From Deb Krattiger

Monroe

To the Editor:

I would like to respond to the letter to the editor, “Be wary of pseudoscience data on Fluoride” submitted in last week’s paper.

Last month a California Judge ruled that fluoridization at current U.S. levels poses an “unreasonable risk” to the IQ of children. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen also ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) needs to enact a regulation that will eliminate the risk.

Following the ruling, the American Dental (ADA) lobbyists rushed to confirm their support of water fluoridation. However, Chen’s 80-page ruling summarizes and evaluates the extensive scientific data. The data include a key report researched and compiled over six years by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services’ National Toxicology Program (NTP), along with gold-standard epidemiological studies from the U.S., Mexico, Canada, and Europe. Although the ruling did not specify the exact level at which fluoridation causes brain damage, the levels in the U.S. water present an unreasonable risk, Chen found.

Just recently, the Cochrane Review published a systematic review of the literature on water fluoridation and cavities. The review found that adding fluoride to the water provides very limited dental benefits, especially compared to 50 years ago. Rather than a 25 percent in tooth decay in children and adults — a figure often cited by fluoride promoters — the review found that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay only by one quarter of one baby tooth at best. The evidence presented at trial, along with the NTP report, exposed the truth that there is scientific basis for the claim that fluoridation is safe for children.

Excerpt from the 80-page Federal court ruling, page 3: - There is little dispute in this suit that 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.

The ADA, which said there is “widespread misinformation circulating online and in social media around community water fluoridation” urged the public to be cautious of “pseudo-scientific information.” I would suggest that calling the National Toxicology Program, a U.S. federal court ruling, 10 consecutive (National Institutes of Health) studies, and journals like JAMA Pediatrics “misinformation” shows the disrespect the ADA has for the public.

It’s time to remove the fluoride from our water.