Search Results

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.

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

WE WON! Federal Court Rules That Water Fluoridation Poses an “Unreasonable Risk” to Children The ruling requires the EPA to take regulatory action to eliminate the risk, in a decision that could end the use of water fluoridation chemicals throughout the U.S. After a precedent-setting 7-year legal battle in federal court, an historic ruling by the United States District Court of the Northern District of California has ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take regulatory action to eliminate the “unreasonable risk” to the health of children posed by the practice of water fluoridation. The verdict is a significant loss for the EPA and the promoters of fluoridation like the American Dental Association and the US Centers For Disease Control because the court found that their claims of safety–made for over 75 years–were in fact not supported by evidence. Senior Judge Edward Chen wrote, “the Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”) – the level presently considered “optimal” in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children…the Court finds there is an unreasonable risk of such injury, a risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage with a regulatory response.” "In all, there is substantial and scientifically credible evidence establishing that fluoride poses a risk to human health; it is associated with a reduction in the IQ of children and is hazardous at dosages that are far too close to fluoride levels in the drinking water of the United States…Reduced IQ poses serious harm. Studies have linked IQ decrements of even one or two points to, e.g., reduced educational attainment, employment status, productivity, and earned wages.” The ruling did not specify exactly what measures must be adopted by the EPA, but under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), once the court rules that a chemical poses an unreasonable risk, the EPA is obligated by law to restrict or eliminate the risk. Judge Chen described a range of options for regulating fluoridation, including banning it, but he warned, “One thing the EPA cannot do, however, in the face of this Court’s finding, is to ignore that risk." READ THE FULL RULING Here are some notable excerpts from the ruling: Pg 3: There is little dispute in this suit as to whether fluoride poses a hazard to human health. Indeed, EPA’s own expert agrees that fluoride is hazardous at some level of exposure. And ample evidence establishes that a mother’s exposure to fluoride during pregnancy is associated with IQ decrements in her offspring. Pg 5: The pooled benchmark dose analysis concluded that a 1-point drop in IQ of a child is to be expected for each 0.28 mg/L of fluoride in a pregnant mother’s urine. This is highly concerning, because maternal urinary fluoride levels for pregnant mothers in the United States range from 0.8 mg/L at the median and 1.89 mg/L depending upon the degree of exposure. Not only is there an insufficient margin between the hazard level and these exposure levels, for many, the exposure levels exceed the hazard level of 0.28 mg/L. Pg 5: Even if the toxicologically determined hazard level of 0.28 mg/L were deemed insufficiently substantiated, evidence in the record still establishes with little doubt that fluoridated drinking water presents a risk of injury to health. Pg 6: The EPA’s default margin of error requires a factor of 10 between the hazard level and exposure level due to variability in human sensitivities… Here, an even greater margin (100x) is owed because the methodology (which yields the 4 mg/L hazard level) uses the lowest observed adverse effect level (“LOAEL”); this methodology adds an additional level of uncertainty (and hence the application of a 100x rather than 10x margin). But even if only the default 10x margin is required, the safe level of fluoride exposure would be 0.4 mg/L (4 mg/L (hazard level) divided by 10). The “optimal” water fluoridation level in the United States of 0.7 mg/L is nearly double that safe level of 0.4 mg/L for pregnant women and their offspring. Pg 77: The scientific literature in the record provides a high level of certainty that a hazard is present ; fluoride is associated with reduced IQ. There are uncertainties presented by the underlying data regarding the appropriate point of departure and exposure level to utilize in this risk evaluation. But those uncertainties do not undermine the finding of an unreasonable risk; in every scenario utilizing any of the various possible points of departures, exposure levels and metrics, a risk is present in view of the applicable uncertainty factors that apply. Pg 78: There is significant certainty in the data set regarding the association between fluoride and reduced IQ. Namely, there is a robust body of evidence finding a statistically significant adverse association between fluoride and IQ . A large majority of the 72 epidemiological studies assessed by the NTP Monograph observed this relationship including all but one of the 19 high-quality studies, see ¶¶ 34-36, and literature published after the NTP Monograph cutoff date observed the same relationship, see ¶ 37 – and countervailing evidence, for various reasons described previously, are of little impact on this repeated, and consistently observed association between fluoride and reduced IQ, see ¶ 39. Moreover, complete consistency amongst studies is not expected. See Dkt. No. 414, Feb. 9, 20240, Trial Tr. at 1172:23-1173:6 (Savitz). Notably, notwithstanding inherent difficulties in observing this association at lower exposure levels, studies assessing such levels still observed a statistically significant relationship between fluoride and reduced IQ. See ¶¶ 42-44. Again, to put the breadth of evidence supporting this finding in perspective, the EPA has identified a LOAEL based upon far less in other contexts. For instance, in the EPA’s risk evaluation of Methylene, conducted pursuant to Amended TSCA, the EPA used a LOAEL for developmental neurotoxicity, derived from the analysis of one study conducted upon mouse pups (Fredriksson et al., 1992). See Methylene Risk Evaluation at 262. Compare this with 6 (water fluoride) and 9 (urinary fluoride), high-quality, epidemiological studies of human populations underling the 4 mg/L LOAEL underlying the POD here. Dkt. No. 431-2, Trial Ex. 68 at 39, 41 (eTable 4). The scientific literature in the record provides a high level of certainty that a hazard is present; fluoride is associated with reduced IQ. The qualitative evidence is superior. Pg 76: The size of the affected population is vast . Approximately 200 million Americans have fluoride intentionally added to their drinking water at a concentration of 0.7 mg/L. See Dkt. No. 421 at 206-07 (undisputed). Other Americans are indirectly exposed to fluoridated water through consumption of commercial beverages and food manufactured with fluoridated water Pg 76: Approximately two million pregnant women, and over 300,000 exclusively formula-fed babies are exposed to fluoridated water. The number of pregnant women and formula-fed babies alone who are exposed to water fluoridation each year exceeds entire populations exposed to conditions of use for which EPA has found unreasonable risk ; the EPA has found risks unreasonable where the population impacted was less than 500 people. The Fluoride Action Network’s attorney, Michael Connett, said, “The Court has done what EPA has long refused to do: applied EPA’s risk assessment framework to fluoride. It’s a historic decision. And, as we await EPA’s rulemaking proceeding, policymakers would be well advised to ask: “Should we really be adding a neurotoxicant to our drinking water?” BACKGROUND The lawsuit was brought under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA) which allows citizens to petition the EPA to evaluate whether a chemical presents an unreasonable risk to public health and should be regulated. It also empowers citizen groups to challenge the EPA in court after denial of a petition. TSCA gives EPA the authority to prohibit "the particular use" of a chemical substance if it’s found to present an unreasonable risk to the general public or susceptible subpopulations. FAN submitted a Citizens Petition under Section 21 of TSCA to the EPA in November 2016 requesting a ban on the addition of fluoridation chemicals to water. When the EPA denied our Petition, FAN filed suit in federal court in 2017, joined by consumer advocacy groups, Food and Water Watch and Moms Against Fluoridation , public health associations, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine , and the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology , as well as several individuals representing themselves and/or their children, including Brenda and Ko Staudenmaier and Kristie Lavelle. After a two-week bench trial held via Zoom in June 2020, the trial was placed in abeyance as the court awaited the finalization of the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) systematic review of fluoride neurotoxicity. However, in 2022, pressure from pro-fluoridation interest groups led to NTP’s report being blocked from public release by top officials in the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Plaintiffs submitted documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act exposing this intervention to the court. This discovery led to a legal agreement forcing the report to be made public and prompting Chen to rule that the trial should go forward using the draft report from the NTP. A second, and final, phase of the bench trial was held over several weeks during the winter of 2024. And just last month, the NTP finally published the first part of their report, finding a “large body” of evidence that fluoride exposure is “consistently associated with lower IQ in children.” An accompanying NTP meta-analysis is soon to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Click here for a timeline of the lawsuit . Click here for FAN’s comprehensive webpage on the lawsuit PRECEDENT SETTING This is the first time a citizen's petition has gone to trial, and it’s the first time a citizen group has won a trial against EPA under TSCA Section 21. Our case and our victory will undoubtedly create opportunities for citizen and environmental watchdog groups to use the same blueprint as FAN in the future to force the EPA to adequately regulate chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk to public health. This trial was also the first time citizen groups have successfully obtained a full objective review of the science on fluoridation, in a courtroom, with experts under oath, under TSCA's provisions that create a level playing field between the citizen groups and the EPA defending a chemical. Under most statutes, when citizens sue a federal agency, the courts give deference to the views of the agency. But in this lawsuit, under a special provision of TSCA, the court does not give deference to the EPA. Congress specifically added this level playing field because it recognized EPA can be too slow to address harmful chemical exposures. INITIAL MEDIA COVERAGE The media is quickly picking up this story, with coverage thus far from the following outlets: CBS News: Federal Court Rules Against EPA in Lawsuit Over Fluoride in Water Bloomberg Law: EPA Must Reduce Fluoride’s IA Risks to Children, Court Says The Defender: Fluoride in Water Poses ‘Unreasonable Risk’ to Children, Federal Judge Rules Dr. Bicuspid: U.S. Court - Fluoride in Water Risky, Must be Addressed CNN: Fluoride in Water Poses Enough Risk to Merit New EPA Action, Judge Says Reuters: EPA Must Address Fluoridated Water’s Risk to Children’s IQs, US Judge Rules The Hill: Judge Orders EPA to Address Potential IQ Impacts of Fluoride in Drinking Water Politico: Fluoride Ruling Pushes EPA for Regulatory Action Associated Press / ABC News: Fluoride in Drinking Water Poses Enough Risk to Merit New EPA Action, Judge Says …and much more is expected over the coming days. NEXT STEPS The court has ordered EPA to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to come up with a new regulation that will restrict or eliminate the risk posed by fluoridation chemicals to the developing brain. The ONLY way to effectively do this is to end fluoridation. Communities are currently adding this neurotoxin to the public water supplies voluntarily. The harm is needlessly self-inflicted, but this also means the solution is simple: ban the use of fluoridation chemicals. The EPA may appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit , or they could take a few years to develop rules. In our view, attempts by the EPA to appeal or delay this ruling will only result in harm to hundreds of thousands of additional children, particularly those whose families are unable to afford expensive reverse osmosis or distillation filtration of their tap water. We urge everyone reading this bulletin to share it, along with the ruling itself, with your local media outlets, decisionmakers, neighbors, and state legislators. Policymakers at the local and state level do not need to wait to take action. The federal government doesn’t mandate fluoridation, and thus local and state decisionmakers can take action immediately. We have a very thorough decision made by the federal courts based on extensive evidence. The public didn’t sign up to have a chemical added to public drinking water that could adversely affect the brain. And while a cavity can easily be filled, damage to the brain is permanent, and the consequences are lifelong. There are no second chances when it comes to impaired brain development. Sincerely, Stuart Cooper Executive Director Fluoride Action Network

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.

ONTARIO WORKING GROUP Brant County Fluoride Free Brant County Facebook Hamilton Fluoride Free Hamilton (20+) Fluoride Free Hamilton | Facebook Lambton Fluoride Free Lambton Facebook London Fluoride Free London Ontario Fluoride Free London Ontario | Facebook Oshawa Fluoride Free Oshawa Facebook Ottawa Fluoridation-Free Ottawa Fluoridation-Free Ottawa - Main Information Page - City of Ottawa - Fluoridation-Free Ottawa Owen Sound Fluoridation Free Owen Sound Fluoridation Free Owen Sound | Facebook Peel Region Fluoride Free Peel Fluoride Free Peel Sudbury Sudburians for a Fluoride Free Sudbury Sudburians For A Fluoride-Free Sudbury | Facebook Toronto End Fluoride Toronto END FLUORIDE TORONTO | Help Us End The Use Of Fluoride Fluoride Free Toronto (20+) Facebook Windsor Fluoride Free Windsor-Essex Fluoride Free Windsor-Essex | Windsor ON | Facebook

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

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

The FLUORIDE Report Enjoy the archives of newsletters from Fluoride Free Canada #26 Fluoride Report – Quebec to be 99.75% fluoride free by the end of 2024! | Let’s take advice from Gilles Parent, ND.A. November 25th, 2024 – NEW View #25 Fluoride Report – The Long Awaited Decision...We Won! (video message) | Press Release | Key Takeaways from the Court Ruling September 27th, 2024 View #24 Fluoride Report – Presentation to Windsor, ON Council | Setting the Record Straight June 15th, 2024 View #23 Fluoride Report – Dr. Bob Speaks Out | Dr. Bob shares with the Washington Ministry of Health March 17th, 2024 View #22 Fluoride Report – Historical Trial in Progress (Zoom link) | FAN Press Release February 5th, 2024 View #21 Fluoride Report – Help Spread the News—History in the Making | Fluoride on Trial: The Censored Science on Fluoride and Your Health (video) January 14th, 2024 View #20 Fluoride Report – Recap & Current Status of the EPA Fluoride Lawsuit | The Truth from a PhD in Chemistry (video) September 24th, 2023 View Webinar with Christine Till: What's the Fuss About Fluoride? VIEW BUTTON NOW UPDATED WITH THE WEBINAR RECORDING May 8th, 2023 View #19 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 7 Myth 76: That fluoridation will not materially alter dietary fluori d e intake.. March 15th, 2023 View #18 Fluoride Report – Hope For Canadians: Injunction Underway In Montreal | Help for your Campaign! February 10th, 2023 View Court Rejects EPA's Attempt To Delay January 15th, 2023 View Notice of Fluoridation Hearing January 10th, 2023 View #17 Fluoride Report – Important Law Suit Update | Colgate's Big Lie | CBC Ombudsman Reply December15th, 2022 View #16 Fluoride Report – Fluoride: A Root Cause of Harm to Humans | Fluoride: Source of Chronic Acne November 15th, 2022 View #15 Fluoride Report – Raisin Roulette: Fluoride Found Harmful to Pets & Plants October 15th, 2022 View A Message From Dr. Bob – 2022 Fundraiser October 1st, 2022 View #14 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 6 Myth #6: That it is possible to control daily fluoride intake for the entire population regardless of all sources of fluoride exposure. August 15th, 2022 View #13 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 5 Myth #5: That the optimal safe intake in milligrams/per kilogram of weight/per day of fluoride required for dental health is well known. July 15th, 2022 View #12 Fluoride Report – Warning: Sneak Attack: The Greatest Threat to Non-Fluoridated Communities is Here! | What Else is Fluoride Free Canada Up To? June 15th, 2022 View #11 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 4 Myth #4: That an optimal concentration of 0.7 ppm of fluoride in drinking water will ensure the administration of an optimal and safe daily dose of fluoride for the health of each citizen, dose-adjusted according to their weight, age, gender, state of health, diet, environment and physical activities, regardless of the amount of water consumed. May 15th, 2022 View #10 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 3 Myth #3: That drinking water is an excellent vehicle for the administration of an appropriate dose of fluoride to prevent cavities, without risk to health. April 15th, 2022 View #9 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 2 Myth #2: That health authorities know exactly how much fluoride is needed each day to ensure the apatite crystals in dental enamel will be transformed into a sufficient level of fluoroapatite, to make it resistant to tooth decay. March 15th, 2022 View #8 Fluoride Report – Debunking the Myths - Episode 1 Myth #1: That the health authorities know the optimal concentration of fluoride in the enamel of the tooth to make it resistant to decay. February 25th, 2022 View #7 Fluoride Report – Media Bias - We're not taking this lying down! | Fluoride Free Windsor-Essex January 25th, 2022 View #6 Fluoride Report – Can You Count on the Advice of the "Experts"? December 3rd, 2021 View #5 Fluoride Report – The Legality of Fluoridation | What Exactly is the Nature of the Chemicals in Fluoridation? November 20th, 2021 View #4 Fluoride Report – Losses in Calgary and Windsor Don’t Spell Defeat. Be Patient! | Pro-Fluoridation Now Targeting Vancouver, BC November 6th, 2021 View #3 Fluoride Report – Science Lost in Calgary | How Safe Water Calgary was Sabotaged October 22nd, 2021 View #2 Fluoride Report – Results of Vote | Introduction Video | Canadian's Challenged by Biased Media | Who Is Christine Till? October 9th, 2021 View #1 News Alert – Vote to Name this Newsletter | Introduction Video | How Calgary's Crisis Affects You September 24th, 2021 View Update to Trudeau Letter | Call to Share Your Talents September 17th, 2021 View

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 76 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 ].