"Medicine’s Response to the Changing Science on Fluoride Safety"
The National Toxicology Program
is part of the Public Health Service,
in partnership with the CDC, FDA, and NIH,
dedicated to the analysis of agents of concern
to identify any toxic effects.
How did the medical community respond to the draft conclusions
in their recent systematic review that concluded that
fluoride is to be presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental
hazard to humans,
based on studies showing lower IQ scores
among kids with higher fluoride exposure?
What do you do when current research
contradicts public practices,
when new evidence doesn't conform with existing beliefs?
Well, health authorities have continued to conclude
that fluoride is unequivocally safe,
despite the new studies in recent years
linking fluoride exposure in pregnancy
with adverse effects on fetal brain development.
There are still papers on how to "sell"
fluoridation of the water supply,
targeting social media
and the person-to-person spread of fluoride "misinformation."
Search engines are to be encouraged, at the very least,
to flag search engine results
that point to water fluoridation health "misinformation"
suggesting adverse effects.
In promoting support for community water fluoridation,
maybe we don't even want to proclaim its safety
for fear of raising questions about risks.
I mean, if you're saying it's safe,
then that begs the question, "Well, is it not safe?"
Maybe we shouldn't even talk about whether it's safe.
The tendency to ignore new evidence
that does not conform to widespread beliefs
may be impeding our response to early warnings
about fluoride as a potential developmental neurotoxin,
but some are just so fixed in their views
on fluoridation that they won't reassess their stance
no matter what the latest research might show.
Ironically, it was the antifluoridationists
who were accused of their "anti-scientific attitudes,"
but now it's the pro-fluoridationists.
One of the most facile pro-fluoridation arguments
I ran across is the suggestion
that fluoride can't be hurting IQs,
because over the last half century of fluoridation,
IQ scores have been going up rather than down.
The jaw-dropping irony is that
a substantial part of that rise may have been due
to the removal of another neurotoxic element, lead.
It's worth remembering
that the science surrounding the neurodevelopmental hazard
of low-level lead exposure was also bitterly contested
using the same kinds of arguments we see today
in the fluoridation debate.
A few short years before leaded gas
was effectively banned in the United States,
a meta-analysis of lead exposure and child IQ
only found 24 human studies, all cross-sectional,
with a typical associated loss in intelligence
of about four IQ points.
The current data suggest a similar IQ loss from fluoride
from an even stronger body of evidence.
A spokesperson for the American Dental Association
responded to the new data by pointing out
that some cities that have ended water fluoridation
saw an increase in cavities.
Okay, but that's kind of a strange response
to data suggesting the potential
for permanent brain damage in children.
I mean, I know they are the dental association,
but how could they so easily ignore the serious red flags
of potential neurotoxicity for cavity reduction?
This is not to say tooth decay isn't a serious health issue,
but there are ways to get the cavity-preventing benefits
of fluoride without the risks.
Since the primary benefits arise
from topical contact with our enamel,
but the primary risks arise from systemic absorption,
we can follow Europe's example and safely reap the rewards
using fluoride toothpaste and mouthwashes.
In Europe, 98 percent of the population
drink unfluoridated water.
Several countries, including France, Germany,
the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, banned fluoridation
decades ago in favor of fluoride toothpaste,
as more than ten years ago,
the official scientific committee on health risks
of the European Union concluded that topical application
of fluoride is most effective in preventing tooth decay
and that there appears to be no obvious advantage
in favor of fluoridating the water supply.