Search Results

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON FLUORIDE General1 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. https://static.wixstatic.com/media/undefined 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.

QUEBEC 99.75% FLUORIDE FREE In October 2024, Fluoride Free Canada sent a letter to each councillor in Pointe-Claire, Dorval, Baie d'Urfe, Dollard-des-Ormeaux and Montreal. Since then, all Québec municipalities except for Saint-Georges in Beauce have stopped fluoridating their water. A decision was made on November 21, 2024 to discontinue the fluoridation process at the Pointe-Claire and Dorval drinking water production plants, following an analysis carried out by experts from the Service de l’eau, who determined that: Only 1% of the drinking water produced at the plants is consumed by humans. Fluoride is a highly corrosive product that can damage infrastructure in the long term. Wastewater treatment does not remove fluoride from the water. The water is discharged into the St. Lawrence River and there are few studies about its impact on aquatic plants and animals. There are other means than fluoridation to promote good dental health. Click here to read about dentists and doctors who did their own homework and changed their minds 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. ONTARIO WORKING GROUP The Ontario Working Group (OWG) was formed to coordinate strategies aimed at ending water fluoridation in municipalities across Ontario. This effort is led by Gilles Parent, whose leadership was pivotal in making Quebec 99.75% fluoridation-free. The Ontario Working Group (OWG) is currently contacting all groups that they can locate online to confirm that they are still active. For access to OWG meetings, please contact: info@fluoridefreecanada.com 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. December 20, 2024 - Quebec is now 99.75% fluoride free. Read the letter sent to Montreal-area councillors explaining their objections. 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. Advocacy in other countries Australia Fluoride Free Australia New Zealand Fluoride Free NZ – Fluoride Action Network NZ Inc. England Fluoride Free Alliance UK UK Medical Freedom Alliance Ireland Fluoride-Free Water – Anti-Fluoridation Campaign for Drinking Water in Ireland United States Fluoride Action Network Fluoride Action Network

Saint-Georges présentation publique.pdf Legal Aspects of Fluoridation

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 date...no reply.

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

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.

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

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 PHILIPPA VON ZIEGENWEIDT TREASURER Windsor, 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

When municipalities fluoridate their tap water, it denies Canadians the right to choose whether to drink it, shower in it or cook with it. Fluoride Free Canada supports efforts across Canada to end this outdated practice. We help municipalities and individuals by providing them with the best science that indicates that this practice is harmful to health, especially the dangers it poses to the brains of our children and the bones of the elderly. CONTACT US Email us at info@fluoridefreecanada.ca Stay up to date on 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. Sign up 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 To play, press and hold the enter key. To stop, release the enter key. The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) website has excellent information on Canadian activity: CANADIAN GOVERNMENT REPORTS CANADIAN STUDIES CANADIAN NEWS ARTICLES

KEY SCIENTISTS ASSOCIATED WITH CANADIAN RESEARCH MORTEZA BASHASH Dr. Bashash specializes in environmental and occupational health, cancer epidemiology, and molecular epidemiology. He obtained his BSc and MS in Public Health/Occupational Health from Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Dr. Bashash pursued his PhD from the Interdisciplinary Oncology Program at the University of British Columbia in collaboration with BC Cancer, with a focus on the Molecular Epidemiology of Cancer survival. After completing his PhD, he underwent post-doctoral training at the University of Toronto's Dalla Lana School of Public Health and the BC Cancer Research Centre . He has held academic positions at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, and is currently an adjunct faculty at Toronto Metropolitan University and The University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine . LINDA BIRNBAUM Dr. Birnbaum, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., A.T.S, was director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) of the National Institutes of Health, and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) from 2009 to 2019 . As NIEHS and NTP director, Birnbaum oversaw a budget of more than $740 million that funds biomedical research to discover how the environment influences human health and disease. A board certified toxicologist, Birnbaum served as a federal scientist for 40 years. Prior to her appointment as NIEHS and NTP director in 2009, she spent 19 years at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), where she directed the largest division focusing on environmental health research. RIVKA GREEN Dr. Green Ph.D. is a clinical neuropsychologist who has worked at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto since 2017. She earned her Ph.D. in Clinical / Developmental Neuropsychology at York University, working in the Christine Till Lab. HOWARD HU Dr. Hu is an American physician-scientist, internist, and specialist in preventive medicine and environmental health. He is currently the Flora L. Thornton Chair and Professor of Population and Public Health Sciences at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California. He previously taught at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, University of Michigan School of Public Health, and University of Toronto , where he served as founding dean of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health . BRUCE LANPHEAR Dr. Lanphear MD MPH is a Professor of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University . He is currently principal investigator for a study examining fetal and early childhood exposures to prevalent environmental neurotoxins including lead, pesticides, mercury, alcohol, PCB's and environmental tobacco smoke. A component of the study is the investigation of the contribution of residential hazards and residential injuries to children's health. This project recently received funding to follow the original birth cohort, until the children are five years of age. This will allow follow-up for determining the efficacy of lead hazard controls on children's blood lead levels and their risk for learning and behavioral problems. Dr. Lanphear has extensive experience conducting community-based trials, including lead poisoning prevention, epidemiology of asthma, prevention of exposure to tobacco smoke and measurement of lead and allergens in housing. ASHLEY MALIN Dr. Malin is the founder and director of the Fluoride, Aluminum, Brain, and Behavior (FABB) Lab and is trained as a clinical psychologist. Her interest in fluoride began after reading animal research suggesting that early-life exposure to fluoridation chemicals may contribute to symptoms of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). She has published widely on the health impacts of fluoride exposure, including effects on sleep, thyroid function, kidney and liver health, women’s reproductive health, and health disparities. In 2021, she received an NIH/NIEHS K99/R00 Pathway to Independence Award to study early-life fluoride exposure and its links to neurodevelopment and sleep patterns in children and adolescents in the United States and Canada. She also conducts complementary research on aluminum exposure in pregnant women in the U.S. and has a broader interest in the role of nutrition in child health outcomes. CHRISTINE TILL Dr. Till is a Canadian neuroscientist and professor at Toronto's York University . She is well-known for her research in the fields of cognitive neuroscience and psychology, particularly her work on the brain and its relationship to memory, attention, and learning processes. One of her notable areas of research is studying how various factors—such as development, aging, and neurological disorders—can affect cognitive functions. She has also focused on understanding how the brain adapts to different environments and the ways in which cognitive functions might be improved or preserved over time. Below, Christine Till gives an in-depth look at the detail of her studies on fluoride 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.

QUEBEC 99.75% FLUORIDE FREE In October, 2024 the following article was sent to each councillor in Pointe-Claire, Dorval, Baie d’Urfe, Dollard-des-Ormeaux and Montreal. RECENT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH RAISES MULTIPLE RED FLAGS ON THE SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF FLUORIDATION For more than 75 years, drinking water fluoridation has been presented to us by health authorities, including Health Canada and the provincial health ministries, as one of the ten great public health achievements, and that it is absolutely safe and effective. Yet in 2000, the NHS Center for Reviews and Dissemination literature review titled A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation (McDonagh et al.) showed just 39 studies on the effectiveness, and 176 on the safety of fluoridation – far fewer than the often-quoted “thousand studies” supporting water fluoridation. Additionally, according to the authors, the majority of these studies were of low quality. Science had not had the last word on this either: a mounting number of recent scientific studies and reviews have raised red flags that seriously call into question both the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation. Municipal councils that relied in good faith on health authorities to fluoridate their drinking water now face a modern-day dilemma. Recent science has demonstrated that fluoride and artificial water fluoridation are neurotoxic, especially to babies and young children. Evidence of damage to other organs and systems in the human body continues to accumulate, while the evidence for the ineffectiveness of the antiquated practice of water fluoridation is now overwhelming. In view of its negative impact on children intelligence quotient (IQ), recent fluoride research has now transformed what used to be considered one of the ten great public health achievements, into one of the worst public health mistakes. Please consider this abbreviated list of major red flags below, and then ask yourself: Can we, in good faith, ethically and morally, continue with this now proven harmful, risky and ineffective practice? RED FLAGS ABOUT THE INEFFECTIVENESS OF FLUORIDATION One particularly erroneous claim is that fluoridation reduces tooth decay by 25%. This statistic has been circulating for many decades, but is no longer supported by current research. The October 2024 Cochrane Collaboration Systematic Review , the 2024 LOTUS Retrospective Cohort Study , conducted over 10 years and involving more than 6 million participants, and the 2022 CATFISH prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study , all show that the effectiveness of fluoridation in reducing dental caries is closer to 2% and certainly less than 4%. Moreover, contrary to claims, disadvantaged populations do not benefit more than the rich. RED FLAGS ABOUT FLUORIDATION NEUROTOXICITY The U.S. Northern District of California Federal Court : After a seven-year science-based lawsuit, ruled that fluoridation "poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children" and ordered the EPA to take measures to eliminate this risk. (Sept. 25, 2024) The National Toxicology Program (NTP) : The USA's highest-level scientific review committee concluded higher water fluoride concentrations "are consistently associated with lower IQ in children" . The NTP cited that 18 of the 19 highest quality studies link higher fluoride with lower IQs, several at levels in fluoridated water. (August 21, 2024) Dr. Linda Birnbaum, PhD, retired NTP director : "It is time to protect kids' developing brains from fluoride". (Environmental Health News, 10/7/20) Dr. Dimitri Christakis, MD , pediatrician, editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Pediatrics: "I would not have my wife drink fluoridated water if she were pregnant". (Washington Post, 8/20/19) Dr. Hardy Limeback, PhD, DDS , former president of the Canadian Association of Dental Research and former Head of Preventative Dentistry at the University of Toronto and one of twelve experts on the US National Research Council's fluoride report (2006): "The evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming". (Personal communication 9/27/24) American Academy of Environmental Medicine : "Fluoridation has been called one of the ten great public health achievements. Fluoridation is more likely one of the ten most dangerous public health practices in this country and in the world" . (website accessed 10/2/24) Food and Water Watch : "Today's [federal court] ruling represents an important acknowledgement of a large and growing body of science indicating serious human health risks associated with fluoridated drinking water" . (9/25/24, website accessed 10/2/24) RED FLAG ON THE CONFUSION BY AUTHORITIES ON THE FLUORIDE DOSE The absence of control of the dose administered is a very obvious flaw in science of the concept of fluoridation. Health authorities have established the "optimum fluoride concentration" in drinking water at 0.7 mg/liter, as if this concentration determines the dose (milligrams per day) consumed by each individual of a fluoridated community. In fact, the dose of a drug or nutrient dissolved in a liquid is not determined by the concentration alone, but by two parameters: both the concentration, and the quantity of liquid consumed. As there is great variability in both the quantity of water consumed, as well as water used for food preparation, there is great variability in the dose of fluoride consumed from one individual to another. In nutrition, pharmacology and toxicology, it is also necessary to take into account the weight of the subject. It is therefore necessary to measure the intake in milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/d). In addition to fluoridated water, there are other sources of fluoride exposure, including tea and dental hygiene products, both of which often contain high concentrations of fluoride. Therefore, depending on what they eat and drink, many individuals may be inadvertently overexposed to fluoride, with deleterious effects on their health. RED FLAG ON LEGAL CLASSIFICATION OF FLUORIDATION PRODUCTS The legal classification of a substance determines its use and under which government authority that substance will be approved and regulated. Fluoridation chemicals are added primarily to prevent tooth decay by changing the composition of the tooth's enamel. The sole objective of fluoridation is therefore therapeutic. Products with a therapeutic use and claim are defined in the Food and Drugs Act as having to necessarily and legally belong either to the legal classification of drugs or natural health products . Such products should then be approved and regulated as such by Health Canada. Surprisingly, this is not the case for fluorides. Health authorities instead compare fluorides added to drinking water as belonging to the legal classification of nutrients for food fortification , like vitamin D added to milk or iron added to flour. Nutrients for food fortification also fall under Health Canada’s jurisdiction. Yet, you may be surprised to learn that Health Canada does not regulate fluoridation chemicals as sources of fluoride for the fortification of drinking water. Asked to explain itself through the process of a petition (299, 299B and 299C) to the Commissioner of the Environment at the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, Health Canada affirmed that it does not approve or regulate chemicals used to fluoridation because they are simple water treatment products and water treatment products fall under provincial jurisdiction. Fluorides used for water fluoridation are therefore not approved for the therapeutic use of preventing dental caries. Environment Canada, the federal ministry that manages toxic and hazardous materials, classifies and controls fluoridation chemicals under the legal classification of hazardous and corrosive products . It has also set the toxic threshold of fluoride concentration at 0.12 ppm for the protection of fauna and flora in fresh soft water, while the concentration of effluent from a municipality is 3 to 4 times higher. Note that the level of fluoridated drinking water is 0.70 ppm, 6 times the toxic threshold for this environment. Already the concentration of the water in the St. Lawrence River is around 0.15 ppm, exceeding the critical threshold standard of 0.12 ppm. So what is the legal classification of fluoride that municipal councils have decided to put in our water? Do municipalities add a substance legally classified as a water treatment product or as a hazardous and toxic substance for the purpose of preventing tooth decay among their citizens? RED FLAGS ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF FLUORIDATION The Food and Drugs Act does not allow: A therapeutic role and claim to be assigned to a substance not approved and not regulated by Health Canada; Administration of a substance with a therapeutic objectiveto humans, if it is not manufactured, packaged, transported and stored under the required sanitary conditions for a drug or for a source of a nutrient for fortification by Health Canada. Canadian provincial governments require that fluoridation products meet the standard established by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF). NSF certification requires that toxicology tests demonstrating safety be carried out by the NSF. Yet, these tests have not been carried out by the NSF or other government agencies. Fluoridation products are therefore not compliant as required for certification, and do not meet the requirements of the law. RED FLAGS ABOUT THE MEDICAL ETHICS OF FLUORIDATION Administering a substance legally classified as a water treatment product or as a toxic and dangerous substance to an entire population for therapeutic purposes is a complete breach of medical ethics. This breach of medical ethics is exacerbated when the so-called therapeutic substance is not even approved and regulated by Health Canada. It is unethical to fail to inform each person subjected to a therapeutic treatment, of the exact real and legal nature of the product, its unsanitary nature and its health risks. Medical ethics does not tolerate administering said substance without obtaining a consent from the subject. (Respect also to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) It is medically unethical not to assess the age, weight, sex, state of health and other needs of each subject before administering a random dose of a remedy – random, since the quantity of water consumed cannot be controlled. During treatment, medical ethics also requires individual and regular medical monitoring to evaluate the positive or negative effects of the treatment, to ensure the removal of the treatment if deleterious effects occur. Municipal water fluoridation does not offer a fair and affordable way to opt out of treatment, and subjects would still need to be informed of the deleterious effects of fluoridation in order to stop consuming fluoridated water. When water is fluoridated at “optimal concentrations”, municipalities, health authorities, attending physicians, dentists and individuals cannot possibly know the dose of fluoride to which people are exposed, or what deleterious effects it may have to human health. The effectiveness and safety of fluoridation was, until now, a dogma that even science had no right to challenge. With the recent studies and scientific reviews cited above, isn't it time to review fluoridation? WHICH AUTHORITIES CAN BE TRUSTED TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION ABOUT FLUORIDATION? If all the health authorities you rely on have not yet informed you of all of these troubling red flags highlighted above, there is a real problem. It is impossible to make an informed policy decision regarding fluoridation without knowing the facts. How is it that you have not yet been made aware of these red flags? Many of them are obvious and only require common sense. Any member of a municipal council has this competence. As many of the scientific studies have been published in the last few years, it may be difficult to draw a clear conclusion at first glance in order to make a decision about the future of water fluoridation policy. Often this requires extensive analysis and revision by groups of experts, experts who are not biased or who are willing to modify their prejudices in the face of evidence. Faced with the slow public reactions of Canadian health authorities to new scientific revelations on fluoride, we can assume they do not have the necessary skills to carry out a serious analysis, the experts on fluoride are rare, or they are currently seeking to defend, at the cost of the health of your community, a questionable public health measure of which they have become the greatest promoters and instigators. Admitting a mistake is not easy! THE POWER OF MUNICIPALITIES IN MATTERS OF FLUORIDATION Since it is the municipalities that make the decision to fluoridate drinking water, they bear full responsibility for the safety of fluoridation because they are the ones who decide so, by resolution. Contrary to the impression you may have been given, no other superior government in Canada has agreed to take legal responsibility for fluoridation. Higher levels of governments have delegated legal and political responsibility for fluoridation to municipalities; despite the fact that municipalities have neither the competence to scientifically evaluate its merits, nor the leisure to bear the blame and financial burden, in the event of prosecution for damages. The Decision of the Federal Court of the Northern District of California, following a seven-year trial and the review of studies on the effect of fluoride on the brain, concluded that fluoride is neurotoxic. It would be difficult to find a better-informed contrary opinion. Other red flags, such as studies demonstrating the ineffectiveness of fluoridation and the legal and ethical aspects of fluoridation, weigh even more heavily in the balance of reasons supporting ending water fluoridation, even if only as a precautionary principle. Municipalities do not have to ask for permission to put an end to fluoridation, as this power already belongs to them. We can meet with you at your convenience to discuss this critical and urgent matter. As the file is complex, we can take the time to sit down with you, respectfully, in order to explore the subject in more depth, to provide you with the most objective information possible to enable an informed decision. We can also provide you with references to many additional scientific studies and reviews. Faced with the seriousness of recent scientific discoveries, for the sake of our children, the least you can do is to impose a moratorium on water fluoridation , and to provide clear warnings to pregnant women and those with young children , until the opinion of experts on both sides can be heard. Thank you for your time and attention on this important and urgent matter. Robert C Dickson MD, CCFP, FCFP FOUNDER Safe Water Calgary www.safewatercalgary.com CHAIR, Fluoride Free Canada www.fluoridefreecanada.ca Board member of ABC (Associacion Buen Commune, parent organization of Project Ixcanaan)www.ixcanaan.com Gilles Parent, ND.A. Founding member of Fluoride Free Canada www.fluoridefreecanada.ca/fr Coauthor with M. Pierre Jean Morin, Ph.D. in experimental medicine and attorney John Remington Graham, of La fluoration : autopsie d’une erreur scientifique, 2005 and Fluoridation : Autopsy of a Scientific Error, 2010 Expert advisor on fluoridation at Eau Secours

WHO FLUORIDATES AND WHO DOESN'T? TO LEARN ABOUT THE WORLDWIDE MOVEMENT AGAINST WATER FLUORIDATION CLICK HERE UNFLUORIDATED COUNTRIES FLUORIDATED COUNTRIES Flags LEARN MORE > Statements from European Authorities The late Dr. Hans Moolenburgh of the Netherlands: