2020), ingestion of fluoride during pregnancy confers no dental benefit to the fetus, so this is a situation where risks are being taken for no proven benefit ( see their editorial published in Environmental Health News, Oct 7 2020 ). An important well-conducted study from Sweden has shown an increased prevalence of hip fracture in post-menopausal women associated with long term exposure to natural fluoride at levels in water in the same range as Canada fluoridates its water [ Helte et. al., 2021 ] . This is very serious because, as you probably know, hip fractures in the elderly are debilitating, costly to treat, lead to a loss of independence and often shortens the life of those impacted. This finding also underlines the fact that fluoride can impact our health over a whole lifetime of exposure. WHO IS CHRISTINE TILL? Christine Till is a tenured Associate Professor in the Clinical Developmental Area in the Department of Psychology and Faculty of Health at York University, Toronto, Ontario. She is also appointed as an Adjunct Scientist of the Neurosciences and Mental Health Research Program at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. Below she gives an in-depth look at the detail of her studies on fluoride (mentioned above), and concludes with: ​ A lot has changed since the 1940s when water fluoridation was first introduced. We now have topical fluorides like toothpaste, and we know more about how fluoride works. There will always be questions that need answers, but now we have mounting scientific evidence showing a consistent pattern of lower IQ associated with early-life exposure to fluoride. The question becomes: How much more information is needed before we raise concerns...? Failure to act could amount to enormous costs at the population level. "I have been able to view this excellent presentation of a review of the Fluoride-IQ literature from the author of some of the key studies. For any one with an open mind, a reasonable background in science or just plain common sense this should be the final word on this debate. No community should deliberately put this neurotoxic substance into the public drinking water." — Paul Connett, PhD co-author of The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green , 2010) and science advisor to Fluoride Free Canada. Brenda BRENDA STAUDENMAIER is a Plaintiff in the US lawsuit against water fluoridation and maintains on her website fluoridelawsuit.com a “sampling” of the scientific studies and reports relevant to water fluoridation published since the US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) 2015 recommendation to lower the fluoridation target to 0.7 ppm. The following lists the number of studies she lists and an example of the topics covered: ​ 2024 - 14 (Cost-Benefit, Baby Formula, Topical v. Systemic, more...) 2023 - 28 (Hypothyroidism & Pregnancy, Eczema, Oral Microbiome) 2022 - 28 (Nutrition & Politics, Lower Performance IQ, Blood Pressure) 2021 - 30 (Genes, Osteoarthritis, Toddlers) 2020 - 18 (Blood, Bones, Sperm Motility) 2019 - 24 (Kidney & Liver, Alzheimer's, Dementia) 2018 - 15 (Overdosed Babies, Pregnant Women, Dental Fluorosis) 2017 - 10 (Preschool Diet, Prenatal Poison, Immunity) 2016 - 5 (Osteoporosis, Diabetes, IBD) 2015 - 7 ( Thyroid, ADHD, Inflammation) SCIENTIFIC STUDIES & REPORTS "These items provide compelling evidence that 0.7 ppm is neither optimal nor safe and that any claims to the contrary are ill-founded. Moreover, protests that more study is required before banning fluoridation is a tacit endorsement of human experimentation without individual consent which is medical assault." —Karen F. Spencer, member of Food & Water Watch (another plaintiff in the fluoride law suit)

READ MORE... WHO FLUORIDATES AND WHO DOESN'T? In 2017, the Public Health Agency of Canada estimates that around 13.9 million Canadians (38.7%) had access to Community Water Fluoridation (through water systems). Canada is one of the most fluoridated countries in the world. In comparison, less than 5.7% of the world's population has their public water supply fluoridated. Most developed nations in the world have rejected fluoridation, including 97% of Western Europe. ​ Canadian Communities that have Rejected Fluoridation Canadian Communities that Still Fluoridate Flags UNFLUORIDATED COUNTRIES FLUORIDATED COUNTRIES The following provides VERY interesting insight as to what other Countries are doing and saying Statements from European Authorities on Water Fluoridation The late Dr. Hans Moolenburgh of the Netherlands speaks out

The FLUORIDE Report Enjoy the archives of newsletters from Fluoride Free Canada #25 Fluoride Report – The Long Awaited Decision...We Won! (video message) | Press Release | Key Takeaways from the Court Ruling September 27th, 2024 – NEW View #24 Fluoride Report – Presentation to Windsor, ON Council | Setting the Record Straight June 15th, 2024 View #23 Fluoride Report – Dr. Bob Speaks Out | Dr. Bob shares with the Washington Ministry of Health March 17th, 2024 View #22 Fluoride Report – Historical Trial in Progress (Zoom link) | FAN Press Release February 5th, 2024 View #21 Fluoride Report – Help Spread the News—History in the Making | Fluoride on Trial: The Censored Science on Fluoride and Your Health (video) January 14th, 2024 View #20 Fluoride Report – Recap & Current Status of the EPA Fluoride Lawsuit | The Truth from a PhD in Chemistry (video) September 24th, 2023 View Webinar with Christine Till: What's the Fuss About Fluoride? VIEW BUTTON NOW UPDATED WITH THE WEBINAR RECORDING May 8th, 2023 View #19 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 7 Myth 76: That fluoridation will not materially alter dietary fluori d e intake.. March 15th, 2023 View #18 Fluoride Report – Hope For Canadians: Injunction Underway In Montreal | Help for your Campaign! February 10th, 2023 View Court Rejects EPA's Attempt To Delay January 15th, 2023 View Notice of Fluoridation Hearing January 10th, 2023 View #17 Fluoride Report – Important Law Suit Update | Colgate's Big Lie | CBC Ombudsman Reply December15th, 2022 View #16 Fluoride Report – Fluoride: A Root Cause of Harm to Humans | Fluoride: Source of Chronic Acne November 15th, 2022 View #15 Fluoride Report – Raisin Roulette: Fluoride Found Harmful to Pets & Plants October 15th, 2022 View A Message From Dr. Bob – 2022 Fundraiser October 1st, 2022 View #14 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 6 Myth #6: That it is possible to control daily fluoride intake for the entire population regardless of all sources of fluoride exposure. August 15th, 2022 View #13 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 5 Myth #5: That the optimal safe intake in milligrams/per kilogram of weight/per day of fluoride required for dental health is well known. July 15th, 2022 View #12 Fluoride Report – Warning: Sneak Attack: The Greatest Threat to Non-Fluoridated Communities is Here! | What Else is Fluoride Free Canada Up To? June 15th, 2022 View #11 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 4 Myth #4: That an optimal concentration of 0.7 ppm of fluoride in drinking water will ensure the administration of an optimal and safe daily dose of fluoride for the health of each citizen, dose-adjusted according to their weight, age, gender, state of health, diet, environment and physical activities, regardless of the amount of water consumed. May 15th, 2022 View #10 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 3 Myth #3: That drinking water is an excellent vehicle for the administration of an appropriate dose of fluoride to prevent cavities, without risk to health. April 15th, 2022 View #9 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 2 Myth #2: That health authorities know exactly how much fluoride is needed each day to ensure the apatite crystals in dental enamel will be transformed into a sufficient level of fluoroapatite, to make it resistant to tooth decay. March 15th, 2022 View #8 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 1 Myth #1: That the health authorities know the optimal concentration of fluoride in the enamel of the tooth to make it resistant to decay. February 25th, 2022 View #7 Fluoride Report – Media Bias - We're not taking this lying down! | Fluoride Free Windsor-Essex January 25th, 2022 View #6 Fluoride Report – Can You Count on the Advice of the "Experts"? December 3rd, 2021 View #5 Fluoride Report – The Legality of Fluoridation | What Exactly is the Nature of the Chemicals in Fluoridation? November 20th, 2021 View #4 Fluoride Report – Losses in Calgary and Windsor Don’t Spell Defeat. Be Patient! | Pro-Fluoridation Now Targeting Vancouver, BC November 6th, 2021 View #3 Fluoride Report – Science Lost in Calgary | How Safe Water Calgary was Sabotaged October 22nd, 2021 View #2 Fluoride Report – Results of Vote | Introduction Video | Canadian's Challenged by Biased Media | Who Is Christine Till? October 9th, 2021 View #1 News Alert – Vote to Name this Newsletter | Introduction Video | How Calgary's Crisis Affects You September 24th, 2021 View Update to Trudeau Letter | Call to Share Your Talents September 17th, 2021 View

MEDIA PRESS RELEASE – SEPT. 1ST, 2021 Media coverage of our launch CTV News: Anti-fluoridation group calls on Windsor to reverse plans to reinstitute additive Blackburn News: Anti-fluoride group expected to bring back debate to Windsor-Essex Anti-fluoride group wants Windsor council to consider new studies Leading Canadian scientists concur that children’s brains can be damaged by fluoridated tap water. New group set up to end fluoridation nationwide. Sept 1, 2021, Ottawa. Today a coalition of over 125 citizens from across Canada announced the formation of a new national group. The group’s goal is to end fluoridation in every province and territory in the country. The group called “Fluoride Free Canada” has been spurred into action by two things: Alarming new science that indicates that fluoride has the potential to damage the developing brain at doses commonly experienced in artificially fluoridated Canadian communities. Attempts by municipal government to re-fluoridate Calgary, Alberta, which stopped fluoridation in 2011, and also Windsor, Ontario, which stopped in 2013. Leading U.S. and Canadian researchers Bruce Lanphear and Christine Till have joined Dr. Linda Birnbaum, former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Studies (in the USA), in calling for warnings to pregnant women to avoid fluoridated water (Environmental Health News, Oct 7, 2020 ). But this has not yet happened in Canada. According to Gilles Parent ND, who has led a 45-year effort to completely rid Quebec of fluoridation, “It is incredible that, with top-quality science showing the dangers that fluoridation may be causing to our children’s brains, anyone would be considering re-starting this practice. You can repair a decayed tooth, you can’t repair a damaged brain.” ​ Robert Dickson, a medical doctor who helped to end fluoridation in Calgary, dismissed claims that there is an association between an increase in tooth decay and cessation of fluoridation in the city. Dickson said, “Most scientists agree that the predominant benefit of fluoride is topical, i.e. it works on the surface of the teeth. There is absolutely no need to swallow it and it is wrong to force it upon people without their informed consent. We want to keep our water in Calgary safe and not contaminated with hazardous waste from the phosphate fertilizer industry. Dentists should practice their art in their offices not in our water supply.” Dr. Paul Connett, a retired professor of chemistry who is acting as science advisor to the new organization, stated, “There are now over 69 human studies from China and other countries that indicate fluoride lowers IQ in children. Western scientists only really began to take the issue seriously in 2017, when a US government-funded study was published (Bashash 2017 ). This was a very well-designed study that found a strong association between the amount of fluoride in pregnant women’s urine (a measure of their total exposure to fluoride) and lowered IQ in their offspring. This finding was replicated in 2019 by Canadian researchers (Green et al., 2019 ) in a major study published in JAMA Pediatrics. Another Canadian study (Till et al. 2020 ) found a lower IQ in children who were bottle-fed in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated communities in Canada.” Richard Hudon, who heads up the group Fluoridation-Free Ottawa, explained, “Our first campaign effort is to get people across Canada to sign a letter to Prime Minister Trudeau . We know he does not have jurisdiction over water fluoridation, but he does have a responsibility for the well-being of all Canadians, especially our children. We are urging him and all the Premiers to get health authorities to issue warnings to pregnant women and parents who bottle-feed their babies, to avoid fluoridated water.” Hudon added, “What annoys me is that Canadian health authorities, who have told us again and again that fluoridation is ‘safe and effective’ are not telling citizens about these dangers. They seem to be more concerned about protecting a policy than protecting our health. This is why we need Trudeau to intervene now—even during an election. Our children’s brains can’t wait a day longer.” Jennifer Marett, the acting secretary for the new group, said, “There are over 3,000 communities across Canada and the vast majority have never fluoridated their drinking water. Since 1990, 131 communities and 3 military bases are known to have either discontinued or rejected the proposal to introduce water fluoridation. It is estimated that 108 communities across Canada currently artificially fluoridate their municipal drinking water, including a number of large urban cities in Southern Ontario . Now with this alarming new science on fluoride’s dangers to the developing brain, I would expect more communities will wisely choose to discontinue the practice of water fluoridation.” More information on the new group can be obtained from www.FluorideFreeCanada.ca . Contact: info@fluoridefreecanada.ca ​

LETTER BY CERTIFIED MAIL TO PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU & ALL CANADIAN PREMIERS September 1st, 2021 RESENT VIA EMAIL TO PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU, CANADIAN PREMIERS & MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT — July 2nd, 2022 ALL CANADIAN SENATORS — December 3rd, 2022 The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau Prime Minister of Canada 80 Wellington Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2 Dear Prime Minister: SUBJECT: Top Canadian scientists concur that the fetal and infant brain can be damaged by fluoridated tap water We are 153 residents (and counting) from many walks of life across our broad nation. We have long believed that the use of the public water supply to deliver fluoride indiscriminately to every man, woman and child in our communities, without control of dose, without consideration of the age or nutritional and health status of the recipients, and without allowing for the individual’s informed consent on the matter, is unacceptable from an ethical point of view. We are writing to you today, because there has been a turn of events which has added great urgency to our concerns. Recent government-funded peer-reviewed science indicates that fluoride has the potential to damage the brains of our children. We are concerned that this alarming new evidence has not triggered any warnings from any health department in the country—especially warnings to pregnant women. We are aware that you do not have jurisdiction over water fluoridation. However, we believe that the issue has become so urgent for the well-being of all Canadian citizens, that your intervention is needed. The following key scientific research forms the basis for our concerns: Well-designed prospective cohort studies funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [NIEHS] in the United States have shown a loss of IQ and increased symptoms of ADHD in offspring when pregnant women are exposed to fluoride at doses commonly experienced in fluoridated communities in Canada : [Bashash et al., 2017 and 2018] and [Green et al., 2019 ] (also funded by Health Canada ). The consequences are shocking! According to Dr. Philippe Grandjean, from Harvard University, “Fluoride is causing a greater overall loss of IQ points today than lead, arsenic or mercury”, as detailed in this risk analysis . In addition, Till et al., 2020 have shown a pronounced reduction in IQ when children were bottle-fed as babies in communities which were fluoridated, compared with babies who were bottle-fed in non-fluoridated communities. According to Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., former Director of the NIEHS (2009-2019) and two leading public health researchers (Bruce Lanphear, MD, MPH, and Christine Till, PhD) who authored two key fluoride-IQ studies [Green et al., 2019] and [Till et al., 2020], ingestion of fluoride during pregnancy confers no dental benefit to the fetus, so this is a situation where risks are being taken for no proven benefit (see their editorial published in Environmental Health News, Oct 7 2020 ). In addition, an important well-conducted study from Sweden has shown an increased prevalence of hip fracture in post-menopausal women associated with long term exposure to natural fluoride at levels that are in the same range as Canadian water fluoridation rates [Helte et al., 2021 ]. This is very serious because, as you probably know, hip fractures in the elderly are debilitating, costly to treat, lead to a loss of independence and often shorten the life of those impacted. This finding also underlines the fact that fluoride can impact our health over a lifetime of exposure. More evidence of harm, along with supporting documentation for all the studies cited in this letter, can be accessed here . Note: There are strong Canadian connections with all the neurotoxicity studies we have cited: Christine Till teaches at York University; Bruce Lanphear (co-author of the Green and Till studies) teaches at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver; and Morteza Bashash did his research at the University of Toronto. We would also like to make you aware that the U.S.-based group Food and Water Watch, is among several groups and individuals that have instigated a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seeking a ban on the deliberate addition of fluoride to the public drinking water on the grounds that it poses an unreasonable risk to the developing brains of America’s children. The case was heard in June 2020 and the judge has delayed his ruling, until the review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) and Grandjean’s Benchmark Dose (BMD) analysis have been published. Grandjean, along with Bruce Lanphear and Howard Hu, acted as expert witnesses in this case. With all these latest alarming scientific studies, we urge you to exercise bold leadership and work with all the Canadian Premiers to encourage their Ministers of Health to take the following steps: Warn pregnant women to avoid ingesting fluoride and warn parents not to use fluoridated water to make up infant formula. Pause any further promotion of water fluoridation. Unless they can provide convincing counter-evidence of comparable quality to the findings discussed above, institute a total ban on this practice. (We would note that fluoridation has been virtually ended in both Quebec and British Columbia, with no validated scientific reports of any deterioration in tooth care in either province.) Focus resources on ways of fighting tooth decay without forcing the population to ingest fluoride via the water supply, without their informed consent. Most countries (including 97% of Europe) have successfully fought tooth decay without fluoridating the water supply. We recognize that there is a clear need to focus on dental care for children from low-income families, but we must do so without undermining their mental development. Some living in inner cities are already burdened with excessive lead exposure. Federal, provincial and local governments need to provide better access to preventive dental care and early education for better diet and dental hygiene for all our children. The latter approach has proven very successful and cost-effective in low-income families in non-fluoridated Scotland (see the ChildSmile program ). In summary, Mr. Prime Minister, we sincerely hope that with your bold intervention on behalf of all our citizens, Canada’s Federal and Provincial Health Ministers will acknowledge the strong scientific evidence of fluoride’s neurotoxicity (and other ill health effects) and put the health of our people above defending what appears to be a well-intended but clearly outdated practice of water fluoridation. This would not be the first time that an entrenched medical or dental practice has had to give way to advances in scientific understanding of unexpected side effects. Sincerely, Concerned Canadian Citizens Copies to Canadian Premiers

TERMINOLOGY AND BASIC SCIENTIFIC FACTS The Fluoride Report Issue #9 Regarding fluoride, if it is an essential trace element, then there should be an optimal dose that will have a beneficial effect on health, including dental health, and an excessive dose that will become toxic. This leads us to elaborate on the terminology and on some basic scientific facts that are not often addressed in the debate. The voluminous U.S. National Research Council report, Fluoride in Drinking Water, a Scientific Review of EPA's Standards , published in 2006 is the most serious analysis of fluoride intake in the United States as it calculates risk factors. ​ DOSE-RESPONSE OR DOSE-EFFECT RELATIONSHIP We talk about dose-response or dose-effect relationship or even exposure-response relationship, to refer to the effects of a dose of an active substance, be it a trace element, on an individual or on a group of people. The dose-response or dose-effect relationship depends on several factors, such as age, weight, state of health or nutrition, the presence of other toxic substances, the type of substance and the duration of exposure. The substance can be medicinal in nature, but also chemical, natural or toxic. The timing of exposure in the life cycle may also be important because some products may have no effect on an adult individual but may be more beneficial (as is believed for fluoride during tooth formation), but be deleterious to an embryo or a young baby. The dose-response relationship must be studied from all angles to understand the action of a substance in terms of health. The dose-effect relationship or exposure-response relationship or more simply written dose-response expresses the change of effects on an organism, caused by a different quantity of the active substance after a certain time of exposure. It can apply to individuals, for example, where a small amount has no effect, a larger dose can be fatal. In a population, a number of individuals may be affected while the majority will not. Pharmacokinetic and toxicology studies help to understand the mechanisms of action of the substance and the target tissues that will be affected. The concept of dose-response relationship is therefore at the heart of scientific studies on nutrients, trace elements, toxic substances and contaminants. TOXIC THRESHOLD The concept of a toxic threshold is important for a nutrient because it serves to set standards for the optimal amount for the maintenance of health and for the amount at the upper limit that will become toxic. The threshold value represents the minimum quantity below which no toxic effect occurs. Above this threshold, the observed effect will be dose-dependent. This threshold is explained by the fact that the human body is made up of a large number of types of cells, tissues and organs with varying sensitivity, some being more sensitive to certain substances than others. In addition, the body has mechanisms of defense, excretion or adaptation. These mechanisms consequently monopolize a part of its energy to achieve these. The same principle applies to a population of individuals, because the effect or many possible harmful effects can manifest themselves differently from one person to another, despite being exposed to the same dose of a nutrient or a poisonous substance. NO OBSERVABLE ADVERSE EFFECT LEVEL (NOAEL) From these concepts of toxicology, an associated terminology has been developed. Among the most important, we must speak of the No Observable Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL), also called level without toxic effect, maximum dose without effect or maximum dose without observable adverse effect. It is defined as the highest dose of a substance producing no observable harmful effects during a toxicity study. This unit of measurement is used more particularly in the field of low doses, therefore very applicable for fluoride. TOLERABLE UPPER INTAKE LEVELS (ULS) The Tolerable Upper Intake Levels (ULs) are the maximum levels that can be consumed daily on a chronic basis without adverse effects. The Tolerable Upper Intake Levels will generally be much lower than the levels that would cause adverse effects. It is also recommended that the Tolerable Upper Intake Levels be used as the reference exposure level for human health risk assessment. It is the term published by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (IOM). TOXICOLOGICAL REFERENCE VALUE (TRV) The Toxicological Reference Value (TRV) is a toxicological index making it possible, by comparison with exposure, to qualify or quantify a risk to human health. The method of establishing TRVs depends upon the data available on the mechanisms of toxicological action of the substances and commonly accepted assumptions. In the case of fluoride toxicity, moderate dental fluorosis could be taken as the minimal index of its toxicity, whereas it may well not be the most sensitive index despite being the most commonly accepted. Toxicological Reference Values are widely used in the quantitative health risk assessment process, a decision-making process aimed at providing the essential scientific elements of a proposal or recommendation. REFERENCE DOSE (RfD) Another term closely related to the Toxicological Reference Value (TRV) is the Reference Dose (RfD), which aims to adequately protect infants and children but which, generally, has not been considered for embryos. It is defined as an estimate of the daily exposure for a human population (including the most sensitive subgroups) that would probably be without appreciable risk of deleterious effects over a lifetime. ACCEPTABLE DAILY INTAKE (ADI) or TOLERABLE DAILY INTAKE (TDI) The Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) or Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) is the amount of a substance that an individual should be able to ingest each day, without risk to health. It is usually expressed in mg of substance per kg of body weight per day (mg/kg/day). It should be understood here that the maximum daily dose is proportional to the weight of the individual. The maximum dose is therefore, in fact, much lower for an infant than for an adult individual. RECOMMENDED DAILY ALLOWANCES (RDA) The Recommended Daily Allowances (RDA) are benchmark values for the quantity of micronutrients (vitamins and minerals) necessary for the health of an average adult. They are used as a reference for the labeling of food products. The terms Nutritional Reference Values (NRVs), Reference Intakes, or Daily Reference Intakes may replace the term Recommended Daily Allowances or RDA. RECOMMENDED DAILY DOSE The Recommended Daily Dose also comes back to this same concept in relation to a nutritional supplement or a drug and it will generally be adjusted according to the weight and age of the subject according to a dose scale. SAFETY FACTOR (SF) This concept grants a margin of safety, generally 10, particularly essential when the variables involved are numerous (age, weight, nutritional status, state of health, environment) and when the sources of intake of the substance studied are multiple and variable, depending on the individual, in their potential for quantitative contribution and over time. DESCRIPTION OF THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH In many cases, risk decisions on systemic toxicity have been made using the concept of the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) derived from an experimentally determined No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL). The ADI is commonly defined as the amount of a chemical to which a person can be exposed on a daily basis over an extended period of time (usually a lifetime) without suffering a deleterious effect. The ADI concept has often been used as a tool in reaching risk management decisions (e.g., establishing allowable levels of contaminants in foodstuffs and water.) A NOAEL is an experimentally determined dose at which there was no statistically or biologically significant indication of the toxic effect of concern. In an experiment with several NOAELs, the regulatory focus is normally on the highest one, leading to the common usage of the term NOAEL as the highest experimentally determined dose without a statistically or biologically significant adverse effect. The NOAEL for the critical toxic effect is sometimes referred to simply as the NOEL. This usage, however, invites ambiguity in that there may be observable effects that are not of toxicological significance (i.e., they are not "adverse"). For the sake of precision, this document uses the term NOAEL to mean the highest NOAEL in an experiment. In cases in which a NOAEL has not been demonstrated experimentally, the term Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) is used. Once the critical study demonstrating the toxic effect of concern has been identified, the selection of the NOAEL results from an objective examination of the data available on the chemical in question. The ADI is then derived by dividing the appropriate NOAEL by a Safety Factor (SF), as follows: ADI (human dose) = NOAEL (experimental dose)/SF. (Equation 1) Generally, the SF consists of multiples of 10, each factor representing a specific area of uncertainty inherent in the available data. For example, a factor of 10 may be introduced to account for the possible differences in responsiveness between humans and animals in prolonged exposure studies. A second factor of 10 may be used to account for variation in susceptibility among individuals in the human population. The resultant SF of 100 has been judged to be appropriate for many chemicals. For other chemicals, with databases that are less complete (for example, those for which only the results of sub-chronic studies are available), an additional factor of 10 (leading to a SF of 1000) might be judged to be more appropriate. For certain other chemicals, based on well-characterized responses in sensitive humans (as in the effect of fluoride on human teeth) , an SF as small as 1 might be selected. While the original selection of SFs appear to have been rather arbitrary (Lehman and Fitzhugh, 1954), subsequent analysis of data (Dourson and Stara, 1983) lends theoretical (and in some instances experimental) support for their selection. Further, some scientists, but not all within the EPA, interpret the absence of widespread effects in the exposed human populations as evidence of the adequacy of the SFs traditionally employed.