Search Results

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

Saint-Georges présentation publique.pdf Legal Aspects of Fluoridation

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. All Videos Play Video Play Video 02:22 WUC Admin Advise Source of Fluoride in Drinking Water In this video Windsor Utilities Commission's Chief Operating Officer, John Stuart, answers Councillor Dilkens' question - does the fluoride come from the smoke stack scrubbers of factories? YES confirms the WUC admin. But Dr. Heimann has stated otherwise to the Tecumseh, Amherstburg and Lasalle council members. Far too often Public Health and Dental Health Authorities claim fluoride is naturally occurring when trying to convince municipalities to buy in to artificial water fluoridation. But naturally occurring calcium fluoride is NOT what is used in water fluoridation, calcium fluoride is present in the water before the addition of hydrofluorosilicic acid. Hydrofluorosilicic Acid is a waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry - it is classified as HAZARDOUS WASTE before it is tanked untreated and shipped to municipalities as a "fluoridating agent". One has to wonder why Public Health makes such misleading statements about the source of the fluoride used in water fluoridation. For more information on the actual product, hydrofluorosilicic acid, and where it comes from visit here: http://cof-cof.ca/hydrofluorosilicic-acid-origins/ And see Fluoride Free Windsor's article about the product here: http://fluoridefreewindsor.com/2011/11/19/get-to-know-your-tooth-medicine/ Thank you Councillor Dilkens for asking this question and getting a straight answer from WUC administration!! Play Video Play Video 01:54 U.S. Regulatory Agencies Don't Know Safe vs Toxic Level Of Fluoride FAN attorney Michael Connett asked U.S. regulatory agencies: what is the safe level of fluoride in water - when does the “safe” level turn into a toxic level? Not a single one of these agencies had an answer. If you can’t answer this basic question, you can’t claim fluoride in water is safe. That alone should end water fluoridation. Play Video Play Video 02:39 NSF Unable To Vouch For The Safety Of Fluoridation Chemicals The National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) does not vouch for the safety of fluoridation chemicals because it has not conducted its own risk assessment on fluoride, according to Amanda Phelka of NSF International, who was deposed as part of the ongoing fluoride lawsuit. Play Video Play Video 00:18 CDC: Fluoride's Primary Benefit To Teeth Comes From Topical Contact CDC Admission Under Oath: Fluoride's predominant benefit to teeth comes from topical contact with the outside of the teeth. Source: sworn testimony in the fluoride lawsuit from Casey Hannan, then Director of CDC's Division of Oral Health, regarding early life exposure to fluoride. Play Video Play Video 01:52 CDC Unable To Cite Studies Showing Fluoride Is Effective When Swallowed The Director of The Centers For Disease Control's (CDC) Oral Health Division, Casey Hannan, fumbles during a deposition for the TSCA Fluoride Lawsuit when asked to provide documentation of the studies CDC relies on to support its claim that fluoride reduces tooth decay when ingested. FAN is currently fundraising to meet our 2024 operational budget. Support from those who believe in this mission is crucial to our ability to continue this work. FAN has proven capable of taking on the big battles and winning. Please consider making a donation today. Your donation will go directly to funding our education, advocacy, and legal work. All donations large and small are important to us and are tax-deductible. https://npowebdonation.networkforgood.org/1415005 Play Video Play Video 02:49:31 An Inconvenient Tooth - Fluoride Documentary An Inconvenient Tooth is a documentary film about fluoride. It was released September 6th, 2012 at the City Hall in Portland, Oregon. http://AnInconvenientTooth.org http://Facebook.com/AnInconvenientTooth http://Twitter.com/intooth Play Video Play Video 10:25:31 Regina Special City Council | May 2, 2025 | AccessNow TV Subscribe: youtube.com/channel/UCiKb9tDSlDxSgRYRHHrhrQQ?sub_confirmation=1 Stay Connected X: https://twitter.com/AccessNowSports Instagram: https://instagram.com/myaccessca Facebook: https://facebook.com/MyAccessCA Play Video Play Video 03:33 Message to Water Operators Brenda Staudenmaier is certified by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for drinking water and wastewater. She works full time operating a wastewater plant in Wisconsin. Her and her children are Plaintiffs in a Federal Lawsuit against the US EPA over the neurotoxicity of fluoride compounds added to the public drinking water supply. The 4 NIH funded studies can be found here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2748634 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412019326145 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5915186/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30316181/ Brenda can be found on social media: https://www.facebook.com/thelovelybrenda https://twitter.com/thelovelybrenda https://www.instagram.com/the_lovely_brenda/ PODCASTS The Fluoride Action Network's Science Research Director, Chris Neurath, details his work uncovering documents that show how the sugar industry manipulated science and worked secretly behind the scenes to support community fluoridation programs despite evidence of fluoride's neurotoxicity and links to other serious health impacts. Sharyl Attkisson speaks with Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo of Florida, which has now banned water fluoridation. May 6, 2025: Sovereign Collective Podcast Dr. Bob discusses his initial discovery of the potential harms of fluoride and his efforts to remove it from Calgary’s water. He covers the toxicity of hexafluorosilicic acid, the legal and ethical implications of mass medication, the scientific studies showing minimal benefits and significant risks, including neurotoxicity, as well as the political and financial forces driving fluoridation. Apr 6, 2025: Truth Over Spin: Pam Killeen and Dr. Paul Connett discuss the ongoing controversy surrounding water fluoridation, highlighting recent scientific findings, legal battles, and the historical context of fluoride use in public health. For more information visit ⁠www.pamkilleen.com⁠ or ⁠www.truthoverspin.com⁠ Episode 2 Artificial Water Fluoridation Dr Bob starts by highlighting the potential toxic effects of fluoride, comparing it to lead and arsenic. Dr. Bob delves into the wide range of potential consequences linked to fluoride exposure, such as increased rates of ADHD, decreased IQ in children, thyroid problems, kidney toxicity, and weakened bones. March 24, 2025: Huberman's guest is board-certified dentist Dr. Stacy Whitman, DMD. Show notes at: How to Improve Your Teeth & Oral Microbiome for Brain & Body Health | Dr. Staci Whitman - Huberman Lab Dr. Bob was a proponent for water fluoridation until activists had him look at a study back in 1998. He has been trying to expose the lies for 25 years. PRESENTATIONS TO GOVERNMENT BODIES Use this content to formulate your own presentation! UK Parliament Dec/2021 Result: Still outstanding The Dutch Rejection of Water Fluoridation - Rick North Calgary, AB 2011 Result: Rejected Fluoridation (Vote 10-3) Orillia, ON 2012 Result: Rejected Fluoridation Windsor, ON 2012 Result: Rejected Fluoridation (Unfortunately, fluoridation reintroduced in 2022) 2024 Presentation Highlights Latest Science Windsor, ON 2024 Regina SK: May 2, 2025 Reconsideration vote to postpone the introduction of fluoride to Regina's water supply until there is conclusive evidence that there are no significant neurotoxic effects or other bodily harms, to safeguard the health of the community and particularly that of the community's children. Ultimately, the motion was defeated and plans to introduce fluoride will proceed. Link to meeting agenda: City Council - Special - May 2, 2025 9:00 AM

What's New – A log of postings A simple way for you to see what's new on our site! Last published Newsletter: November 25th , 2024 Added to new video content to the Home page; a letter by Bill Osmunson DDS MPH titled Reasons I No Longer Promote Fluoridation to the page Who Opposes Water Fluoridation; an Expert report written by Dr. Bruce Lanphear MD MPH for the January 2025 CPSA Tribunal hearing of Dr. Robert Dickson. February, 2025 Added to the New Science page an October 2024 study by Biological Trace Element Research, entitled: Fluoride Ingestion Induces Formation of Unusual Macromolecular Complexes in Gut Lumen Which Retard Absorption of Essential Minerals and Trace Elements by Chelation. January, 2025 View Added to the Advocacy page, a section for the Fluoride Free Canada, Ontario Working Group January, 2025 View Added to the New Science page a January 2025 study from JAMA Pediatrics, entitled: Fluoride Exposure and Children’s IQ Scores. January, 2025 View Added to the New Science page a November, 2024 study from Public Health Challenges, entitled: Community Water Fluoridation, a Cost-Benefit-Risk Consideration. November, 2024 View Added interactive Google map to "Who Fluoridates and Who Doesn't" page. Most locations in Ontario will also include a link to that municipalitie's water report. November, 2024 View Added to Fluoride Free Montreal on the Advocacy page that Quebec will be 99.75% fluoride free on December 20, 2024, with a link to a letter sent to Montreal-area councillors explaining their objections November, 2024 View Added to the home page video strip: Press Conference of Florida's Surgeon General, saying fluoridation is medical malpractice | October, 2024 podcast, where Michael Connett is interviewed by Dr. Ken Berry's on "Fluoride Dangers You Don't Know About" November, 2024 View Added a button to the New Science page to see the bios of key scientists associated with Canadian research: Bashash, Birnbaum, Hu, Lanphear, Till November, 2024 View Updated the New Science page with the following: October 2024 - Cochrane Study: Does adding fluoride to water supplies prevent tooth decay? | November 2022 - CATFISH prospective longitudinal cohort study: Evaluation of water fluoridation in Cumbria UK November, 2024 View Added a Frequently Asked Questions button to the home page Court Case section. November, 2024 View Updated the New Science page with the following: February 2021–Fluoride exposure and duration and quality of sleep in a Canadian population-based sample | June 2023–Health Canada expert panel meeting on the health effects of fluoride in drinking water October, 2024 View Updated Court Case page with information on the decision from the US Federal Court, including a video of Michael Connett, the plaintiff's lawyer, on the "Fluoridation Win". September, 2024 View Added new February, 2024 study to Science page: Dose dependence of prenatal fluoride exposure associations with cognitive performance at school age in three prospective studies. September, 2024 View Added a link to a May, 2024 podcast hosted by former Ontario physician Dr. Trozzi with Director of Fluoride Free Canada, Dr. Bob Dickson. They discuss the full scope of fluoridation issues from the beginning to the current lawsuit with the Environmental Protection Agency. (Video no longer available.) June, 2024 View Added to the home page video strip, a May, 2024 podcast (in French) where Gilles Parent ND, Director of Fluoride Free Canada, is interviewed by Franc Masson's "Eye Opener" podcast "Dans le franc des yeux". Dr. Parent is an expert in everything fluoride, from co-authoring "Fluoridation: Autopsy of a Scientific Error ", to being instrumental in Quebec being 99% fluoride-free. June, 2024 View Added two additional studies to the New Science page: (1) May 2024: Maternal Urinary Fluoride and Child Neurobehavior at Age 36 Months (2) July 2024: PKC-θ is an important driver of fluoride-induced immune imbalance of regulatory T cells/effector T cells. June, 2024 View Added to the home page "Presentations to Government Bodies", two presentations done by Windsor, Ontario; one in 2012 with a positive result (which was overturned in 2022; and one in May, 2024 showing current science. June, 2024 View Added to the bottom of the New Science page, a “sampling” of the scientific studies and reports relevant to water fluoridation, published since the US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) 2015 recommendation to lower the fluoridation target to 0.7 ppm; created by Brenda Staudenmaier, a Plaintiff in the US lawsuit against water fluoridation and maintained on her website fluoridelawsuit.com. February, 2024 View Added two additional Canadian studies to the New Science page: (1) January, 2024: Fluoride exposure and thyroid hormone levels in pregnancy; (2) November 2023: Systematic review of epidemiological and toxicological evidence on health effects of fluoride in drinking water February, 2024 View Added to the home page video strip, lead attorney Michael Connett's interview on the Kim Iversen Show where he talked about those who are the most vulnerable to ingesting fluoride; as well as his interview at trial and int erviews by FAN's expert witnesses at trial: Dr. Howard Hu, Dr. Bruce Lanphear and Dr. Philippe Grandjean. February, 2024 View Updated the Court Case Progress page with the latest on the trial, including a chart of the trial timeline, and video interviews of FANs expert witnesses at trial: Dr. Howard Hu, Dr. Bruce Lanphear and Dr. Philippe Grandjean. February, 2024 View Added to the History page, a February, 2024 article for Druthers newspaper, written by Dr. Bob Dickson, summarizing the history and challenges of water fluoridation and why fluoridation is NOT safe. February, 2024 View Added to the New Science page, a January, 2024 report: The Lotus Study which is the largest fluoride study ever conducted, concluding NO meaningful benefit to water fluoridation. February, 2024 View Added to the home page, the Zoom link to the live Court Case, and added a video to the end of the Court Case updates page, where Michael Connett is being interviewed a day before the trial. February, 2024 View Added to the home page, a mini documentary by Michael Connett, the lawyer for the Plaintiff in the EPA trial, entitled: Fluoride On Trial: The Censored Science on Fluoride and Your Health January, 2024 View Added to the home page, a short video by the International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology on The National Toxicology Program and Fluoride Neurotoxicity. November, 2023 View Added "Sept. 23: One-Page Fact Sheet & Status" button to the lawsuit section on the home page . September, 2023 View Added July 5, 2023 video interview with Paul Connett PhD, with an update on the EPA lawsuit and detailing VERY passionately his experiences and frustration in dealing with government agencies. See "Fluoride in Water: The TRUTH" on the video strip. September, 2023 View Added August, 2023 Rumble.com podcast with Director of Fluoride Free Canada, Dr. Bob Dickson, containing excellent advice and tips for everyone! (Video no longer available) August, 2023 Added February, 2023 scientific study by Till and Hall on an association between fluoride exposure from tap water and hypothyroidism in pregnancy February, 2023 View Added a detailed report on Hexafluorosilicic Acid (Hydrofluorosilicic Acid): Raw Materials, Manufacture, Toxicity and Public Health Concerns as an Active Ingredient in the Fluoridation of Drinking Water to the History page February, 2023 View Sent out Notice of the Fluoridation Hearing with the US Environmental Protection Agency and the follow-up report. January, 2023 View Added the video of the October Hearing in the Court Case with the Environmental Protection Agency December, 2022 View The latest status of the Court Case with the Environmental Protection Agency (Merged all updates onto one page) November, 2022 View Added to video strip on home page: 5 Minutes of Hard Core Truth - Toxins in Water October, 2022 View Updated the status of the Court Case with the Environmental Protection Agency September, 2022 View Added Resource page of Highly Recommended Resource Materials (books) June, 2022 View Added End Fluoride Toronto to the Advocacy page and linked to their Facebook May, 2022 View Added Fluoride Free Montreal to the Advocacy page and linked to their Facebook April, 2022 View When Citizens Get Involved - Article added to Eau Secours on Advocacy page February, 2022 View Added Regina to the Advocacy page and linked to their Facebook February, 2022 View Added Vancouver to the Advocacy page and linked to Media Challenges February, 2022 View Added "Who is With Us" page to show organizations against fluoridation January, 2022 View Restructured homepage and added Memes and "What's New" button January, 2022 View Added "Case Status - Dec. 31/21" link in Court section of home page linking to video January, 2022 View Added Presentations to Government videos to bottom of homepage December, 2021 View Donate page updated with request to eTRANSFER to save PayPal fees December, 2021 View 1952 video on fluoridation posted as a link at the top of When Did Fluoridation Start December, 2021 View "Our Message" video posted - Intro on home page and full video on the About page October, 2021 View New Science page updated with Christine Till bio and video October, 2021 View Videos and Media articles posted to Advocacy page September, 2021 View 1st Newsletter Posted (link to Newsletter page in footer) September, 2021 View Website Live September 1st, 2021 View

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

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

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. On September 24, 2024 a US Federal court ruled in favour of Food and Water Watch, et al. in their proceedings against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) After 7 years of legal action against the EPA over the risk posed to the developing brain by the practice of water fluoridation, the United States District Court of the Northern District of California deemed fluoridation an "unreasonable risk" to the health of children. Judge Chen wrote : ... the Court finds Plaintiffs have met their burden in establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that community water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health under Amended TSCA and that the EPA is thus obliged to take regulatory action in response. During the trial, testimony provided by Philippe Grandjean, Howard Hu co-author of the Bashash (2017 , 2018 ) studies and Bruce Lanphear, co-author of the Green (2019 ) and Till (2020 ) studies. The judge delayed his ruling until he had in his hands the final report of the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) review on fluoride’s neurotoxicity and the Grandjean (et al) Benchmark Dose (BMD) Analysis . EPA appeal of Decision The EPA did not challenge the merits of the court's findings, but focused instead on procedural issues, including EPA's view that the court should have ignored a series of groundbreaking new studies on fluoride and IQ, including the one by their own NTP. EPA argues the court should have ignored this new data because EPA did not have it in its possession back in 2017. Read the brief here. Plaintiffs' response: EPA to protect the public, not to protect the EPA from the public On November 17, 2025, the attorneys for the plaintiffs filed their response, explaining that the purpose of the law at issue (the Toxic Substances Control Act) is "to protect the public, not to protect the EPA from the public." The court was thus amply justified in considering and acting upon the new research, including the NTP report that even EPA conceded was "indisputably central" to reaching a correct decision. Read the brief here. EPA's reply The EPA’s reply brief argues that the district court’s ruling should be reversed because the plaintiffs lacked standing and failed to show concrete, traceable harm from EPA’s actions. EPA contends the court improperly allowed plaintiffs to rely on evidence not included in their original TSCA petition, violating statutory limits on judicial review and administrative exhaustion. Read the brief here . FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS About The Water Fluoridation Lawsuit Against the U.S. EPA Below is sworn testimony from Casey Hannan, the then Director of CDC’s Division of Oral Health, regarding early life exposure to fluoride. He acknowledges that the CDC has no data that would establish the safety of fluoride’s effect on the brain, despite a growing body of evidence showing that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin. Fluoride on Trial Play Video Play Video 01:54 U.S. Regulatory Agencies Don't Know Safe vs Toxic Level Of Fluoride FAN attorney Michael Connett asked U.S. regulatory agencies: what is the safe level of fluoride in water - when does the “safe” level turn into a toxic level? Not a single one of these agencies had an answer. If you can’t answer this basic question, you can’t claim fluoride in water is safe. That alone should end water fluoridation. Play Video Play Video 02:39 NSF Unable To Vouch For The Safety Of Fluoridation Chemicals The National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) does not vouch for the safety of fluoridation chemicals because it has not conducted its own risk assessment on fluoride, according to Amanda Phelka of NSF International, who was deposed as part of the ongoing fluoride lawsuit. Play Video Play Video 01:52 CDC Unable To Cite Studies Showing Fluoride Is Effective When Swallowed The Director of The Centers For Disease Control's (CDC) Oral Health Division, Casey Hannan, fumbles during a deposition for the TSCA Fluoride Lawsuit when asked to provide documentation of the studies CDC relies on to support its claim that fluoride reduces tooth decay when ingested. FAN is currently fundraising to meet our 2024 operational budget. Support from those who believe in this mission is crucial to our ability to continue this work. FAN has proven capable of taking on the big battles and winning. Please consider making a donation today. Your donation will go directly to funding our education, advocacy, and legal work. All donations large and small are important to us and are tax-deductible. https://npowebdonation.networkforgood.org/1415005 Play Video Play Video 00:18 CDC: Fluoride's Primary Benefit To Teeth Comes From Topical Contact CDC Admission Under Oath: Fluoride's predominant benefit to teeth comes from topical contact with the outside of the teeth. Source: sworn testimony in the fluoride lawsuit from Casey Hannan, then Director of CDC's Division of Oral Health, regarding early life exposure to fluoride. Play Video Play Video 23:53 "No Safe Level Of Fluoride Exposure During Neurodevelopment" - Toxicologist Kathleen Thiessen An expert for plaintiffs in the fluoride lawsuit, toxicologist Kathleen Thiessen is interviewed by Children's Health Defense for her thoughts on the recent publication of NTP's meta analysis on fluoride neurotoxicity in JAMA Pediatrics. Play Video Play Video 01:15 CDC Oral Health Director: We Have No Safety Data on Fluoride and the Brain "As a rep of CDC to my knowledge we don't have any knowledge about that." - Casey Hannan, CDC oral health director, on whether the CDC has any safety data on fluoride exposures for neurotoxic effects on children that could prove fluoride safe. This video segment was extracted from the full deposition of the CDC by plaintiffs in the TSCA fluoride lawsuit (http://fluoridealert.org/issues/tsca-fluoride-trial/). Help us reach our 2021 fundraising goal by making a tax-deductible donation to FAN today! https://donatenow.networkforgood.org/1415005 Play Video Play Video 29:27 Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo's News Conference On Fluoride In Water Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo spoke in Winter Haven on Nov 22, 20224, saying all communities statewide should stop adding fluoride to drinking water. Play Video Play Video 02:49:31 An Inconvenient Tooth - Fluoride Documentary An Inconvenient Tooth is a documentary film about fluoride. It was released September 6th, 2012 at the City Hall in Portland, Oregon. http://AnInconvenientTooth.org http://Facebook.com/AnInconvenientTooth http://Twitter.com/intooth

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

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.