Search Results

OUR MISSION Fluoride Free Canada's mission is to educate the public and decision-makers on the urgent need to eliminate artificial water fluoridation across Canada, on both ethical and safety grounds. OUR VISION For Canada to be a country in which scientific integrity and sound medical ethics underpin every public health policy and one in which we can have confidence in public pronouncements from all health officials, especially community-based Medical Officers of Health. That has not been the case with water fluoridation. Fluoride Free Canada is registered as a Canadian not-for-profit organization. We support Canadians in their efforts to educate local elected decision makers about the health risks of municipal tap water fluoridation. Send us a message to let us know you support our efforts and wish to be added to this growing list. OUR STEERING COMMITTEE ROBERT C DICKSON, MD, CCFP, FCFP DIRECTOR Calgary, AB PATSY SCOTT, CHN TREASURER Peterborough, ON JENNIFER MARETT, BASc SECRETARY Guelph, ON GILLES PARENT, ND ADVISOR Danville, QC JAMES P WINTER, PhD ADVISOR LaSalle, ON KIM DE YONG, BA, BEd ADVISOR Windsor, ON RICHARD HUDON ADVISOR Apple Hill, ON OUR FOUNDING MEMBERS Founding Members HOW CAN YOU HELP? We need people like you to work with us. Please consider volunteering your special skills and/or interests that could help make our mission successful (such as graphic artists, cartoonists, writers, editors, proofreaders, translators, social media experts, organizers, etc.). Even though our organization is new, we will always need assistance with the following roles: Media Responsible for the website's media page. All media requests will go through the Media Director, who will refer the requests to a designated spokesperson. Write press releases in coordination with others. Maintain the media list. Province/Territory Liaisons Responsible for content on the website page for their respective province/territory. Provincial Coordinator will oversee all liaisons. Government Reports Responsible for the website's Government Reports page. Follow reports released by the Federal and Provincial governments. Newsletter Responsible for the website's Newsletter page. Write and distribute a newsletter (minimum of two each month), based on the reports of the other groups. Art & Graphics Coordinate with the Webmaster on images used. Translation Responsible for the integrity of the language used on our bi-lingual site. Translate English to French Translate French to English Send us a question or offer your assistance

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON FLUORIDE

CONTACT US Email us and we will respond directly, as time permits info@fluoridefreecanada.ca ​ Stay up to date on all fluoridation related news, advocacy, science, and actions you can take locally to help end this practice. SIGN UP FOR EMAIL ALERTS AND UPDATES Take action in your community. Signup for our email list and join the conversation! GET UPDATES Be the first to hear about our latest action alerts and events, and stay in the loop on the work our organization is doing every day with the support of people like you. ​ We will never share your email address with anyone, and you can unsubscribe any time. EMAIL FIRST NAME LAST NAME CITY PROVINCE / STATE Preferred Newsletter language: English French Yes, sign me up! * – Required field

WHO IS WITH US? In stark contrast to the Center for Disease Control’s claim that fluoridation is one of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th century, it is one of the most widely REJECTED health interventions in the world. See the countries and communities who still fluoridate and the overwhelming majority who do not! Many organizations still support fluoridation, but those opposing it grows year by year. They include: Organizations Opposing Fluoridation Organismes s’opposant à la fluoration In addition, many organizations once endorsing fluoridation have pulled back, no longer taking a position. Organizations Who No Longer Endorse Fluoridation Organismes qui n'approuvent plus la fluoration Dr. Pamela Cunningham of HappyHealthyChildren.org provides parents with holistic and science-based information to raise happy, healthy children. The following is her blog on fluoride in drinking water ...

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.

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

PRIVACY POLICY This privacy policy sets out how Fluoride Free Canada uses and protects any information that you give them when you use this website. Fluoride Free Canada is committed to ensuring that your privacy is protected. Should we ask you to provide certain information by which you can be identified when using this website, then you can be assured that it will only be used in accordance with this privacy statement. Fluoride Free Canada may change this policy occasionally by updating this page. You should check this page from time-to-time to ensure that you are happy with any changes. This policy is effective from August, 2021. ​ WHAT WE COLLECT We may collect the following information: Name Email Address Other information we may collect relevant to customer surveys ​ WHAT WE DO WITH THE INFORMATION WE GATHER By providing your name and email, you are giving Fluoride Free Canada express permission to add your information to a distribution list, so that we may send you updates on our activity, as well as any fund-raising that may be required, in order to support this Canadian effort. SECURITY We are committed to ensuring that your information is secure. In order to prevent unauthorized access or disclosure, we have put in place suitable physical, electronic and managerial procedures to safeguard and secure the information we collect online. LINKS TO OTHER WEBSITES Our website may contain links to other websites of interest. However, once you have used these links to leave our site, you should note that we do not have any control over other websites. Therefore, we cannot be responsible for the protection and privacy of any information which you provide while visiting such sites and such sites are not governed by this privacy statement. You should exercise caution and look at the privacy statement applicable to the website in question. CONTROLLING PERSONAL INFORMATION We will not sell, distribute or lease your personal information to third parties unless we have your permission or are required by law to do so. If you believe that any information we are holding on you is incorrect or incomplete, please write to or email us as soon as possible. We will promptly make any corrections.

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.

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.

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 ​

SUPPORTING DOCUMENT for letter sent to Prime Minister Trudeau and all Canadian Premiers September 1st, 2021 NEUROTOXICITY OF FLUORIDE AND DOCUMENTED HARM ON OTHER TISSUES Neurotoxicity There is an ever-growing body of peer-reviewed studies, beginning in the mid-1990s, that indicate that fluoride is neurotoxic. To date, more than 69 human studies , most from endemic fluorosis areas in China, have associated lowered IQ with fluoride exposure. Promoters of water fluoridation have dismissed the relevance of these studies (a) because of methodological limitations and (b) because many—but not all—of these findings occurred at higher fluoride concentrations than those used in water fluoridation programs. Nevertheless, there has been general agreement that the findings have been remarkably consistent [Choi et al., 2012 ]. A very significant improvement in the quality of these studies occurred in 2017, when the first of four prospective cohort studies funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [NIEHS] in the United States were published: [Bashash et al., 2017 and 2018 ]; [Green et al., 2019 ] (also funded by Health Canada ) and [Till et al., 2020 ]. Canadian researchers were involved in all of these rigorously designed studies. For the first time, the studies included pregnant women and their offspring. This was important, because fluoride is known to cross the placenta. Measurements of both exposure and outcome were made at the individual level (previously these were made less precisely at the community level, in so-called “ecological” studies). Also, the study by Till et al., 2020 showed that the infant brain is also susceptible to damage from fluoride. They showed 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. Most importantly, the fluoride exposures in all these studies were at levels commonly experienced by pregnant women and children in fluoridated communities in Canada. The weight of evidence now strongly suggests that fluoride is capable of damaging both the fetal and the infant brain even at very low levels . Based upon Philippe Grandjean et al.’s Benchmark Dose Analysis , offspring born to women exposed to fluoride doses commonly experienced in communities at 0.7 ppm, would experience a loss of 4 to 5 IQ points. To put that into perspective, at the population level , a shift downward of 5 IQ points halves the number of very bright children (IQ >130) and increases by 57% the number of children needing special care (IQ <70). Both changes have enormous social and economic ramifications for Canada. According to Grandjean, because of the large number of children being deliberately exposed to fluoridated water, fluoride is causing a greater overall loss of IQ points today than lead, arsenic or mercury. The loss of IQ points has lifelong consequences. For the individual , it has been estimated that a loss of one IQ point would reduce lifetime earnings by $18,000 [Grandjean et al., 2012 ]. For the whole Canadian population, we are talking about losses of billions of dollars in lifetime earnings. The Fluoride Action Network in the United States has prepared a review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity from the Mother-Offspring studies , accessible here . RECENT STUDIES PUBLISHED ON OTHER ORGANS, TISSUES AND BODY SYSTEMS Bone A major prospective cohort study from Sweden demonstrates a higher risk of hip fractures 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 a very serious finding because it is well known that hip fractures in the elderly are debilitating, costly to treat, lead to a loss of independence, institutional care and often shorten the life of those impacted. This finding also underlines the fact that fluoride can impact our health from womb to tomb, effecting the brains of the fetus and the bones of the elderly after lifetime exposure. Kidney and liver function, hyperuricemia and reproductive endocrinology Recent epidemiological studies conducted in the United States, using individual biomarker measures of fluoride exposure, have found an association between low to moderate fluoride intake and impaired kidney and liver function [Malin et al., 2019 ], increased risk of hyperuricemia [Wei et al., 2021 ], as well as adverse effects on reproductive endocrinology in American adolescents [Bai et al., 2020 ]. ​ ​