top of page

Search Results

25 items found for ""

  • Donate | Fluoride Free Canada

    Help Us $ave Your Children's Brains from Fluoride's Neurotoxicity ​ PREFERRED DONATION METHOD: Use your online banking to: eTransfer to (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.

  • FAQ | Fluoride Free Canada

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON FLUORIDE Why is fluoride added to water? Fluoride is added to water to prevent cavities (tooth decay), a disease that is not waterborne. However, fluoride should be applied topically to teeth, such as fluoridated toothpaste, rather than forced through tap water on adults, children, and infants What makes fluoride different from other water treatment chemicals? All water treatment chemicals except fluoride are added to make drinking water safe and pleasant to drink. Fluoride is the only chemical added to "treat people" consuming the water, rather than the water itself. Water fluoridation can be described as a form of mass medication, which is why most European countries have rejected this practice. Do we need fluoride? No. It is now well established that fluoride is not an essential nutrient. This means that no human disease – including tooth decay – will result from fluoride “deficiency”. Fluoridation of tap water is therefore different from adding iodine to salt. Unlike fluoride, iodine is an essential nutrient. Iodine is involved in metabolism, moving cellular secretions from inside cells to the outside. Iodine is also involved in the frontline immune response, energy production, fetal and early childhood cognitive development, and hormone production, as well as in the detoxification of heavy metals, halogens, radiation and much more. No such need exists for fluoride. In fact, fluoride will displace iodine on cell receptors, creating an iodine deficiency. Is fluoride naturally present in water? Typically, the only fresh water with high levels of fluoride (other than water polluted by fluoride-emitting industries) is water from deep wells. Rather than being something to celebrate, high levels of naturally occurring fluorides have wreaked havoc on the health of tens of millions of people around the world. People consuming water containing naturally high levels of fluoride have been found to suffer from serious health problems, including disfiguring tooth damage, bone disease, ulcers, reduced IQ, thyroid disease and infertility. For this reason, international organizations like UNICEF are helping developing countries find ways to remove fluoride from their water. Fortunately, most freshwater sources contain very low levels of fluoride. The average level of fluoride in unpolluted fresh water is less than 0.1 ppm, which is about 7 times lower than the levels added to water in Canadian fluoridation programs (0.7 mg/L). The frequent assertion, therefore, that “nature thought of fluoridation first” does not stand up to scrutiny. Where does the fluoride added to the water come from? The main chemicals used to fluoridate drinking water are called “silicofluorides” (ie hydrofluorosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate). Silicofluorides are not pharmaceutical grade fluorinated products; they are unprocessed industrial by-products of the phosphate fertilizer industry. Since these silicofluorides do not undergo any purification procedures, they can contain high levels of arsenic, more than any other water treatment chemical. Additionally, recent research suggests that adding silicofluorides to water is a risk factor for elevated lead exposure, especially among residents who live in homes with old plumbing. Does fluoridated water reduce tooth decay? If water fluoridation has any benefit, it is minimal. Recent large-scale studies in the United States have found little real or statistical difference in rates of tooth decay in children living in fluoridated areas compared to non-fluoridated areas. Additionally, data compiled by the World Health Organization (WHO) shows that tooth decay rates have declined just as rapidly in non-fluoridated Western countries as in fluoridated Western countries. Should fluoride be swallowed to prevent tooth decay? No. Although water fluoridation was initially endorsed on the premise that ingesting fluoride is the most effective way to strengthen teeth, most dental researchers now agree that the primary benefit of fluoride comes from topical contact directly with the teeth, not from ingestion. You don't have to swallow fluoride to prevent tooth decay, whether it's in the form of water or tablets. It is difficult to overstate the importance of this point in the fluoride debate, especially when one considers that the risks of fluoride come primarily from ingestion. Are there any risks in swallowing fluoride? Fluoride has long been known to be a very toxic substance. This is why, like arsenic, fluoride has been used in pesticides and rodenticides (to kill rats, insects, etc.). It's also why the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) now requires that all fluoride toothpaste sold in the United States carry a poison warning that instructs users to contact the poison control center if they swallow more than should be used for brushing. Excessive fluoride exposure is well known to cause painful bone disease (skeletal fluorosis), as well as tooth discoloration known as dental fluorosis. Excessive fluoride exposure has also been linked to a range of other chronic diseases, including arthritis, brittle bones, glucose intolerance, gastrointestinal disorders, thyroid disease and possibly heart disease and certain types of cancer. Although the lowest doses that cause some of these effects are not yet well defined, it is clear that certain subgroups of the population are particularly vulnerable to fluoride toxicity. Populations that have an increased sensitivity to fluoride include infants, people with kidney disease, people with nutritional deficiencies (particularly of calcium and iodine), and people with medical conditions that cause excessive thirst. How do I avoid fluoride in my tap water? If you live in a community that fluoridates its water supply, there are several options to avoid drinking the fluoride that is added. Unfortunately, each of these options will cost money (unless you have access to a free source of spring water). Options include: Spring water: Most spring water contains very low levels of fluoride (usually less than 0.1 ppm). Water Filtration: Water filters that remove fluoride include: reverse osmosis, deionizers that use an ion exchange resin, and activated alumina. Cheaper water filters (eg Brita) use an "activated carbon" filter which does NOT remove fluoride. Water Distillation: Water distillation is an effective way to remove fluoride from water. Water distillation units are available in different sizes, including a smaller countertop version. My child has dental fluorosis. What can I do to fix it? The tooth discoloration that fluorosis causes can be reduced and sometimes eliminated by relatively expensive cosmetic treatments. Treatment options for fluorosis, however, will depend on the severity of the fluorosis. If our water does not contain fluoride, should we give our child fluoride supplements? Supplements were developed on the mistaken assumption that fluoride is a nutrient and is effective when swallowed. Modern research has found that fluoride supplements greatly increase the risk of dental fluorosis and do little if anything to reduce tooth decay. Most Western countries have consequently begun to eliminate the use of fluoride supplements and even the American Dental Association (ADA) recommends them only for children who are at particularly high risk of tooth decay.

  • Trudeau Letter | Fluoride Free Canada

    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

  • About | Fluoride Free Canada

    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

  • Newsletter9-terminology | Fluoride Free Canada

    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.

  • Locations | Fluoride Free Canada

    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

  • Trudeau Letter-Supporting Document | Fluoride Free Canada

    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 ]. ​ ​

  • Press Release 090121 | Fluoride Free Canada

    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 . Contact: ​

  • Vancouver | Fluoride Free Canada

    VANCOUVER – CHALLENGING THE MEDIA On October 24, 2021 , the CBC posted an article , authored by Bethany Lindsay, calling Vancouver "The rotten tooth capital of Canada". ​ ​ CHALLENGE TO BETHANY LINDSAY FROM THE CHAIR OF FLUORIDE FREE CANADA, DR. BOB DICKSON, MD, CCFP, FCFP October 31, 2021 I am writing you as the chair of Fluoride-Free Canada, whose mission is to eliminate water fluoridation in Canada based on safety and ethical grounds. ​ Please consider this a formal request to have a follow-up article to your October 24 CBC story, “As Calgary votes for fluoride, some in B.C. have hope for 'rotten tooth capital of Canada.” Frankly, we were appalled, for several reasons: Your headline, sensationalizing a 1976 quote from one fluoridation advocate, is not only woefully outdated, it’s simply false. Province-wide data shows B.C., which has the lowest fluoridation rate in Canada (excluding Yukon), actually has a slightly lower cavity rate in young children than Ontario, which has the highest fluoridation rate. Your story was completely one-sided, quoting three fluoridation promoters and none that were opposed. Your story violated several of CBC’s own principles promoting factual information, lack of bias and diversity of opinion. Your story also completely ignored extensive scientific studies, many led by prominent Canadian scientists, linking fluoridated water with lower IQs in children, along with several other serious health risks. Could you please answer me directly by this Tuesday, November 2nd, on whether you will produce another story on this issue showing the other side? ​ _____________________ ​ RESPONSE FROM CBC'S SHIRAL TOBIN AND FURTHER CHALLENGE TO JACK NAGLER, CBC OMBUDSMAN ​ Date: December 16, 2021 To: Jack Nagler, CBC Ombudsperson cc: Shiral Tobin, Brodie Fenlon Good day, Mr. Nagler. My name is Robert Dickson, MD, and I’m the Chair of Fluoride-Free Canada , the nationwide organization leading the opposition to artificial water fluoridation. This is my third communication with CBC staff regarding the CBC’s October 24 story, “As Calgary votes for fluoride, some in B.C. have hope for ‘rotten tooth capital of Canada.’” On Nov. 1st, I had e-mailed Bethany Lindsay, Producer of the story, citing the inaccuracy and bias of the story, and asking for a follow-up that would clear up the misconceptions it created. I received no response from her. On Nov. 8th, I e-mailed your office, citing these inaccuracies, biases, and contradictions with CBC’s own principles and standards. On Dec. 3rd, I received a response from Shiral Tobin, who disagreed that the article violated your standards. She said if I wasn’t satisfied with her response, I should contact you. I am not satisfied with her response. I don’t believe it’s necessary to repeat what I’ve already said in my initial complaint. I’ll just concentrate on responding to Ms. Tobin’s comments, beyond noting that neither Ms. Lindsay nor Ms. Tobin responded to my request for a follow-up story giving other major health perspectives on this issue. MS TOBIN: “The headline is eye-catching but it cites back to a CBC interview from a former medical health officer, which is appropriate to use in the context of this story.” RESPONSE : The headline is what people often remember the most. In many cases, it may be all they read. The fact that it was made by a former medical health officer isn’t the point – it’s a false statement, as shown by the government statistics we provided, and that’s what completely contradicts your stated journalistic standard of providing “professional judgment based on facts and expertise”. We would hope that any CBC reporter would take a few minutes to check the accuracy of a quote from 1976 before putting it into the headline. Ms. Lindsay did not, and Ms. Tobin is defending this headline. The quote is factually incorrect and it was the most prominent statement in the entire article. Inaccuracy is never “appropriate . This is not responsible journalism. MS TOBIN: “This is a story about people calling for a change to the status quo, which is why those voices are the focus of the article.” RESPONSE : Fluoride Free Canada has no quibble with a particular focus. Our complaint is that there is no balance to put the issue itself in focus. In CBC’s own words: “We contribute to informed debate on issues that matter to Canadians by reflecting a diversity of opinion. Our content on all platforms presents a wide range of subject matter and views. On issues of controversy, we ensure that divergent views are reflected respectfully, taking into account their relevance to the debate and how widely held these views are.” I don’t know how much more obvious it could be that there was no diversity of opinion whatsoever in this article. How can this not be a violation of your own standards? MS TOBIN : “The article offers up additional information and links to back up the claims made by the experts and doctors quoted . . .” RESPONSE : Well, yes, the article did offer this information, but as stated above, it’s only one from one side. MS TOBIN : “I am not aware of the studies (on fluoridation lowering IQ) you mention in your letter linking fluoride to intelligence and you do not provide any links. But the one I know of shows correlation, not causation, and even that is not a very strong effect.” RESPONSE : I think this goes to the crux of CBC’s problem. No, you’re not aware. Ms. Tobin is correct in that I didn’t provide documentation, so let’s address that right now. In July 2019, the University of Calgary’s O’Brien Institute of Public Health, after an extensive review, published its report on fluoridation saying “In summary, there is some new emerging evidence that fluoride exposure during pregnancy may be harmful to the brain development of children, with important studies having been published subsequent to the review of this evidence by the National Research Council in the U.S. in 2006.” By way of reference, the U.S. NRC report (p.222) concluded “It is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means.” In preparing your response to me, I ask two things: Keep an open mind. I realize you’re busy, but please take half an hour to read and view the following by world-renowned scientific experts, many of whom are Canadians. (Please note that one of these experts, Dr. Bruce Lanphear, is a professor and scientist at Simon Fraser U. in Vancouver. I would hope that any future articles you do regarding fluoridation, especially in B. C., include reaching out to him for comment.) By doing so, I believe you’ll be surprised to learn that there is NO question that fluoride is toxic to the developing brain and extensive evidence that water fluoridation, at Canadian levels, affects pregnant women, unborn children and infants by lowering IQ and increasing ADHD rates. Environmental Health News article : “It is Time to Protect Developing Kids’ Brains from Fluoride” (2 minute read) Dr. Bruce Lanphear : “The Impact of Fluoride on Brain Development” (5 minute video) Dr. Christine Till : Calgary Rotary Club presentation September 28, 2021 (22 minute video) I also refer you to two one-pagers on fluoridation’s lack of effectiveness and neurotoxicity – again at levels in Canada’s fluoridated water. They each take about one minute to read. Fluoride Efficacy Fluoride Neurotoxicity Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Robert Dickson, MD, CCFP, FCFP Chair, Fluoride Free Canada ​ _____________________ To reply.

  • Unfluoridated | Fluoride Free Canada

    Canadian Communities that have Rejected Artificial Water Fluoridation Since 1990 Canadian Communities that have Rejected Artificial Water Fluoridation Since 1990 Since 1990, it is estimated there are over 130 communities across Canada, including 3 Canadian Forces Bases, that have rejected artificial water fluoridation. Many of the communities are in Ontario (32), Quebec (28), Saskatchewan (20), British Columbia (17), Alberta (13) and Manitoba (11). Some of the larger urban cities that have rejected fluoridation include: Calgary, Windsor, Waterloo and Quebec City. Montréal has never artificially fluoridated and propositions to fluoridate were rejected in 1988, 1992 and 2009. Vancouver has also never fluoridated. Canadian Communities by Province and their Date of Rejection Municipalités canadiennes par province et leur date de rejet

  • Court Case Fact Sheet | Fluoride Free Canada

    FACT SHEET – TSCA WATER FLUORIDATION LAWSUIT WHAT: TSCA stands for the Toxic Substances Control Act, which authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prohibit a chemical that presents an unreasonable risk to the general public or susceptible subpopulations. A group of non-profits and individuals petitioned the EPA in 2016 to end the addition of fluoridation chemicals into drinking water based on health risks. The EPA rejected the petition. In response, the groups sued the EPA in 2017: Food and Water Watch et al vs Environmental Protection Agency. A seven-day trial was held in June 2020 but the Court has yet to make a ruling. See the full timeline and details pertaining to the lawsuit. WHY: The plaintiffs are basing their case on fluoride’s neurotoxicity (brain damage), focusing on the link found in dozens of studies between higher-ingested fluoride levels and lower IQs in children. Evidence also links higher-ingested fluoride levels to higher attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) rates. There is a scientific consensus that ingested fluoride is neurotoxic. The plaintiffs argue it can be neurotoxic to children at levels recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service to fluoridate water at 0.7 parts per million (ppm). The EPA denies that claim. WHO: The plaintiffs are three non-profit organizations, Food and Water Watch, Fluoride Action Network and Moms Against Fluoridation, plus three individuals. The defendant is the EPA. The U.S. Department of Justice is leading its case. Edward Chen is the U.S. district judge hearing the case. The lead attorneys are Michael Connett for the plaintiffs and Brandon Adkins for the defendants. WHERE: The case is being held in federal court in the Northern District of California in San Francisco. Its hearings, previous trial and future trial have been/will be available to the public live on Zoom. WHEN: Since the June 2020 trial, Judge Chen has waited for a systematic review on fluoride’s neurotoxicity to be completed by the National Toxicology Program (NTP). The final report was scheduled to be released on May 18, 2022, when it was blocked days before publication by the Department of Health and Human Services. Following a January 12, 2023 hearing, the judge rejected EPA’s request for further delays. The review was posted on NTP’s website March 15, 2023. On May 11, 2023, NTP’s Board of Scientific Counselors held a public meeting on NTP’s responses to outside reviews of its report. The next steps in its release have yet to be announced by NTP director Rick Woychik. The judge has set January 29, 2024 as the start date for a second phase of the trial , which may last for up to two weeks. Shortly after the trial, he’s expected to rule on whether fluoridation is an unreasonable risk to human health.

bottom of page