I am a physician practicing in Alton and my wife is a medical science writer and publisher of books on health and environment.  We attended the May 6^th meeting and presented our objections to fluoridation.   The currently available international scientific literature shows beyond any doubt that fluoridation is ineffective as a preventive measure against tooth decay and seriously harmful to the immune system and it is a known carcinogen at even minute levels.   We urged an open discussion of all the available information, especially also to the residents of Bolton , so that legally mandatory informed consent is observed. 

At this May 6 meeting Dr. D. McKeown, the Medical Officer of Health for the Region of Peel and primary author of the 2003 Children’s Dental Health Report, stated that it would reduce the incidence of cavities amongst the children of this area if the water was fluoridated.  The allegedly supporting evidence was very troubling indeed.

For example, he handed out a list of six so-called “myths” about fluoridation:  fluoride, according to Dr. McKeown, is  (1) not a by-product of synthetic fertilizers,  (2) is not contaminated with dangerous impurities,  (3) is not corrosive,  (4) is not a poison in low concentrations,  (5) is not used in rat poison, and  (6) does not cause osteoporosis, cancer, immune diseases, cognitive and neurological problems in children.  However, the safety data information published on the internet by all the manufacturers of the very fluoride used in municipal water systems state exactly the opposite on the first 3 “myths”.  As for the 4^th “myth”, standard poison manuals list fluoride as toxic even in low concentration, and regarding the fifth “myth”, chemical analyses readily available from the manufacturers of the home and garden various pest control products include fluoride as a main ingredient. 

Most troubling is the assertion that fluoride does not cause all those diseases (“myth” no 6).  Neither at this meeting nor in his report did Dr. McKeown provide even a shred of evidence to support his assertion that fluoride is safe or effective.  Not even one scientific source to support those alleged 6 myths was provided. Apparently, we are simply supposed to accept his unsubstantiated opinion on the basis of pure trust.  What completely astounded us was his bald assertion that the American Medical Association supports water fluoridation. Dr. Charles Gorden Heyd,  the AMA’s past president, recently said, “I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs; fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long-term basis.”  The current position of the AMA is that the safety of fluoride, at any dilution, cannot be proven.

Totally surprising is the fact that the Ontario Government’s 1999 commissioned Locker Report was not mentioned at all either.   That report came to the following cautious conclusions:

 “The magnitude of the effect…  is often not statistically significant, and may not be of clinical significance… Canadian studies do not provide systematic evidence that water fluoridation is effective in reducing decay in contemporary child populations.  The few studies of communities where fluoridation was withdrawn do not suggest significant increases in dental caries as a result.” (Page 4) “ The main limitations of current research on the effectiveness of water fluoridation are its exclusion of adults and elderly and failure to consider quality of life outcomes.  Since water fluoridation is a total population strategy, its benefits to the population as a whole need to be documented.”(Page 62)

In 1993 one of the most prestigious research institutions in the world, the American Academy of Sciences, recommended that research be done in those areas pertaining to fluoridation where gaps existed, i.e. from cancer to developmental problems. Now, the Academy is completing its comprehensive analysis and the report is due August 2005. Reports by this internationally recognized scientific body are fair, unbiased and reliable because no industry funding is ever involved in their research projects. All currently available international medical and toxicological research on fluoride in dentistry is available on www.flouridealert.org . 

University of Toronto professor of preventive dentistry, Dr. Hardy Limeback, said about the Peel Region’s report on dental health, that fluoridating the water here could only be kept to non-toxic levels if all residents were informed first that no child may use fouridated toothpaste and if it could be made sure that all soft drinks are also free of fluoride - pre-conditions that are clearly not possible.

At the very least one could expect the Town of Caledon to obey the Precautionary Principle of international law, to which Canada subscribes, and which would demand that in this case no steps be taken to fluoridate the water until the 2005 American Academy of Sciences’ report is published and residents are made aware of its conclusions. 

The observation, that the teeth of children exposed to fluoride are mottled but have less cavities, was first made around 1900 by dentist Dr. Frederick S. McKay in Colorado . Examination of the water led him to conclude that naturally occurring fluoride was the reason. Medical science was at that time not as advanced and the science of epidemiology was in its infancy.  It is disturbing to have the same simplistic association of fluoride and tooth decay presented as adequate a century later.  Most importantly, even the type of fluoride Dr. McKay studied is no longer the one that is now advocated for the same purpose.  Hence, fluoridation of water for prevention of tooth decay remains an unproven hypothesis – which is exactly why the worldwide data from the World Health Organization are consistently presented as being  inconclusive  -  in contrast to Dr. McKeown’s assertion. 

The Peel report assumes that lack of fluoridation is “the most likely cause” of the observed dental problems.   However, lack of fluoride has never been shown to be the cause of anything – dental health or any other health issue.  While fluorite (spelled with a “t”) is a naturally occurring substance in the earth’s mineral deposits, and as such might be biologically necessary, the fluoride under discussion is the by-product of a man-made substance, and NO man-made substance has ever been shown to be biologically necessary.  Fluoride is not a biologically necessary substance, such as selenium, iron etc. There are also no studies showing that areas where naturally occurring fluoride is lacking, produced any kind of health problems in the resident population.

During the discussion the question was raised by council members whether pesticides may have something to do with dental health.  Indeed, medical literature shows that pesticides and artificial fertilizers cause serious depletion of biologically necessary minerals without which teeth and bones in animals and humans cannot develop properly and become vulnerable to bacterial assaults etc.  The most serious depletion being in magnesium and bio-available calcium which now, according to EPA and EU reports, is depleted to the point where people in North America only get 40% of the international  RDA for magnesium.  As a consequence, the American Medical Association last June recommended that everybody – on conventionally or organically grown diets – needs to supplement with this and other minerals and vitamins in order to have at least the RDA’s.  This would be a measure the Region of Peel ought to look into and support, instead of adding a known poisonous substance to our water supply.

The acidity in the saliva which is a contributing factor in cavities is known to be caused by too much refined sugar in the diet.  Last April, the World Health Organization published a report on refined sugar and showed its causative links to dental health, diabetes, and obesity; the WHO called for a reduction in refined sugar for everybody by at least 30%.   Before deciding to use a known toxic substance such as fluoride, which is of uncertain relevance to tooth decay, a 100% harmless pilot project in Caledon would be easy to design and cheap: compare 100 volunteer children who eat no refined sugars for two years with 100 junk-food diet kids and compare their teeth at the end of that time period.  Acidity of saliva and number of caries could be measured at the beginning and end of the project.