By Dr. Mercola

S.1310: Dietary Supplement Labeling Act of 2011, introduced at the end of June by U.S. Senator Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) is, using Byron J. Richards’ words, “an alarming regulatory nightmare that is trying to treat vitamins as if they are drugs.”

Its stated purpose is to:

“… improve the safety of dietary supplements by amending the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require manufacturers of dietary supplements to register dietary supplement products with the Food and Drug Administration and to amend labeling requirements with respect to dietary supplements.”

As is typical of most diabolical laws, it initially sounds harmless enough. But there’s more. Durbin’s bill goes hand-in-hand with new FDA regulations that amend the definitions for new dietary ingredients (NDI’s), and together, they can threaten your health and freedom of choice, and further serve to strengthen the fatally flawed paradigm of health and medicine.

We’ve seen proposed legislation that sorely threatens your health and well-being before, but this time they’re really trying to hit the alternative health field, and your right to take control of your own life, hard.

It’s Not about Safety, It’s about Profits

Whose profit, you might ask?

Why, the pharmaceutical industry, of course. Vitamins, minerals and herbal supplements have a tremendously safe track record. Drugs are known to cause well over 100,000 deaths per yearwhen taken as prescribed.

For comparison, look at the latest statistics available from the U.S. National Poison Data System, which covers acute poisonings. In 2007, 1,597 people reportedly died from drugs. Meanwhile there was not one single fatality caused by a vitamin or dietary mineral supplement that year. Yet, Durbin and the FDA want you to think that they’re just acting in your best interest. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Up to this point, the FDA has had to prove a supplement unsafe in order to take action against it, but now they want the supplement industry to prove the safety of what in many cases amount to food, before they can reach the market.

Why add an extremely costly testing and approval process for compounds that are inherently safe? Well, an obvious side effect of these proposed regulations will be the elimination of small and medium sized companies, which in turn will drive up costs while at the same time reduce your access to historically safe nutritional products. The end result is that fewer people will use supplements to improve their health; driving them back into the extremely profitable fold of conventional medicine and drugs.

Byron J. Richards writes:

“The elimination of health options is required for the control of a population, while the preservation of health freedom is a leading indicator of the overall freedom within a society… [T]he control of health options is as important as the control of food and money.

… Big Pharma influences Republicans by aligning itself as a corporate conglomerate that is too big to fail, one that should be free of prudent safety regulations or reduction in grotesquely inflated prices. It fights against drug safety at every turn, while at the same time lobbying to pass laws that lock in sales or eliminate its competition.

The media plays along, as Big Pharma is a wonderful source of advertising dollars that are in no small part made possible by taxpayer funding of Big Pharma drug sales. While Big Pharma sees many aspects of the dietary supplement industry as competition, it is also the case that many pharmaceutical companies are in some aspect of the dietary supplement industry, often as raw material suppliers.

Big Pharma does not want to see the dietary supplement industry eliminated, it wants to see the small and medium sized independent businesses in the dietary supplement industry eliminated and it wants to own the industry. Their key strategy to accomplish this at this time is to lobby to pass costly laws and regulations which they can comply to and which other smaller, independent companies cannot. “

The Second Part of an Orchestrated Attack

Back in the early 1990s, the FDA threatened the availability of dietary supplements to the point that consumers staged a massive revolt, which resulted in the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). The law specifically protects your access to dietary supplements by classifying them as foods, not food additives or drugs, and it grand-fathered in dietary supplements that were already in use as of 1994. Only novel ingredients introduced after October 15, 1994 are required to seek FDA approval.

Now, along with Durbin’s bill, the FDA has concocted new proposed mandates regarding the definition of a New Dietary Ingredient , known as NDI, that can be retroactively applied to products already on the market.

You can read the FDA Draft Guidance on New Dietary Ingredients (NDI’s) here. A detailed analysis of the FDA Draft Guidance is also available.

According to Richards:

“It is important to understand that this is a Durbin effort to ruin the dietary supplement industry, using both newly proposed legislation (S.1310) and retroactively redefining the DSHEA law through new FDA regulations to reflect what is being proposed in S.1310 – undermining the clear intent of the DSHEA law.

The DSHEA law intended consumers to have wide access to dietary supplements. Durbin is intent upon the opposite.” These regulations seek to change what was essentially a notification process into a costly approval process. The net effect of the regulations is to reclassify many nutritional compounds currently on the market as NDI.”

The DSHEA legislation states that:

• the Federal Government should not take any actions to impose unreasonable regulatory barriers limiting or slowing the flow of safe products and accurate information to consumers;
• dietary supplements are safe within a broad range of intake, and safety problems with the supplements are relatively rare;
• and legislative action that protects the right of access of consumers to safe dietary supplements is necessary in order to promote wellness

The proposed mandates directly contradict what DSHEA sought to prevent, and the FDA is using its authority in direct violation of Congressional intent. As explained in an article by Alliance for Health, the proposed regulations turn what was clearly supposed to be a pre-market notification system into a pre-approval system, just like that of drugs. As a result, dietary supplements that have been freely available for nearly two decades can be forced off the market until they receive NDI approval. And the NDI approval process is a lengthy affair that may take months or years to complete, and cost a small fortune.

What might make an “old” ingredient “new,” under the new regulation?

The methods of production and extraction, for example… As bizarre as that sounds, the mere fact that a product is being extracted or produced by improved means compared to methods used in the past, could reclassify any grandfathered nutrient as an NDI that would now have to undergo the same type of safety testing and approval process as a drug.

Ridiculously Excessive Safety Testing Would be Required Under New Rules

If the FDA and Durbin get their way, once a supplement is taken off the market pending approval as an NDI, the manufacturer would have to conduct outrageously expensive studies using abnormally high doses—in some situations multiplied by a “safety factor” up to 2,000-times the recommended dosage on a per product basis. In fact, some of the safety thresholds are in excess of those required by pharmaceutical drugs despite studies showing supplements are FAR safer than drugs!

An estimated 106,000 hospitalized patients die each year from drugs that, by medical standards, are properly prescribed and administered, and two million more suffer serious side effects. How does the safety of supplements compare?

• In 2001, 84.6 percent of all substances implicated in fatal poisonings were pharmaceutical drugs, according to that year’s American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) report. This compares with 0.8 percent for all dietary supplements combined, even including substances such as dinitrophenol, a dangerous (and illegal) substance banned in 1938, as well as the central nervous system stimulant Ma Huang (Ephedra).

  ONE drug alone, the anti-asthma drug theophylline, which was responsible for 15 deaths that year, amounted to 66 percent more than all the available dietary supplements combined.

• According to CDC mortality data for 2005, prescription drugs killed more than 33,500 people that year, second only to car accidents. That same year, the American Association of Poison Control Centers reported 27 deaths that were associated with dietary supplements (one of which was reportedly due to Ephedra; the herbal supplement banned the year before for being too dangerous. In 2005, low-dose Ephedra was also subsequently banned).

Now, since dietary supplements are not patented drugs with outrageous profit margins, very few supplement makers will be able to afford the required safety studies, which could run in the millions of dollars per ingredient! Furthermore, the manufacturer is not the only one that would have to seek approval—every distributor that wants to use the NDI would have to file a separate NDI application.

Get Involved NOW!

Folks, this is not the time to doze off on the sidelines. Durbin’s bill and the FDA proposed mandates for NDI’s are a poorly veiled attempt to usurp your rights and health freedom. As Richards writes:

“This chess game is being played with a pathetic opening strategy based on imaginary safety problems. The gambit requires an ignorant public for its success.“

It’s time to prove them wrong yet again, just like we did back in 1994. The open comment period on the FDA’s proposed guidelines expires on September 30, 2011. It’s vitally important for everyone to file a written protest and not allow them to rewrite the intent of the DSHEA law. Durbin’s bill and the FDA proposal pose a direct threat to your health and longevity, so please, step up and defend your right to continue using supplements and to gain access to new natural ingredients with demonstrated efficacy by following the steps outlined below:

1. Write to your State Senators and tell them to beware of S.1310 and to vote NO on it.

2. Log on to www.lef.org/lac to send a written petition to the FDA, or use the sample letter provided below. Print out this petition and add any words you choose and fax this to the FDA at the following number: (301) 443-9767
3. Call FDA at 1-888-723-3366 and read this petition to personnel at the Office of Nutrition, Labeling and Dietary Supplements
4. Send a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by logging in to lef.org/FOIA to find out what pharmaceutical interests are behind these absurd proposals that will cause the cost of what supplements remain on the free market to skyrocket in price. (Sample letter is also provided below.)
5. Send a letter to your Representative and two Senators demanding the FDA immediately withdraw their oppressive proposed guidelines pending rationale discussions with those who depend on dietary supplements to protect their health and livelihood. You can do this easily by logging into www.lef.org/lac, or use the sample letter below.

Empower yourself today. Recall how Consumers revolted back in 1994 and the result was a glorious victory over FDA tyranny!

Let your voice be heard by logging on to www.lef.org/lac today and exercising your right to petition the government against these serious violations of the law and scientific principle.

SAMPLE FDA PETITION:

PLEASE NOTE, it is best if you customize or change the letter below to state your specific concerns and beliefs as it will be better. If you are unable to then you can send the one below but it will work MUCH better if you can customize it.

TO: Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition

Office of Nutrition, Labeling and Dietary Supplements

Food and Drug Administration

5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.HFS-009

College Park, MD 20740-3835

Telephone:1-888-723-3366

Fax: (301) 443-9767

On July 11, 2011, President Obama issued an Executive Order that requires the FDA to:

1. Make regulatory decisions only after consideration of their costs and benefits (both quantitative and qualitative).
2. Review significant regulations to make sure they are not excessively burdensome.
3. Develop and release to the public a plan within 120 days under which the FDA will periodically review its existing significant regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency’s regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.

I am petitioning the FDA regarding your draft guidance on New Dietary Ingredient notifications for dietary supplements (known as Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues).

I demand that you immediately disregard all the proposals you outlined and instead consider a rationale and scientific approach to regulating new dietary ingredients that will be submitted to you by the Alliance for Natural Health within the next 180 days.

Your proposed guidelines on New Dietary Ingredients will cause the price of my supplements to skyrocket and some of these life-sustaining supplements are likely to disappear altogether.

This is not acceptable, especially when there are no significant reports of adverse reactions to the supplements you plan to ban.

In as much as your threat to ban my access to new dietary ingredients is causing me great anxiety which is injurious to my health, I insist that you immediately put your proposed new rules on hold for a 180 day period so that the Alliance for Natural Health can draft guidelines that will protect me against unsafe ingredients without destroying my access to low cost effective nutrients.

Sincerely,

Name___________Address____________City___________ST____ Zip___

SAMPLE LETTER TO CONGRESS:

The Honorable ______________________, Washington, DC

In direct violation of the law, the FDA is threatening to ban my access to new dietary supplements.

The FDA defines dietary supplements as being “new” if they were introduced after October 15, 1994. That means that nutrients that I have been safely using over the course of three decades will be subject to FDA’s oppressive policies that mandate costly animal testing, which translates into forced withdrawal from the market, and higher prices for me if the supplement is ever allowed to be sold again.

The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 states that:

“The Federal Government should not take any actions to impose unreasonable regulatory barriers limiting or slowing the flow of safe products and accurate information to consumers.”

It says that Congress finds that:

“dietary supplements are safe within a broad range of intake, and safety problems with the supplements are relatively rare.”

And it says that:

“legislative action that protects the right of access of consumers to safe dietary supplements is necessary in order to promote wellness.”

This draft guidance does the exact opposite of what Congress intended. It imposes unreasonable barriers that limit and slow the flow of safe products and accurate information to consumers. I call upon Congress to:

1. Uphold the landmark legislation it passed seventeen years ago, and to direct the FDA to revise its New Dietary Ingredient draft guidelines to reflect DSHEA’s (and Congress’s) stated values and goals.
2. Vote against the newly introduced Dietary Supplement Labeling Act as this would give the FDA even greater arbitrary powers to remove safe dietary supplements from the market, which will a profoundly adverse impact on this nation’s health.

All of these proposals results in wasteful federal spending, while imposing a massive new “regulatory tax” on consumers and the vitamin industry.

Kindly let me know what actions you are taking in response to the urgent issues raised in this letter.

Sincerely,

Name______________Address____________City___________ST____ Zip___

SAMPLE FOIA REQUEST:

Below is a sample letter that you can use to select one or more of the 19 listed requests for records, or create your own individual request. You can then copy, edit, print, and send this to the FDA at the address on the letter. Please note that you are committing to paying a $25.00 charge if FDA agrees to respond to your request. The more records you request, the greater the FDA fees are likely to be. If you choose to file a Freedom of Information Act request, please read this letter carefully.

Date: _____________
Food and Drug Administration

Division of Freedom of Information

Office of Shared Services

Office of Public Information and Library Services

12420 Parklawn Drive

ELEM-1029

Rockville, MD 20857

Re: Freedom of Information Act Request

Dear FOIA staff:

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §552, we wish to have copies at the earliest possible time, of any and all public records in the custody of the Food and Drug Administration that relate to the “Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues” released in July 2011.

I specifically request:

1. All records relating to the expenditure of time and money by FDA personnel (and outside consultants) in researching, drafting and promulgating the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
2. All records relating to communication of FDA personnel with pharmaceutical company representatives (including lobbyists) that in any way relate to the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
3. All records relating to communication of FDA personnel with any member of Congress or Congress as a whole that in any way relate to the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
4. All records relating to communication of FDA personnel with any member of private industry that in any way relate to the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
5. All records relating to communication of FDA personnel with any scientific advisory committee, scientific advisory board, or individual scientist that in any way relate to the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
6. All records relating to communication of FDA personnel with FDA’ General Counsel’s office, or outside legal counsel that in any way relate to the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
7. All records relating to FDA’s evaluation of safety issues relating to new dietary ingredients that in any way relate to the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
8. All records relating to FDA’s decision to impose barriers that limit the ability of consumers to access new dietary ingredients that in any way relate to the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
9. All records relating to communication of FDA personnel with other FDA personal that in any way relate to the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
10. All records relating to communication of FDA personnel with personal from the Department of Health and Human Services that in any way relate to the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
11. All records relating to communication of FDA personnel with personal from the U.S. Treasury Department that in any way relate to the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
12. All records relating to the cost benefit analysis performed by FDA or outside consultants that in any way relate to the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
13. All records relating to financial estimates made by FDA personnel or outside consultants relating to the cost to the FDA of administering the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
14. All records relating to financial estimates made by FDA personnel or outside consultants relating to the cost burden of the dietary supplement industry in complying with the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
15. All records relating to what human and other resources within the FDA would be utilized to oversee and administer the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
16. All records relating to what human and other resources within the FDA would be moved or transferred from other positions within the FDA in order to oversee and administer the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
17. All records relating to communication of FDA personnel with the Department of Justice that in any way relate to the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
18. All records relating to the steps taken by the FDA to ensure the Administrative Procedures Act was fully complied with as it relates to the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.
19. All records relating to the steps taken by the FDA to ensure that provisions in the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 was fully adhered to as it relates to the Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues.

I agree to pay any and all expenses up to $25.00 related to this request. If you anticipate that the nature or volume of the records requested is such as to require extensive use of information technology, resources, or extensive clerical or supervisory assistance by personnel of the Food and Drug Administration, and such expenses would exceed $25.00, I would appreciate being advised thereof in advance of the assembly of those records and the estimated charge in excess of $25.00, if any, for doing so.

If the FDA asserts an exemption from Public Records Act disclosure of any records falling within the scope of the above request, we request that it include in the records inspected, or otherwise make available to us as soon as possible and in no event no later than the date of the initial production of the records, a reasonable description of the nature of the records for which an exemption or exemptions are claimed and the statutory or other legal bases under any such exemption is claimed.

I would appreciate your contacting me, at ___________ at the earliest possible time to advise us of when the FDA will make the requested copies available.

Please call if you have any questions regarding this request.

Sincerely,

(NaturalNews) Soy, once touted as a medical miracle, has been outed. Ninety-one percent of the soy we consume is tainted by the filth of the GMO machine, literally the most quietly kept epidemic of our lifetime. Soy makes up a large portion of the diet for the chickens, pigs, and cows some of us eat. Even the vegetarian/vegan community is exposed as a number of meat substitutes list soy as a main ingredient. Soy and soybean oil have wiggled their way into a wide array of processed foods including salad dressings, peanut butter, tamari, mayonnaise, crackers, baby formula, baked good mixes, textured vegetable protein, and the list goes on. So unless you are eating anorganicversion of any of the above, there is a good chance you are exposing yourself toGMO soy.

Genetically engineeredcropsare destroying theenvironment, the health of indigenous communities, and ultimately ourhealthas end of the chainconsumers. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine has reported a number ofstudies. Their results? Frightening. Think major issues like infertility (http://www.responsibletechnology.or…), immune problems, accelerated aging, and even changes in the cellular structure of major organs (http://www.responsibletechnology.org/). Also, as a result of theantibioticresistant genes within GEfood, they are the highly suspected culprits behind the new “superbug.” The animals involved in the studies ended up deformed, sterile, and dead.

Children are the most susceptible to these harmful effect, since they are constantly in a state of high growth; parents should take care. GMOfoods, and especiallysoy, have been tied to an increase in allergies, asthma, and a propensity to get antibiotic resistant infections.

None of this would surprise any of the individuals in variousSouth Americacountries that live near GM crops. South America is the world’s largest provider of soy (http://www.naturalnews.com/031382_G…).

A recent story in theUK Telegraph(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ea…) revealed that the herbicides used on GM soy are so toxic that direct contact oftenresultsin severe illness and sometimesdeath. Petrona Villasboa is one of those that has faced direct loss. Her son was accidenatlly sprayed by one of the machines that are often spraying Monsanto’s Roundup on the surrounding crops. Silvino Talavera died that same day – and it was a horrible death (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ea…). That’s not all – Non GMOfarmersare being displaced, and those that stay run a calculated risk. Mothers living close to GM farmland are twice as likely to have a fetus with a birth deformity.

The industry doesn’t want this information out there.Monsantoprovides over 90 percent ofGMOsoy seeds and related herbicides to farmers worldwide (http://www.smdp.com/Articles-c-2011…).

Agent Orange was one of Monsanto’s first herbicides and the resulting effect to U.S soldiers and Vietnamese citizens was reprehensible(http://www.organicconsumers.org/mon…).

Scientist who push to hard to get a widespread scientific inquiry about the devastating effects of GE foods have had subtle and not-so-subtle pressure applied and been forced to back off their findings (http://www.responsibletechnology.or…).

Just as efforts are underway to assist these farmers in seeing the benefits of growing organic food as a means of survival and commerce, the end consumer must also make a change. Soy purchases must be viewed in a whole new light. The best way to protect your family from these potential harmful effects is to remove it from yourdietor stick to strictly organic soy and organicprocessed foods.

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/032370_GM_soy_children.html#ixzz1avpKM8zI

For the past several years scientists have been alarmed by the mysterious collapse of bee populations worldwide. Known as “Colony Collapse Disorder”, massive bee die-offs  discovered by beekeepers has resulted in the loss of as much as 30% of the commercial honeybee population in the U.S. since 2006. 99% of all wild bees in the northern hemisphere died in the 1990s.

Last month a leaked EPA memo uncovered proof that the U.S. government approved a pesticide toxic to bees based on “fatally flawed” science and they have no intention of banning it even though it is harming the U.S. bee population. Incredibly, beekeepers and scientists around the world are pointing to Bayer’s clothianidin as a leading factor in colony collapse and 4 European countries have already banned it. Join us in telling the EPA to immediately ban the sale and use of clothianidin until proper tests can be conducted.

http://fdn.actionkit.com/cms/sign/save_the_bees

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building, MC 1101A 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington DC 20004

Dear Administrator Jackson:

Clothianidin is a widely used pesticide linked to a severe and dangerous decline in honeybee populations. We are writing to request that you take urgent action to stop the use of this toxic chemical. As we are sure you appreciate, the failure of the agency to provide adequate protection for pollinators creates an emergency with imminent hazards: Food production, public health and the environment are all seriously threatened, and the collapse of the commercial honeybee-keeping industry would result in economic harm of the highest magnitude for U.S. agriculture.

The science shows that clothianidin-contaminated pollen and nectar presents an imminent hazard. Because the hazards to honeybee health are present within registered use parameters, it is clear that label changes and use restrictions will not offer adequate protection. We therefore urge the agency to issue a stop use order immediately. Our nation cannot afford, and the environment cannot tolerate another growing season of clothianindin use.

In addition, because this problem reflects an overuse of the conditional registration program, we urge you to set an immediate moratorium on the use of such registrations until the program is fully evaluated for compliance with its underlying statutory responsibilities. The conditional registration of clothianidin in 2003 with outstanding data critical to its safety assessment represents a failure that could and should have been avoided.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter,

[Your Name]

NEW YORK, Aug. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The medical and public health community is shocked by the news that young American girls are reaching puberty at ages as young as 7 years (1). However, according to Paul Connett, PhD, Director of the Fluoride Action Network, “If fluoride’s dangers had not been taken off the scientific radar screen by the US Public Health Service when it prematurely endorsed fluoridation in 1950, maybe key warning signals would not have been ignored for over 50 years.”

In 1956, it was reported, after one of the first fluoridation trials (1945-55) had been completed in Newburgh/Kingston NY, that young girls were starting to menstruate on average five months earlier in fluoridated Newburgh compared to non-fluoridated Kingston (2). This result was ignored and there was no follow-up research.

In 1997, Dr. Jennifer Luke in the UK, as part of her PhD thesis (3), reported that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland. The pineal gland produces the important hormone melatonin which acts like a biological clock. One of the processes it is thought to control is the onset of puberty. Luke published this work in 2001 but the result has been ignored and no fluoridating country has attempted to repeat her findings, something which would be easy to do if there was the will to do so.

Luke also found that animals exposed to fluoride had lowered melatonin levels and showed signs of reaching puberty earlier. Again this result has been ignored and no fluoridating government has attempted to repeat Luke’s work.

Connett says, “We are not saying that exposure to fluoride is a definite cause of early puberty in girls, but not pursuing this possibility is bad for science, bad for medicine and bad for public health.”

Simply put: if you don’t look, you don’t find. The medical community is being kept in the dark on the possibility that fluoride, a highly toxic substance, which is deliberately added to the drinking water of 184 million Americans daily, is causing a variety of harms from the subtle to the serious.

Connett says, “Apparently, it has become more important for the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies of the US Department of Health and Human Services to protect this outdated, unethical, ineffective and the dangerous practice than it is to protect the health of the American people. Key research is not being done. Doctors are not being warned.”

This and other tragic aspects of the US’s peculiar obsession with fluoridation are to be documented in an upcoming book co-authored by Connett. The book, titled “The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep it There,” will be published by Chelsea Green in early October of this year.

Index of Fluorinated Pharmaceuticals

This listing represents the beginning of an ongoing project, which aims to provide detailed information on fluorinated pharmaceuticals, listing them by category and providing both pharmacological (generic) name and commercial name.

When in its final form, this listing will be user-friendly for people seeking basic information about the prescription drugs they are taking, or for researchers who seek a more detailed summary of the relevant pharmacological data of each drug, including each drug’s metabolic fate (F ion release) as it impacts the drug’s overall toxicity.

At the present time, we are posting just the basic listing of drugs by their category, and generic and common names. This listing is a work in progress, but we are starting with enough of the most popular drugs that this list can be useful even in its present form.

This list is only to be used to identify drugs that are fluorinated. It is not to be used to determine any drug’s potential for toxicity.

It is also important to emphasize that fluorinated drugs represent a different category of fluorine compounds (organofluorines) than the fluorine compounds (inorganic fluorides) used in dentistry and water fluoridation. It is unclear to what extent, if any, the fluorinated drugs listed here may increase the body burden of inorganic fluoride. This uncertainty is amplified by the lack of available data from the pharmaceutical companies.

It is the position of the FTRC that more research be undertaken to clarify the potential for organofluorine compounds to metabolize into inorganic fluoride in the body. FTRC’s concern is based on recent research showing that some fluorinated drugs (e.g., many anesthetics) may in fact increase the body’s burden of fluoride. It is imperative, therefore, that additional research be conducted to determine how many other organofluorine drugs, and which ones, result in increased inorganic fluoride exposure.

source: Fluoride Toxicity Research Collaborative (FTRC)

	This table is for reference only and gives a general idea as to the high fluoride content in some foods and beverages.

	BEVERAGES:
	Juices

	6.8mg/l Gerber’s White Grape Juice #3 0.98 – 1.20mg/l Minute Maid OJ #6,#7 3.0mg/l Gerber’s Graduate Berry Juice #6 0.78mg/l Dole Pineapple #7 >0.6mg/l Prune Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Cranberry Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Pear Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Red Grape Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Cherry Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Apple Grape Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Apple Juice #13

	Soft Drinks

	0.82 -0.98mg/l Coca Cola Classic #6,#7 1.12mg/l Diet Coke #8 0.29mg/l Snapple #7 0.73mg/l Sprite #8 0.85mg/l Hawaiian Punch #8 0.45mg/l Hansen’s Soda #7 0.37mg/l Capri Sun #7 0.79mg/l Publix Orange Juice #8 0.44mg/l Gatorix Punch Concent. #8 0.56mg/l Lipton Ice Tea #8

Tea see also: Green Tea Article (L=Leafs, P=Prepared) UK TEAS

Iced Tea

180.16mg/kg Coarse Tea(L) #19 72.62-89.02mg/kg Green Tea(L) #19 71.11mg/kg Refined Green Tea(L) #19 30-340 mg/kg Black Tea(16 samples) #20 4.57mg/l Tea (P) #17 1.01-5.20mg/l De-caffeinated Teas(P) #21 2.58-3.69mg/l Milk Tea(fr.Brick Tea) #23 77mg/kg Pu’er Brick Tea (L) #24 441mg/kg Bianxiao Brick Tea(L) #24 6.0-6.9mg/kg Herbal Teas (L) #20 7.8mg per cup 1 Cup Black Tea (P) #16 15.6mg/L “Wisdom of the Ancients” Instant Green Tea (P) #37 2.95mg/L Dr. Oetker Black Tea (P) #38 3.99mg/L Apicha Black Tea (P) #38

	Fruit & Vegetables

	0.3 – 13mg/kg Potatoes #12 22mg/kg Potato Waste #30 0.2 – 70.0 mg/kg Spinach #12 14.0mg/kg Rice #12 14.0mg/kg Peas #12 8.2mg/kg Yams #4 2.10mg/kg Corn #4 17.7mg/kg Beets #4 0.205mg 1 Cup Cooked Kale #16 0.180mg 1 Cup Cooked Spinach #16 1mg 1 Medium Apple #33 125 – 250 mg/kg Alfalfa #36

	Sugar & Substitutes

	13.0 mg/kg Sugar #5 10.0ppm Fructooligosaccharides #5 12.0ppm Polydextrose #5 8.0ppm Sorbitol #5

	Meat

	9.0-14.0mg/kg Mech.De-bond Pork #11 2.0-3.0 mg/kg Hand De-boned Pork #11 14.0-42mg/kg Mech.De-boned Beef #11 2.0-4.0mg/kg Hand De-boned Beef #11 1.0mg/kg Chicken Skin #13 1.23mg/kg Cooked Veal #17 1.11mg One Big Mac #1

	Dairy

	0.72mg/l Lucerne 2%Milk #7 0.074mg 1 Cup Nonfat Milk #16 1.50mg/kg Butter #4 1.62mg/kg Cheese #4

	Fish

	61.0mg/kg Canned Sardines #1 61.73mg/kg Shrimp #19 3.36mg/kg Shellfish #17 4.57mg/kg Some Canned Fish #17 26.0mg/kg Mackerel #4

Water

SEE ALSO: F- in Mineral Waters

	0.7-1.2mg/l Tap Water in fl.areas 0.21mg/l Gerolsteiner Wasser #9 8.5mg/l Vichy Water #10 0.05mg/l Reverse Osmosis Water #9

Cereals

SEE ALSO: Fluoride in Cereals

	2.1mg/kg Kellogg’s Fruit Loops #6 1.02mg/kg Cooked Wheat Cereal #17 7.2mg/kg Wheat #4 9.6mg/kg Shredded Wheat #41

Infant Foods

See also: Formula/Soy Unfluoridated Area Fluoridated Area

	Mixed Cereal 0.93ppm 3.85ppm #32 Oatmeal Cereal 0.98ppm 4.87ppm #32 Barley Cereal 1.99ppm 4.30ppm #32 Rice Cereal 2.11ppm 6.35ppm #32

	0.01-8.38mg/kg 238 Infant Foods #29 1.08-2.68mg/l Soy-based Infant Formula #31 0.024-0.172mg/l Breastmilk (area w/0.7ppm in tap water) #22

	Strained Meats

	Chicken w/broth 5.29ppm Range 1.94-10.64ppm #32 Turkey w/broth 0.39ppm Range 0.34-0.43ppm #32

	Other

	250 – 765mg/kg Soil #39 44.0-220.0mg/kg Dolomite #5 0.66-6.8mg/kg 10 Table Salt Varieties #1 7.0mg/kg Sea Salt #1 1.36mg/kg Peanuts #4 3mg 1 Teaspoon Bone Meal #18 200 – 350 ppm Fluoridated salt #40 231 – 310 ppm “Himalaya Salt” #40

	SEE ALSO: Salt Fluoridation

	130.0-160mg/kg Gelatin #15 328 mg/kg Super Kelp Tablets #35

	Dental Products

	1920mg/kg Aquafresh For Kids #6 6,000-12,000ppm Topical Fluoride Gel #23 500-1,500ppm Most Toothpaste #23 12,300ppm Radent Prophy Paste #26 12,300ppm Topex Fluoride Foam #27 2000ppm School-based Oral Mouthrinse Program #28 60,000-120,000ppm Silver Fluoride Solutions #23

	Permissable Cryolite Content Application Federal Register Cryolite (Sodiumfluoaluminate)=>Fluorine=54.3% see also: Pesticides

Proposed

Current

	45mg/kg 7mg/kg Cabbage #14 95mg/kg 7mg/kg Citrus Fruits #14 35mg/kg 7mg/kg Collards #14 30mg/kg 7mg/kg Eggplant #14 180mg/kg 7mg/kg Lettuce, head #14 40mg/kg 7mg/kg Lettuce, leaf #14 10mg/kg 7mg/kg Peaches #14 55mg/kg none Raisins #14 30mg/kg 7mg/kg Tomatoes #14 45mg/kg 7mg/kg Tomato Paste #14

	References
	#1 – Siebert & Trautna, Dept Expt Dentistry, Univ Würzburg, Germany. “Z. Ernaehrungswiss. 24 (1985) pp. 54-66″. [Abstract:”Fluoride content of selected human food, pet food and related materials”, Fluoride 19(3):152-153 (1986) #2 – Walters CB – Journal of Sci Food Agric 34:523-8(1983) #3 -  Jan G. Stannard, et al. “Fluoride Levels and Fluoride Contamination of Fruit Juices,” Journal of Pediatric Dentistry, 16(1):38-40, (1991) #4 -  Leading Edge Research Group #5 -  Lab tests , courtesy Cathy J.Rookard, Director, ACIDD (Association for  Children and Infants with Digestive Disorders) #6 -  Fluoride Risk Assessment Symposium in San Diego, June 19-21,1998;(local media conducted an analysis of fluoride content in some foods) #7 -  Lab Tests, San Jose, California (non-fluoridated area) #8 -  Lab Tests, Jupiter, Florida (non-fluoridated area) #9 -  Label(Canada) #10- Lantz O, Jouvin MH, De Vernejoul MC, Druet P – “Fluoride-induced chronic renal failure”  Am J Kidney Dis  10:2, 136-9 (1987) #11 – Field RA, Kruggel WG, Riley ML – J. Animal Science 43 ,755 (1976) #12 – Bredemann G – Biochemie und Physiologie des Fluors und der industriellen Fluor-Rauchschaeden. Berlin, (1956) #13 – Journal of the American Dental Association (Heilman, et al.,July 1997) #14 – Federal Register: August 7, 1997(Volume 62, #152) (PF-750;FRL-5727-3) #15 – Kumpulainen, J.,Koivistoinen,P.:Residue Reviews 68 p. 37 (1977) #16 – BabyCenter Editorial Team w/ Medical Advisory Board (http://www.babycenter.com/refcap/674.html#3) #17 – Dabeka WD, McKenzie AD – “Survey  of lead, cadmium, fluoride, nickel, and cobalt in food composites and estimation of dietary   intakes of these elements by Canadians in 1986-1988”  Journal of AOAC International  78 :4,  897 -909  (1995) #18 – Label, Kal-Mart Meal Powder #19 – Asanami S, Tanabe Y, Koga H, Takaesu Y – “Fluoride Contents in Tea and Sakura Shrimp In Relation To Other Inorganic Constituents” Shikwa Gakuho,  89(8):1407-12 (1989) #20 – Nabrzyski M, Garjewska R – “Aluminum and Fluoride in Hospital Daily Diets and in Teas” Z Lebensm Unters Forsch 201 (4):307-10 (1995) #21 – Chan JT, Koh SH – “Fluoride content in caffeinated, decaffeinated and herbal teas” Caries Res 30(1):88-92 (1996) #22 – Latifah R,Razak IA – “Fluoride levels in mother’s milk” J Pedod 13(2):149-54 (1989) #23 -Gotjamanos T, Afonso F – “Unacceptably high levels of fluoride in commercial preparations of silver fluoride”  Dent J 42(1):52-3 (1997) #24 – Cao J, Zhao Y, Liu JW -  “Safety evaluation and fluorine concentration of Pu’er brick tea and Bianxiao brick tea” Food Chem Toxicol 36(12):1061-3 (1998) #25 – Cao J, Zhao Y, Liu J – “Brick tea consumption as the cause of dental  fluorosis among children from Mongol, Kazak and Yugu  populations in China” Food Chem Toxicol 35(8):827-33 (1997) #26 – http://www.pascaldental.com/Fluoride.htm #27 – http://www.sultandental.com/PGflfoam.htm #28 – Oxford County Board of Health, Community Dental Services at (519)539-6121/ 1- 800-755-0394http://www.ocl.net/oxf/ocbh/dnt-rins.html #29 – Heilmann JR, Kiritsy MC, Levy SM, Wefel JS – “Fluoride Concentrations of Infant Foods” JADA 857 (1997) #30 – Federal Register: March 12, 1997; Volume 62, Number 48, Page 11437-11441 #31 – Silva M, Reynolds EC – “Fluoride Content of Infant Formulae in Australia” Aust Dent J 41(1):37-42 (1996) #32 – Singer L, Ophaug R – “Total Fluoride Intake Of Infants” Pediatrics 63, p.460 (1979) #33 -Waldbott GL, Burgstahler AW, McKinney HL – “Fluoridation:The Great Dilemma” Coronado Press (1978) #35 -Trautner, K et al – “Die Bewertung der Fluoridzufuhr mit der Nahrung. Studien zur Bioverfuegbarkeit” Dtsch. Zahnaerztl.Z.38:50-53 (1983) #36 – Milhaud G, Riviere F, Enriquez B – “Experimental study of fluorosis in lambs” Ann Rech Vet 6(4):369-77 (1985) #37 – PFPC 2004 – Norwest Labs, Langley, British Columbia, Canada #38 – Buzalaf MAR, Bastos JRM, Granjeiro JM, Levy FM, Cardoso VE da S, Rodrigues MHC – “Fluoride content of several brands of teas and juices found in Brazil and risk of dental fluorosis” Rev Fac Odontol Bauru 10(4):263-267 (2002) #39 – Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft  (2000) #40 – PFPC – Salt Fluoridation (2003) #41 – PFPC – Fluoride in Cereals (2001)

Lettuce……………….. 8ppm
Parsley………………. 7.8ppm
Stinging Nettle……… 7.8ppm
Spinach……………….. 5.7ppm
Dill, garden Dill… …..5.3ppm
Allspice………………..5ppm
Clover Pepper………..5ppm
Jamaica pepper………5ppm
Pimenta………………. 5ppm
Bitter melon, Sorosi 4.8ppm
Rhubarb………………. 4ppm
Pistachio……………… 3.8ppm
Black Currant……….. 2.8ppm
Coconut……………….. 2.7ppm
Cauliflower………….. 2.5ppm
Cabbage,
Red cabbage
White Cabbage………..2.5 ppm
Apple
(Malus domestica BORKH.)… 2.1ppm
Ben Nut, Drumstick Tree, Horseradish Tree…. 4ppm
Black bean, Garden bean,
Green bean String bean……… 2ppm
Ginger………. 2ppm
Cloudberry… 1.9ppm
Carrot………. 1.8ppm
Red Currant, White Currant.. 1.8ppm
Brazilnut………………………. 1.7ppm
Tomato (Miller)…….1.7ppm
Pecan………………….1.6ppm
Black Walnut…………1.6ppm
Dog Rose, Dobbrier, Rose…. 1.5ppm
Rown Berry………. 1.5ppm
Cashew………1.4ppm
Shagbark Hickory…… 1.3ppm
Almond………….1.3ppm
English filbert …..1.2ppm
Butternut…… 1.1ppm
Bell pepper, Cheery Pepper,
Cone Pepper, Green Pepper,
Paprika, Sweet Pepper…… 1ppm
Pea…….. 1ppm
Mandarin, Tangerine…..1ppm
Gooseberry….1ppm
Peach ….1ppm
Onion…. 1ppm
Strawberry…. 1ppm

Source: Jim Duke, U.S. Agricultural Research Service 1992 http://www.ars-grin.gov/duke/

More:
http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/fluoride/fluoridetoo-14.html#P1425_142839

Key Findings - Tooth Decay Trends in Fluoridated vs. Unfluoridated Countries

In the second half of the 20th century, a steep decline in tooth decay occurred among children in the United States. Proponents of water fluoridation have long claimed that this reduction in tooth decay is primarily the result of adding fluoride to water.

When the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) nominated water fluoridation as one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century, it published a graph (see Figure 1), which showed the reduction of cavities in US children coupled with the increase in water systems that have been fluoridated since the 1960′s. The CDC referred to the graph with the statement:

“as a result [of water fluoridation], dental caries declined precipitously during the second half of the 20th century.”

However, what the CDC failed to mention is that similar declines in tooth decay have occurred in virtually every western country, most of which do notfluoridate water (see Figure 2).

DMFT (Decayed, Missing & Filled teeth) Status for 12 year olds by Country
- World Health Organization Data (2004) -

Excerpts from the Scientific Literature -
“Universal Decline in Tooth Decay” in Western World Irrespective of Water Fluoridation: (back to top)

“Graphs of tooth decay trends for 12 year olds in 24 countries, prepared using the most recent World Health Organization data, show that the decline in dental decay in recent decades has been comparable in 16 nonfluoridated countries and 8 fluoridated countries which met the inclusion criteria of having (i) a mean annual per capita income in the year 2000 of US$10,000 or more, (ii) a population in the year 2000 of greater than 3 million, and (iii) suitable WHO caries data available. The WHO data do not support fluoridation as being a reason for the decline in dental decay in 12 year olds that has been occurring in recent decades.”
SOURCE: Neurath C. (2005). Tooth decay trends for 12 year olds in nonfluoridated and fluoridated countries. Fluoride 38:324-325.

“It is remarkable… that the dramatic decline in dental caries which we have witnessed in many different parts of the world has occurred without the dental profession being fully able to explain the relative role of fluoride in this intriguing process. It is a common belief that the wide distribution of fluoride from toothpastes may be a major explanation, but serious attempts to assess the role of fluoridated toothpastes have been able to attribute, at best, about 40-50% of the caries reduction to these fluoride products. This is not surprising, if one takes into account the fact that dental caries is not the result of fluoride deficiency.”
SOURCE: Aoba T, Fejerskov O. (2002). Dental fluorosis: chemistry and biology. Critical Review of Oral Biology and Medicine 13: 155-70.

“A very marked decline in caries prevalence [in Europe] was seen in children and adolescents…The number of edentulous adults in Europe has also been declining considerably.”
SOURCE: Reich E. (2001). Trends in caries and periodontal health epidemiology in Europe. International Dentistry Journal 51(6 Suppl 1):392-8.

“The caries attack rate in industrialized countries, including the United States and Canada, has decreased dramatically over the past 40 years.”
SOURCE: Fomon SJ, Ekstrand J, Ziegler EE. (2000). Fluoride intake and prevalence of dental fluorosis: trends in fluoride intake with special attention to infants. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 60: 131-9.

“Since the 1960s and 70s, however, a continuous reduction (in tooth decay) has taken place in most ‘westernized’ countries, it is no longer unusual to be caries-free… During the decades of caries decline, a number of actions have been taken to control the disease, and the literature describes numerous studies where one or several factors have been evaluated for their impact. Still, it is difficult to get a full picture of what has happened, as the background is so complex and because so many factors may have been involved both directly and indirectly. In fact, no single experimental study has addressed the issue of the relative impact of all possible factors, and it is unlikely that such a study can ever be performed.”
SOURCE: Bratthall D, Hansel-Petersson G, Sundberg H. (1996). Reasons for the caries decline: what do the experts believe? European Journal of Oral Science 104:416-22.

“Caries prevalence data from recent studies in all European countries showed a general trend towards a further decline for children and adolescents…The available data on the use of toothbrushes, fluorides and other pertinent items provided few clues as to the causes of the decline in caries prevalence.”
SOURCE: Marthaler TM, O’Mullane DM, Vrbic V. (1996). The prevalence of dental caries in Europe 1990-1995. ORCA Saturday afternoon symposium 1995. Caries Research 30: 237-55

“The aim of this paper is to review publications discussing the declining prevalence of dental caries in the industrialized countries during the past decades…[T]here is a general agreement that a marked reduction in caries prevalence has occurred among children in most of the developed countries in recent decades.”
SOURCE: Petersson GH, Bratthall D. (1996). The caries decline: a review of reviews. European Journal of Oral Science 104: 436-43.

“The regular use of fluoridated toothpastes has been ascribed a major role in the observed decline in caries prevalence in industrialized countries during the last 20 to 25 years, but only indirect evidence supports this claim.”
SOURCE: Haugejorden O. (1996). Using the DMF gender difference to assess the “major” role of fluoride toothpastes in the caries decline in industrialized countries: a meta-analysis. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 24: 369-75.

“The marked caries reduction in many countries over the last two decades is thought to be mainly the result of the widespread and frequent use of fluoride-containing toothpaste… There seem to be no other factors which can explain the decline in dental caries, which has occurred worldwide during the same period, in geographic regions as far apart as the Scandinavian countries and Australia/New Zealand.”
SOURCE: Rolla G, Ekstrand J. (1996). Fluoride in Oral Fluids and Dental Plaque. In: Fejerskov O, Ekstrand J, Burt B, Eds. Fluoride in Dentistry, 2nd Edition. Munksgaard, Denmark. p 215.

“Although difficult to prove, it is reasonable to assume that a good part of the decline in dental caries over recent years in most industrialized countries, notably those Northern European countries without water fluoridation, can be explained by the widespread use of fluoride toothpastes. This reduction in caries has not been paralleled by a reduction in sugar intake…”
SOURCE: Clarkson BH, Fejerskov O, Ekstrand J, Burt BA. (1996). Rational Use of Fluoride in Caries Control. In: Fejerskov O, Ekstrand J, Burt B, Eds. Fluoride in Dentistry, 2nd Edition. Munksgaard, Denmark. p 354.

“During the past 40 years dental caries h as been declining in the US, as well as in most other developed nations of the world… The decline in dental caries has occurred both in fluoride and in fluoride-deficient communities, lending further credence to the notion that modes other than water fluoridation, especially dentrifices, have made a major contribution.”
SOURCE: Leverett DH. (1991). Appropriate uses of systemic fluoride: considerations for the ’90s. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 51: 42-7.

“In most European countries, the 12-year-old DMFT index is now relatively low as compared with figures from 1970-1974. WHO (World Health Organization) data relating to availability of fluoride in water and toothpaste appear reliable. However, these data did not explain differences between countries with respect to the DMFT index of 12-year-olds.”
SOURCE: Kalsbeek H, Verrips GH. (1990). Dental caries prevalence and the use of fluorides in different European countries. Journal of Dental Research69(Spec Iss): 728-32.

“The most striking feature of some industrialized countries is a dramatic reduction of the prevalence of dental caries among school-aged children.”
SOURCE: Binus W, Lowinger K, Walther G. (1989). [Caries decline and changing pattern of dental therapy] [Article in German] Stomatol DDR 39: 322-6.

“The current reported decline in caries tooth decay in the US and other Western industrialized countries has been observed in both fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities, with percentage reductions in each community apparently about the same.”
SOURCE: Heifetz SB, et al. (1988). Prevalence of dental caries and dental fluorosis in areas with optimal and above-optimal water-fluoride concentrations: a 5-year follow-up survey. Journal of the American Dental Association 116: 490-5.

“[D]uring the period 1979-81, especially in western Europe where there is little fluoridation, a number of dental examinations were made and compared with surveys carried out a decade or so before. It soon became clear that large reductions in caries had been occurring in unfluoridated areas. The magnitudes of these reductions are generally comparable with those observed in fluoridated areas over similar periods of time.”
SOURCE: Diesendorf, D. (1986). The Mystery of Declining Tooth Decay. Nature 322: 125-129.

“Even the most cursory review of the dental literature since 1978 reveals a wealth of data documenting a secular, or long term, generalized decline in dental caries throughout the Western, industrialized world. Reports indicate that this decline has occurred in both fluoridated and fluoride-deficient areas,and in the presence and absence of organized preventive programs.”
SOURCE: Bohannan HM, et al. (1985). Effect of secular decline on the evaluation of preventive dentistry demonstrations. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 45: 83-89.

“The decline in caries prevalence in communities without fluoridated water in various countries is well documented. The cause or causes are, at this time, a matter of speculation.”
SOURCE: Leverett DH. (1982). Fluorides and the changing prevalence of dental caries. Science 217: 26-30.

Back to top

BELGIUM - Unfluoridated Water, Fluoridated Salt: (back to top)

“Caries-free children increased from 4% to 50%…A remarkable decline in dental caries was observed during the 15-yr period.”
SOURCEL Carvalho JC, Van Nieuwenhuysen JP, D’Hoore W. (2001). The decline in dental caries among Belgian children between 1983 and 1998.Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 29: 55-61.

DENMARK – Unfluoridated Water, Unfluoridated Salt:

“The paper presents an overview of the oral health situation in Denmark…[N]ational oral epidemiological data have been provided since 1972. Partly due to the preventive approach, a general decrease over-time in the prevalence of dental caries has been documented for children and adolescents. For example, in 1972 children in first class had a mean caries experience of 12.4 def-s against 3.9 def-s in 1990.”
SOURCE: Petersen PE. (1992). Effectiveness of oral health care–some Danish experiences. Proceedings of the Finnish Dental Society 88: 13-23.

FINLAND - Unfluoridated Water, Unfluoridated Salt:

“During the 10 years, substantial decreases were seen in the mean numbers of dental visits (from 4.0 to 2.4) and fillings (from 2.9 to 1.2). The greatest decrease was seen in the number of fillings made in incisors.”
SOURCE: Vehkalahti M, Rytomaa I, Helminen S. (1991). Decline in dental caries and public oral health care of adolescents. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 49: 323-8.

FRANCE – Unfluoridated Water, Fluoridated Salt:

“Epidemiological surveys showed a marked decrease of caries prevalence in French children during the last 20 years.”
SOURCE: Obry-Musset AM. (1998). [Epidemiology of dental caries in children] [Article in French] Arch Pediatr 5: 1145-8.

GERMANY – Unfluoridated Water, Fluoridated Salt:

“Caries rates are on the decline in the Federal Republic of Germany, too. And, in some cases considerable, increase in the number of children with caries-free teeth and a clear reduction in the average number of carious teeth has been recorded, above all in kindergartens with preventive dentistry programmes.”
SOURCE: Gulzow HJ. (1990). [Preventive dentistry in the Federal Republic of Germany] [Article in German] Oralprophylaxe 12: 53-60.

GREECE – Unfluoridated Water, Unfluoridated Salt:

“The percentage of caries-free children for the total examined population increased by 94% while the reduction in DMFT index ranged between 38 and 70%. Treatment need was significantly lower in 1991 compared to 1982 in both dentitions.”
SOURCE: Athanassouli I, et al. (1994). Dental caries changes between 1982 and 1991 in children aged 6-12 in Athens, Greece. Caries Research28(5):378-82.

ICELAND – Unfluoridated Water, Unfluoridated Salt:

“During the last decade, a continuous decrease in dental caries has been observed among schoolchildren in Iceland…There does not seem to be any single factor responsible for the onset of the caries decline.”
SOURCE: Einarsdottir KG, Bratthall D. (1996). Restoring oral health: On the rise and fall of dental caries in Iceland. European Journal of Oral Science104: 459-69.

THE NETHERLANDS - Unfluoridated Water, Unfluoridated Salt:

“According to WHO criteria, 12-year-old children in The Netherlands now have a very low caries experience.”
SOURCE: Truin GJ, Konig KG, Bronkhorst EM. (1994). Caries prevalence in Belgium and The Netherlands. International Dentistry Journal 44: 379-8.

NORWAY & all SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES - Unfluoridated Water, Unfluoridated Salt:

“Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden have all had a similar decline in dental caries during the last 20 years, although the decline has come later in Iceland. Despite the differences in choice of preventive methods, the dental health of children varies little across the frontiers.”
SOURCE: Kallestal C, et al. (1999). Caries-preventive methods used for children and adolescents in Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 27: 144-51.

“Despite differences in the dental health care services and the recording and reporting systems, a consistent and similar decline in dental caries is evident for Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden during the last two decades.”
SOURCE: von der Fehr FR. (1994). Caries prevalence in the Nordic countries. International Dentistry Journal 44: 371-8.

SWEDEN – Unfluoridated Water, Unfluoridated Salt:

“Between 1967 and 1992 the mean dmfs values declined from 7.8 to 1.8. The decline was greatest between 1967 and 1980 and then levelled off.”
SOURCE: Stecksen-Blicks C, Holm AK. (1995). Dental caries, tooth trauma, malocclusion, fluoride usage, toothbrushing and dietary habits in 4-year-old Swedish children: changes between 1967 and 1992. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 5: 143-8

SWITZERLAND – Unfluoridated Water, Fluoridated Salt:

“Caries prevalence has declined by 70-84 percent since the late sixties.”
SOURCE: Marthaler TM. (1991). [School dentistry in Zurich Canton: changes as a result of caries reduction of 80 to 85 percent] [Article in German]Oralprophylaxe 13: 115-22.

“Surveys of dental caries prevalence were carried out from 1970-1993 in schoolchildren of the city of Zurich. DMFT experience declined by 68 to 80%,while the average dmft decreased by 48-53% (ages 7 to 9).”
SOURCE: Steiner M, Menghini G, Curilovic Z, Marthaler T. (1994). [The caries occurrence in schoolchildren of the city of Zurich in 1970-1993. A view of prevention in new immigrants] [Article in German]. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 104: 1210-8.

source: Fluoride Action Network

According to the Fluoride Action Network, as of July 2010, more than 3,000 professionals from around the globe have banded together in an attempt to end the fluoridation of drinking water. Why? Since the petition first began circulating in 2007 — to the chagrin of dentistseverywhere — evidence continues to mount that sodium fluoride isn’t something to smile about. In fact, it could actually be one of the biggest health risks of our time. And it’s not just the aptly named Fluoride Action Network that thinks so. Sources such as Natural News, Prevention Magazine and even the Wall Street Journal have all questioned the merits of fluoridation of drinking water.

Photo: Cresultsviapurchased

So why is Fluoride still being added to our water? The story begins as many stories do when well-meaning folks try to mimic something in nature and it goes horribly wrong. Way back when, people recognized the positive effects of calcium fluoride in drinking water and wanted to replicate it. Thus, Grand Rapids, MI, began adding sodium fluoride — a less expensive version of calcium fluoride — to its water supply in 1945. The key difference being that calcium fluoride is naturally occurring and sodium fluoride is not. Not to mention that sodium fluoride is a synthetic waste product of the nuclear industry and often contaminated with lead, aluminum and cadmium.

Photo: creativecommons

For decades after sodium fluoride was first introduced, it became synonymous with bright, vibrant smiles. That was until reports started to surface that stated otherwise. For instance, a National Research Council (NRC) panel of dentists, toxicologist and epidemiologists determined thatfluoride levels in drinking water are too high and might actually damage teeth (isn’t that ironic). And a recent report out of India reveals that children have been crippled and even blinded after fluoride was added to their drinking water.

Fluoride has also been cited for causing depression, creating liver and kidney damage, weakening the immune system and even promoting cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. However, even as more detrimental evidence comes to light, many are still convinced of the benefits of sodium fluoride, which is slowing any widespread call for removal.

Photo: AquaLiv

What can you do to protect yourself from sodium fluoride?
Thankfully, if you are concerned about excessive fluoride exposure there are many strategies you can take to lessen your risk. Beyond opting for a fluoride-free toothpaste, you can find other easy tools to avoid it and/or help alleviate its potential ill effects. Iodine and lecithin and careful cleansing of the liver have been touted for helping the body extract fluorides. AquaLiv, a revolutionary water filtration system based on the laws of homeopathy, is one of the only water filtrating systems available today that safely removes fluoride without stripping water of its nutrients.

source: Environmental Graffiti

The tap water in many cities contains fluoride as well as in specifically-labeled bottled water for children. Fluoride is a chemical added to water to help prevent tooth decay. However, there are reports of negative side effects.

Concern

Identification

Effects

About 1 percent of the population is allergic to fluoride. However, there also is evidence that fluoride can interfere with normal brain functions in children. Topical fluoride application is reported to be the only necessary fluoride to prevent tooth decay, so brushing your teeth is safe and effective.

Read more: Baby Skin Problems & Water Fluoridation | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_6823200_baby-skin-problems-water-fluoridation.html#ixzz0wA451TXd

source: eHow.com