Dear readers:

Being such an extremely bad medical practice, it is not surprising that opposition to fluoridation comes from people all across the political spectrum.  However, for over 60 years it has suited fluoridation proponents to characterize opposition as coming only from right wing extremists who thought that fluoridation was some communist conspiracy. This opposition was brillinatly satirized in Stanley Kubrick’s movie “Dr. Strangelove.” Portraying opponents as crackpots and conspiracy theorists has served the pro-fluoridation cause well because it distracts attention from the very weak science that they claim supports the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation.

As a result of a candidate winning the Republican primary in Nevada, some Democratic supporters have seen it advantageous to use this candidate’s opposition to fluoridation as a way of ridiculing her. Whatever else this person believes, her opposition to fluoridation is not grounds for this kind of treatment. Instead, it reflects badly on those who are using it this way. It indicates that they have done little, if any, research on the matter and have simply taken the simplistic propaganda of fluoridation proponents at face value. In short, they have been duped. It is particularly sad from my own personal perspective that one of the commentators who has joined in this ill-founded abuse has been Rachel Maddow. Hitherto, I have respected this hard hitting and outspoken commentator from the left. But her comments on this matter do not do her credit and makes it doubly difficult to watch the commercials for her program in which she proclaims her fairness. What she is doing here is not fair to the candidate in question, and is not fair to opponents of fluoridation in general and the sooner that she makes a public apology on this matter the better. Moreover, because it betrays a serious lack of research into this issue it undermines the confidence one has in the professionalism of her research staff.

I have written to Rachel Maddow twice on this matter and have received no reply. Others have as well. This week FAN put out a media release on this matter.

Paul Connett

FAN PRESS RELEASE:

Political Mischaracterization of Fluoridation Opposition Dismays Scientists

CANTON, N.Y., June 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Scientists representing the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) strongly object to recent mischaracterizations of fluoridation opponents by political pundits Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and others in conjunction with Senator Harry Reid’s Nevada re-election campaign.

“Fluoridation opposition is science-based and growing,” says Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Executive Director, who has co-authored the upcoming book, “The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in OurDrinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics that Keep it There.” Co-authors are James Beck, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of medical physics at the University of Alberta in Calgary; and Spedding Micklem, DPhil, professor emeritus at Edinburgh University.

“We have spent many years investigating water fluoridation and the toxicity of fluoride and we are dismayed that commentators are willing to repeat, without verification, pro-fluoridation statements that disparage scientists and citizens who oppose the practice,” says Connett.

“FAN’s website http://www.FluorideAlert.org  has a wealth of scientific information indicating that water fluoridation is neither safe nor effective,” says Connett.  ”In fact, mounting evidence shows that it is harmful to large segments of the population and has helped to create an epidemic of dental fluorosis in children.”  On April 12, 2010, Time magazine listed fluoride as one of the “Top Ten Common Household Toxins” and described fluoride as both “neurotoxic and potentially tumorigenic if swallowed.”

“The majority of countries do not fluoridate or have ended the practice, including 98% of Western Europe, and yet, according to WHO statistics, their tooth decay rates are no different than those in fluoridated countries,” Connett states.

The FAN website has an online DVD of 15 scientists explaining why fluoridation is a risky and inappropriatemedical practice.  These scientists include one Nobel Prize winner, three members of a National Research Council committee that published a groundbreaking report on fluoride’s toxicity in 2006, and two former EPA scientists.

According to Nobel laureate Arvid Carlsson, fluoridation is an “obsolete” practice that “is against all principles of modern pharmacology.”  FAN’s site also has a listing of over 2800 scientists and professionals who are calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide.

The Centers for Disease Control and the American Dental Association now concede that fluoride’s predominant action on the tooth is topical, not systemic, as it works on the outside of the tooth, not from inside the body. Both groups admit that using fluoridated water to prepare infant formula elevates the risk of dental fluorosis and they advise using very low or non-fluoridated water to lessen the risk.  Pediatricians rarely inform parents of this advice.

“Topical treatments like fluoridated toothpaste are readily available. It makes no sense to expose the whole body to this toxic substance or force it on people who do not want it,” says Connett.

According to Connett and other scientists, “Fluoridation is reckless as there is clear science indicating that fluoride has the potential to damage human bones, kidneys, thyroid and to lower children’s IQs.”

source: FoodConsumer.org

Growing awareness of mass medication of public with deadly neurotoxin leads to establishment backlash

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, June 23, 2010

The controversy over adding sodium fluoride to water supplies in both the U.S. and the UK is intensifying as two separate stories out of India reveal that children are being blinded and crippled partly as a result of the neurotoxin being artificially added to drinking water.

In the Indian village of Gaudiyan, well over half of the population have bone deformities, making them physically handicapped. Children are born normally but after they start drinking the fluoridated water, they begin to develop crippling defects in their hands and feet.

“Due to the excess fluoride content in drinking water, the calcium intake is not absorbed in the body, causing disabilities and deformities,” said Dr Amit Shukla, a neurophysician.

“Sijara, a 35-year-old woman who is also afflicted, said the problem started around 30 years ago and gradually gripped the entire village,” reports Express India. “Now, you hardly find a person without the deformities. People in the village die at a relatively young age,” added Sijara whose three sons also have physical deformities.”

Government doctors have denied that fluoridation of drinking water is to blame, but have refused to test the water, insisting such tests are “not necessary”.

Meanwhile, in the village of Pavagada, 180 km from Bangalore, children are going blind after being diagnosed with Lamellar Congenital cataract — a condition wherein the eye lens are damaged.

“Alarmed by the pattern in eye diseases among children in Pavagada taluk and the increasing cases of blindness, Narayana Netralaya, in collaboration with Narayana Hrudalaya and Shree Sharada Devi Eye hospital and Research Centre in Pavagada, has begun one of the largest studies on eye disorders involving 29,800 children,” reports the Times of India in a piece entitled, Blinded by tradition and fluoride in water.

The doctors attribute the child blindness to two factors – consanguineous marriages and the “fluoride content” of the drinking water.

Christopher Bryson’s widely acclaimed book The Fluoride Deception includes dozens of peer-reviewed studies showing that sodium fluoride is a deadly neurotoxin that attacks the central nervous system and leads to a multitude of serious health problems. This fact has been covered up by a collusion of government and industry who have reaped financial windfalls while illegally mass medicating the public against their will.

Perhaps the most notable study was conducted by Dr. Phyllis Mullenix Ph.D., a highly respected pharmacologist and toxicologist, who in a 1995 Forsyth Research Institute studyfound that rats who had fluoride added to their diet exhibited abnormal behavioral traits.

A 2008 Scientific American report concluded that “Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to shift” as new evidence emerged of the poison’s link to disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland, as well as lowering IQ.

“Today almost 60 percent of the U.S. population drinks fluoridated water, including residents of 46 of the nation’s 50 largest cities,” reported Scientific American’s Dan Fagin, an award-wining environmental reporter and Director of New York University’s Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program.

The Scientific American study “Concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid — the gland that produces hormones regulating growth and metabolism.”

The report also notes that “a series of epidemiological studies in China have associated high fluoride exposures with lower IQ.”

“Epidemiological studies and tests on lab animals suggest that high fluoride exposure increases the risk of bone fracture, especially in vulnerable populations such as the elderly and diabetics,” writes Fagin.

Fagin interviewed Steven Levy, director of the Iowa Fluoride Study which tracked about 700 Iowa children for sixteen years. Nine-year-old “Iowa children who lived in communities where the water was fluoridated were 50 percent more likely to have mild fluorosis… than [nine-year-old] children living in nonfluoridated areas of the state,” writes Fagin.

The study adds to a growing literature of shocking scientific studies proving fluoride’s link with all manner of health defects, even as governments in the west, including the UK, make plans to mass medicate the population against their will with this deadly toxin. Most Americans already drink artificially fluoridated water.

In 2005, a study conducted at the Harvard School of Dental Health found that fluoride in tap water directly contributes to causing bone cancer in young boys.

“New American research suggests that boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of five and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma – bone cancer – between the ages of 10 and 19,” according to a London Observer article about the study.

Based on the findings of the study, the respected Environmental Working Group lobbied to have fluoride in tap water be added to the US government’s classified list of substances known or anticipated to cause cancer in humans.

Cancer rates in the U.S. have skyrocketed with one in three people now contracting the disease at some stage in their life.

The link to bone cancer has also been discovered by other scientists, but a controversy ensued after it emerged that Harvard Professor Chester Douglass, who downplayed the connection in his final report, was in fact editor-in-chief of The Colgate Oral Health Report, a quarterly newsletter funded by Colgate-Palmolive Co., which makes fluoridated toothpaste.

An August 2006 Chinese study found that fluoride in drinking water damages children’s liver and kidney functions.

Growing opposition to fluoridation of water supplies in light of this evidence is contributing to a scaling back of water fluoridation programs, with voters in places like Mount Pleasant calling for the amount added to be reduced.

With awareness about sodium fluoride on the increase, the establishment is now moving to demonize anyone who raises the issue as a dangerous lunatic. In an official press release today, the Fluoride Action Network slams “recent mischaracterizations of fluoridation opponents by political pundits Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and others in conjunction with Senator Harry Reid’s Nevada re-election campaign.”

As we wrote earlier this month, Keith Olbermann sardonically attacked Nevada primary winner Sharron Angle for speaking out against water fluoridation, “because she thinks the fluoride might be poison.”

Amidst his sophomoric jibes, Olbermann failed to explain why, if fluoride isn’t a poison as he claims, the word “toxic” is written on the packaging of bags of sodium fluoride that are dumped into the water supply of many Americans.

Sodium fluoride is a Part II Poison under the UK Poisons Act 1972. In addition, toothpaste manufacturers are required by law to include the following text on their products, “If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately.”

“FAN’s website http://www.FluorideAlert.org has a wealth of scientific information indicating that water fluoridation is neither safe nor effective,” states the press release. “In fact, mounting evidence shows that it is harmful to large segments of the population and has helped to create an epidemic of dental fluorosis in children.” On April 12, 2010, Time magazine listed fluoride as one of the “Top Ten Common Household Toxins” and described fluoride as both “neurotoxic and potentially tumorigenic if swallowed.”

Watch a lecture on sodium fluoride presented by Dr. Phyllis Mullenix Ph.D.

FACTS ABOUT FLUORIDE

- Fluoride is a waste by-product of the fertilizer and aluminum industry and it’s also a Part II Poison under the UK Poisons Act 1972.

- Fluoride is one of the basic ingredients in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUoride).

- USAF Major George R. Jordan testified before Un-American Activity committees of Congress in the 1950’s that in his post as U.S.-Soviet liaison officer, the Soviets openly admitted to “Using the fluoride in the water supplies in their concentration camps, to make the prisoners stupid, docile, and subservient.”

- The first occurrence of fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany’s Nazi prison camps. The Gestapo had little concern about fluoride’s supposed effect on children’s teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and force the people in their concentration camps into calm submission. (Ref. book: “The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben” by Joseph Borkin.)

- 97% of western Europe has rejected fluoridated water due to the known health risks, however 10% of Britons drink it and the UK government is trying to fast track the fluoridation of the entire country’s water supply.

- In Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg fluoridation of water was rejected because it was classified as compulsive medication against the subject’s will and therefore violated fundamental human rights.

- In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water.

- Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluoridated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, and tea.

Click here to find out if your water supply is poisoned with deadly fluoride.

It is now considered crazy to think sodium fluoride is poison even though it is

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Friday, Jun 11th, 2010

RELATED:  Scientific Study Finds Fluoride Horror StoriesFactual

MSNBC Countdown host Keith Olbermann has slammed a Tea Party Senate candidate who won a key primary victory this week, intimating that she is crazy because she believes sodium fluoride, a deadly poison, is poisonous.

In yet another example of an anti-establishment candidate scoring a decisive victory, Tea Party-backed Nevada Republican Sharron Angle came from behind to win the State primary on Tuesday and earn the right to challenge incumbent Harry Reid for a place in the Senate.

In a similar vein to the backlash against Rand Paul following his Kentucky win last month, Democrats have suggested that Angle’s win is a good thing because she will be an easier opponent for Reid come November due to her “extremist” views.

Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent noted that Reid will seek to “use her own words to paint her as, well, a complete whackjob.”

Olbermann began the tirade against Angle on Wednesday, during a segment of his show as he announced “Conventional wisdom was that Sue Lowden’s come-from-ahead defeat to Tea Partier Sharron Angle would hurt Senator Harry Reid. Turns out Ms. Lowden was the sensible one.”

Calling Angle “cartoon-like”, Olbermann criticized Angle’s affiliation with the Oath Keepers, the military and law enforcement activist group that pledges to uphold state’s rights and the U.S. Constitution.

Despite the fact that since 9/11, the U.S. has officially been under a state of emergency, and the vast erosion of civil liberties in the form of legislation such as the Patriot Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act and the Military Commissions Act, to name but a few, Olbermann suggested Angle was farcical for having concerns that Martial Law could be used to suspend the Constitution and effectively turn American cities into internment camps:

“Two months ago Ms. Angle said she was a member of the Oath Keepers, a group preparing itself not just for government internment camps, but for the day that somebody issues a ‘order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.’” Olbermann sardonically read from his autocue.

Olbermann clearly considers such concerns ludicrous now Obama is in office, but just a few years ago he was decrying the death of Habeas Corpus under president Bush, explaining to his viewers that any American citizen could effectively be arrested and locked away forever without trial. A google search yields articles and videos of Olbermann’s well placed concern.

The hope and change America has since experienced has clearly alleviated such worries in Keith’s mind, and he now considers the same concerns stupid and laughable.

This is a clear example of how the phony left/right political paradigm works. For eight years Olbermann campaigned against the increasing tyranny Americans were subject to. Despite the fact that none of the freedom stripping legislation enacted under Bush has been repealed by the Obama administration, everything is seemingly fine now the Democrats are back in power.

Olbermann also described as farcical Angle’s views that the Income Tax is unconstitutional and her concern that oil should not be nationalized in the wake of the BP disaster.

Olbermann saved his best attempted smear for last, however, chuckling his way through the sentence:

“Ms. Angle also voted against fluoridizing (sic) the water, because she thinks the fluoride might be poison.”

Watch the video via Raw Story

What a crazy kook, to think that sodium fluoride, the stuff that comes in bags with a skull and cross bones on, labeled “TOXIC”, is a poison!

Note, we are not talking about calcium fluoride – which is naturally occurring and not added to water because it is INSOLUABLE.

How “extremist” it is to believe that a waste by-product of the fertilizer and aluminum industry, a Part II Poison under the UK Poisons Act 1972, is a poison – stupid Sharron Angle. Stupid crazy Sharron Angle – she must be racist for thinking that.

Well, there’s no doubt that Angle will be roundly defeated by Reid in November… Oh no wait, she already has an 11-point lead over the Senate Majority Leader. Perhaps the American people are actually aware that poison is not good to drink after all Mr Olbermann.

Team 5 Investigates After Amesbury Pulls Sodium Fluoride From Water Supply

AMESBURY, Mass. — Fluoride is added to the water most of us drink because the government believes it’s a safe and inexpensive way to prevent tooth decay.

However, Team 5 Investigates found the Amesbury Water Department pulled fluoride from its system amid concerns about its supply from China.

Department of Public Works Director Rob Desmarais said after he mixes the white powder with water, 40 percent of it will not dissolve.

“I don’t know what it is,” Desmarais said. “It’s not soluble, and it doesn’t appear to be sodium fluoride. So we are not quite sure what it is.”

Desmarais said the residue clogs his machines and makes it difficult to get a consistent level of fluoride in the town’s water.

Since April the fluoride pumps in Amesbury have been turned off and they will stay that way until Desmarais can find out what’s in the fluoride that’s imported from China.

Both state and federal health officials told Team 5 Investigates that Chinese fluoride is safe.

The Department of Public Health said it believes that more than 650,000 customers in 44 Massachusetts communities are getting the flouride in question and only Amesbury has temporarily stopped using it.

However, they were unable to say with certainty which of the other 43 communities are actually using the sodium fluoride from China in its water.

The fluoride from China is not used in communities getting water from the MWRA.

The New York company that supplies the fluoride said it is certified by the National Sanitation Foundation which assures the quality of the product. But the NSF said the company has never been on its certification list.

Approximately 1,000 water systems in the United States use the additive to adjust the fluoride in their water supply, according to The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Testing continues to determine the precise composition of the residue.

“They should test it to make sure…it is safe for us to drink,” said Paul Stewart who lives in Newburyport. He said he has a right to know exactly what’s in his water.

“On the same day that I read the story about fluoride coming from China, I also read about stories about melamine that was being contaminated in milk products coming from China,” Stewart said. “And then we had another story about more lead in kids toys from China.”

Since 2007, most of the sodium fluoride has been imported from China because it’s the least expensive on the market.

“I don’t think that when it comes to something that I ingest every day that the lowest bidder is good enough,” Stewart said.

New York –March 2010– Over 2,700 professionals (including over 260 dentists) urge the US Congress to stop water fluoridation until Congressional hearings are conducted, citing scientific evidence that fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay, is ineffective and has serious health risks. See statement: http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html

Much of the fluoridation chemicals are purchased from China according to Kip Duchon, Fluoridation Engineer for the Centers for Disease Control. (a) Amesbury, MA water engineers found the Chinese fluoride chemicals clogged up their system. ( c)

Also, eleven Environmental Protection Agency employee unions representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals called for a moratorium on drinking water fluoridation programs across the country, and have asked EPA management to recognize fluoride as posing a serious risk of causing cancer in people. (b)

Approximately, 80 US communities rejected fluoridation in 2008 & 2009 (1)

Since the professionals’ statement was first issued (Aug 2007), the following occurred:

– The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment,Canada’s leading voice on environmental health issues, released a statement opposing fluoridation. (2)

– May 2009, Great Lakes United (GLU) supports the end of water fluoridation. GLU is made up organizations representing environmentalists, conservationists, hunters and anglers, labor unions, community groups, and citizens of the United States, Canada, and First Nations and Tribes. (13)

– The National Kidney Foundation dropped its fluoridation support replacing it with this caution: “Individuals with CKD [Chronic Kidney Disease] should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure.” (3)

– Researchers reporting in the Oct 6 2007 British Medical Journal indicate that fluoridation never was proven safe or effective and may be unethical. (4)

– “A qualitative review of …studies found a consistent and strong association between the exposure to fluoride and low IQ,” concluded Tang el al., in “Fluoride and Children’s Inte lligence: A Meta-analysis” inBiological Trace Element Research (5)

– Scientific American editors wrote in January 2008, “Some recent studies suggest that over-consumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland”

– Dr. A. K. Susheela, a leading fluoride expert, explains in a video why US physicians overlook fluoride as a possible cause of diseases commonly caused by fluoride. http://tinyurl.com/Susheela

– A study in the Fall 2008 Journal of Public Health Dentistry reveals that cavity-free teeth have little to do with fluoride intake.Researchers report, “The benefits of fluoride are mostly topical…while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake.”

– Research published in Biological Trace Element Research (April 2009). indicates that blood fluoride levels were significantly higher in patients with osteosarcoma than in control groups. (13) Osteosarcoma, a rare bone cancer, occurs mostly in children and young adults

– Children’s cavity rates are similar whether water is fluoridated or not, according to data published in the July 2009 Journal of the American Dental Association by dentist J.V. Kumar of the NY State Health Department (15).

– All infant formula, whether concentrated or not, contain fluoride at levels that can discolor teeth – even organic, according to research published in the October 2009 Journal of the American Dental Association. (16)

A Tennessee State legislator, Joey Hensley, who is also an MD is urging all Tennessee Water Districts to stop fluoridation, reported a Tennessee newspaper on 11/29/08. At least 30 Tennessee water districts have already complied with his request.(6)

On 1/5/09, the Burlington Board of Health recommended that Burlington cease fluoridation because fluoridation can harm some people. (7)

On 1/6/09, a Canadian town, Drayton, stopped fluoridation, not to save money, but because it was in the best interests of residents, said the Mayor. (8)

The Arkansas Oral Health Director is accused of giving eight “false or misleading statements” on fluoridation to an Arkansas legislative Committee. (12)

Signers to the FAN statement include:

• Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Laureate for Physiology or Medicine, 2000
• Vyvyan Howard, MD, PhD, Immediate Past President, International Society of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE)
• Ingrid Eckerman, MD, MPH, President, Swedish Doctors for the Environment (LFM), Stockholm, Sweden
• Raul Montenegro, PhD, Right Livelihood Award 2004 (known as the Alternative Nobel Prize), President of FUNAM, Professor of Evolutionary Biology, National University of Cordoba, Argentina
• The current President and six past Presidents of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology
• Three scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Headquarters Union in Washington D.C.
* William Marcus, PhD, Former chief toxicologist of the EPA Water Division, Boyds, MD
• Three members of the National Research Council committee who wrote the landmark 2006 report: Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards (Hardy Limeback, PhD, DDS; Robert L. Isaacson, PhD; Kathleen M. Thiessen, PhD)
• The Board of Directors, American Academy of Environmental Medicine
• Two advisory board members of the UK government sponsored “York Review”
• Andy Harris, MD, former national president, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Salem, OR
• Theo Colborn, PhD, co-author, Our Stolen Future
• Lynn Margulis, PhD, a recipient of the National Medal of Science
• Ken Cook and Richard Wiles, President and Executive Director, Environmental Working Group (EWG)
• Ron Cummins, Director, Organic Consumers Association
• Magda Aelvoet, MD, Former Minister of Public Health, Leuven, BELGIUM
• Doug Everingham, former Federal Health Minister (1972-75), Australia
• Peter Montague, PhD, Director of Environmental Health Foundation
• Ted Schettler, MD, Science Director, Science and Environmental Health Network
• Stephen Lester, Science Director, Center for Health, Environment, and Justice
• Lois Gibbs, Executive Director, Center for Health, Environment, and Justice, Goldman Prize Winner (1990), Falls Church, VA
• FIVE Goldman Prize winners (2006, 2003, 1997, 1995, 1990)
• Sam Epstein, MD, author, “Politics of Cancer” and Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
• Pat Costner, retired Senior Scientist, Greenpeace International
• Jay Feldman, Executive Director, Beyond Pesticides
• Sandra Duffy, Board President, Consumers for Dental Choice
• Joseph Mercola, Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, http://www.mercola.com/, Chicago, IL
• Michael W. Fox, DSc, PhD, BVM, MRCVS (former vice president of The Humane Society of the US, former vice president of Humane Society International and the author of more than 40 adult and children’s books on animal care, animal behavior and bioethics), http://www.twobitdog.com/DrFox/, Minneapolis, MN
• Leo Cashman, Executive Director of DAMS (Dental Amalgam Mercury Syndrome)
• Chris Bryson, author, The Fluoride Deception
• Environmental leaders from over 30 countries, and
• Legendary folksinger, songwriter and activist, Pete Seeger

Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Arvid Carlsson, says, “Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It’s really obsolete.”

Fluoride jeopardizes health – even at low levels deliberately added to public water supplies, according to data presented in a 2006 National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) report. Fluoride poses risks to the thyroid gland, diabetics, kidney patients, high water drinkers and others and can severely damage children’s teeth. (11) At least three panel members advise avoiding fluoridated water.

“The NRC fluoride report dramatically changed scientific understanding of fluoride’s health risks,” says Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network. “Government officials who continue to promote fluoridation must testify under oath as to why they are ignoring the powerful evidence of harm in the NRC report,” he added.

The Professionals’ Statement also references:

– The new American Dental Association policy recommending infant formula NOT be prepared with fluoridated water.

– The CDC’s concession that the predominant benefit of fluoride is topical not systemic.

– CDC data showing that dental fluorosis, caused by fluoride over-exposure, now impacts one third of American children.

– Major research indicating little difference in decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.

– A Harvard study indicating a possible link between fluoridation and bone cancer.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a DC watchdog, revealed that a Harvard professor concealed the fluoridation/bone cancer connection for three years. EWG President Ken Cook states, “It is time for the US to recognize that fluoridation has serious risks that far outweigh any minor benefits, and unlike many other environmental issues, it’s as easy to end as turning off a valve at the water plant.”

Adverse health effects of fluoride: http://www.FluorideAction.Net/health

END
References:

a) http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Utilities/WRAB/5%2021%2007/wrab_agenda_memo_1.pdf

b) Press Release August 19, 2005, “EPA Unions Call for Nationwide Moratorium on Fluoridation, Congressional Hearing on Adverse Effects, Youth Cancer Cover Up,” Contact: Dr. William Hirzy, Vice-President NTEU Chapter 280

http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-States/National/EPA-unions-call-for-moratorium-on-fluoride-in-drinking-water

c) http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-States/Massachusetts/Amesbury-Fluoride-concerns-are-worth-probing

(1) http://www.fluoridealert.org/communities.htm

(2) http://www.fluoridealert.org/cape.html

(3) National Kidney Foundation, “Fluoride Intake in Chronic Kidney Disease,” April 15, 2008

http://www.kidney.org/atoz/pdf/Fluoride_Intake_in_CKD.pdf

(4) “Adding fluoride to water supplies,” British Medical Journal, KK Cheng, Iain Chalmers, Trevor A. Sheldon, October 6, 2007

(5) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18695947?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

(6) http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-States/Tennessee/Tennessee-Lawmaker-campaigns-against-fluoride-bill

(7) http://www.swabvt.org/node/300

(8) http://www.draytonvalleywesternreview.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1373584

(9) http://www.goskagit.com/home/article/commissioners_vote_to_halt_fluoride_program/

(10) http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090303/NEWS0301/90303100/1009/NEWS01

(11) National Research Council (2003-2006): Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/

(12) “State oral health director challenged over comments about fluoridation,”
March 10, 2009,by Kathryn Lucariello, Carroll County News

http://www.carrollconews.com/story/1509198.html

(13) Biological Trace Element Research, “Serum Fluoride and Sialic Acid Levels in Osteosarcoma,” by Sandhu R, Lal H, Kundu ZS, Kharb S, Apr 24, 2009 [Epub ahead of print]

(14) http://www.glu.org/sites/default/files/Resolution-regarding-artificial-water-fluoridation.pdf

(15) “The Association Between Enamel Fluorosis and Dental Caries in U.S. Schoolchildren,” Kumar & Iida Journal of the American Dental Association, July 2009 (Table 1)

(16) “Assessing a potential risk factor for enamel fluorosis: a preliminary evaluation of fluoride content in infant formulas,” Journal of the American Dental Association October 2009

SOURCE: Fluoride Action Network http://www.FluorideAction.Net/

The California Dental Association (CDA) joins a growing list of researchers, dental and health organizations advising against regularly mixing infant formula with fluoridated water to avoid discoloring babies’ developing teeth (fluorosis). But little effort is made to inform the public, reports the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF).

“Neither a nutrient nor required for healthy teeth, fluoride chemicals are added to many public water supplies and some bottled water in a failed attempt to reduce tooth decay,” says attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President.

“…mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water on a regular basis for infants primarily fed in this way may increase the chance of a child’s developing enamel fluorosis,” according to the CDA’s Feb 2010 Report, Oral Health During Pregnancy and Early Childhood: Evidence-Based Guidelines for Health Professionals. (1)

In March 2006, the National Research Council (NRC) cautioned that infants can fluoride-overdose via reconstituted baby formula. (2) The American Dental Association (ADA) passed this information on to its members in a November 2006 e-gram (3) which the ADA reaffirmed and strengthened in a November 2009 News Release (4) .

The ADA defines moderate fluorosis as “All tooth surfaces affected; marked wear on biting surfaces; brown stain may be present” and severe fluorosis as “All tooth surfaces affected; discrete or confluent pitting; brown stain present.” Mild fluorosis is white spotted teeth affecting about 25% to 50% of tooth surfaces. (5)

National data (1986–-1987) shows dental fluorosis is a huge U.S. problem with 62 percent of 5 – 17 year-olds afflicted with white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth. (6) Data from 1999-2000 shows that fluorosis has increased further since then. (7 )

The Food and Drug Administration ruled that fluoridated bottled water cannot be marketed for infants as a decay preventive. ( 8 )

In November 2007, The Globe and Mail quotes ADA spokesman and University of California dental professor, Howard Pollick, as saying the ADA recommendation applies to infants under one year of age who consume a lot of formula and “are at risk for developing some level of dental fluorosis.” Dr. Pollick said the risks occur at the level of fluoride recommended for U.S. water systems. (9)

Health Canada reported in 2008 “The consumption of powdered infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water could lead to excessive intake of fluoride in infants.”(10)

Other government and medical groups which advise against mixing infant formula with fluoridated water:

The Centers for Disease Control (11)

The Academy of General Dentistry (12)

The Vermont Department of Health (13)

Delta Dental (14)

The Minnesota Dental Association (15)

This information has been known for decades:

“Studies of fluoride levels of baby formulas and cereals have shown a significant increase in the fluoride content when fluoridated water was used for processing these foods,” was reported by Kumar et al. in the May 1989 American Journal of Public Health.

Some scientists tried in vain [in January 1990] to get the word out as described in “Suppression by Medical Journals of a Warning about Overdosing Formula-Fed Infants with Fluoride,” published in 1997 in the Journal Accountability in Research. (17)

“Four major [fluorosis] risk factors were consistently identified: use of fluoridated drinking water, fluoride supplements, fluoride toothpaste, and infant formulas before the age of six years,” reported Mascarenhas in 2000 (July-August Pediatric Dentistry). (18)

“Infant beverages, particularly infant formulas prepared with fluoridated water, can increase the risk of fluorosis in primary teeth,” reported Marshall et al. in Journal of the American College of Nutrition (April 2004) (19)

“A major effort should be made to avoid use of fluoridated water for dilution of formula powders (Fluoride in Dentistry).” (20)

“Our analysis shows that babies who are exclusively formula fed face the highest [fluorosis] risk,” reports the Environmental Working Group. (21)

“The entire Board [Burlington VT Board of Health] holds serious concerns about the current fluoride exposure of infants between the ages of zero and six months. We deem this exposure to be a ’significant public health risk’, and one that should be given immediate attention by the city and state.” (22)

“Some risk of increasing fluorosis may be attributed to the ingestion of powdered infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water,” (Pizzo et al. Clinical Oral Investigations, Feb 2007) (23)

At least eleven other studies link reconstituted formula with fluorosis.(24a-k).

NYSCOF news releases in 2000, 2004, 2009 and 2010 (25a,b,c,d) cited many studies linking fluorosis to infant foods mixed with fluoridated water. (Also see: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/infant )

“Instead of using their enormous resources to warn the public against mixing fluoridated water and infant formula, fluoridation proponents have created news releases attempting to discredit NYSCOF that actually reinforce NYSCOF’s science-based information (4, 26 ),” says Beeber.

http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/cal-dental-assoc-no-fluoride-for-babies/

Don’t believe Monsanto’s green-washing. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), aren’t meant to feed the world or survive the evermore frequent droughts and floods brought on by global warming – they’re designed to sell Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup and the patented “Roundup Ready” genes now spliced into millions of acres of corn, cotton, soy, canola, sugar beets and alfalfa. A 2009 study showed that, in 13 years, Roundup Ready crops increased herbicide use by 383 million pounds.

During the Bush administration, the movement to stop GMOs was making progress. Reflecting public concern over GMOs, in 2007, a Federal court ruled that the Bush USDA’s approval of Roundup Ready alfalfa violated the law because it failed to analyze risks such as the contamination of conventional and organic alfalfa and the development of “super-weeds.” The court banned the planting of GM alfalfa until USDA completed a rigorous analysis of these impacts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals twice affirmed the national ban on Roundup Ready alfalfa planting, but Monsanto is appealing. They’re taking organic alfalfa farmers all the way to the Supreme Court!

Barack Obama, despite promising us “change we can believe in,” is unfortunately turning out to be just as pro-GMO as the preceding Bush and Clinton administrations, packing the USDA and other government bureaucracies with Monsanto men and biotech cheerleaders such as former Iowa Governor, Tom Vilsack, named “Biotech Governor of the Year” in 2001, now serving as USDA Secretary. Vilsack, notorious for flying around in a Monsanto company jet during one of his previous election campaigns, is now busy trying to get the court-ordered ban on Roundup Ready alfalfa lifted by issuing a new draft environmental impact statement (EIS) that denies or downplays the obvious environmental and human health hazards of GM alfalfa.

Alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the U.S. and a key source of dairy forage and hay. The first perennial crop to be genetically engineered, GM alfalfa can regenerate itself from its root-stock. It is open-pollinated by bees, which can cross-pollinate at distances of several miles, spreading Monsanto’s patented, foreign DNA to non-GMO and organic crops. Widespread GMO-contamination of organic alfalfa is inevitable if the Obama Administration successfully distorts science and ignores public opinion and allows Monsanto’s GM Roundup Ready alfalfa to be planted across the U.S.

Mounting evidence shows damage to animals and humans from unlabeled and untested Frankenfoods. Consumers who ingest GM alfalfa are likely risking their health; since even the USDA’s EIS admits that, “acute toxicity in mice was observed.”

According to the EIS, consumers who ingest foods with residues of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide may experience “general and non-specific signs of toxicity from subchronic and chronic exposure to glyphosate includ[ing] changes in liver weight, blood chemistry (may suggest mild liver toxicity), liver pathology, and weight of the pituitary gland.”

The EIS warns that, “Based on upper estimates of exposure … infants consuming fruit and all age groups consuming vegetables may be at risk of adverse effects associated with acute exposure to glyphosate [the active ingredient in Roundup] residues.”

Consuming milk and meat from animals fed crops that are genetically engineered is also risky. In Europe, where farmer and consumer rejection has kept GMO crop acreage to a bare minimum, massive quantities of GMO-tainted animal feed is imported from the U.S. and a survey of 60 samples of 12 different milk brands sold in stores in Italy demonstrated the presence of GM maize sequences in 15 (25%) and of GM soybean sequences in 7 samples (11.7%).

Most consumers, especially organic consumers, are determined to avoid Roundup Ready alfalfa, and meat and dairy products derived from animals ingesting Roundup Ready alfalfa, but according to the EIS, we don’t have that right because, “At the present time, there is no policy regarding the unintended presence of GE (genetically engineered) material in organic products or food, consistent with the fact that the NOP (National Organic Program) is a process-based program for certifying a farm or production system as organic, and not a product-based program that tests or certifies individual products as organic.”

We must stop the Obama administration from taking away our right to grow and consume organic and GMO-free food. The “change we believe in” is a healthy and sustainable future based upon organic food and farming and a green economy.

Follow Ronnie Cummins on Twitter: www.twitter.com/OrganicConsumer

source: huffingtonpost.com

Prince Charles has called them the “biggest environmental disaster of all time,” while agriculture industrialists like Monsanto swear they’re safe for human consumption and a boon for the environment. Genetically modified foods are nothing if not controversial, and that controversy spans the globe. From Ireland and the European Union to Africa and Japan, and all the way back to the U.S., various bans, laws, and labels can make GMOs difficult to keep up with. Here’s a roundup of the world in GMOs.

Ireland Bans Growth of GMOs

Ireland recently banned the growth of any genetically modified foods, and the country has also made available a GMO-free label that can be placed on animal products like meat, poultry, eggs and dairy, fish, and crustaceans, that are raised with feed free of GMOs. The government’s two coalition partners signed the agreement [pdf] that officially declares Ireland a “GM-free Zone.” That’s good news for no-GMO advocates in the United States, since it imports a good bit of Irish dairy; lots of casein for cheese production comes to the U.S. from Ireland.

Egypt Bans Import/Export of GMOs

In a move that has as many implications for world trade as it does for agriculture, Egypt has banned the import and export of GMOs. That means that none can come in — meaning they can’t import from any countries growing GMO foods they want — and none can leave — meaning they can’t grow any GMOs, either. This sets in motion a complex agripolitical dance involving many countries where agriculture is a big part of foreign trade.

For example, “A non-GMO policy would not cause difficulties for sunflower oil but it would for soyoil,” according to one European trader. “It would mean that soyoil imports would only be possible from Brazil and not from the U.S. or Argentina.” The countries are the world’s three largest producers, so Egypt’s decision cuts two out of that equation; it remains to be seen if the ban will leverage more GMO-free growth in other countries.

Japan Says No to GMO

Though Japan imports a lot of food from countries still growing and exporting GMO foods — Australia, the U.S., and Canada, to name a few — they are staunchly opposed to consuming GMOs. Most of the soy and corn — two of the most frequently modified foods — that enter Japan is carefully sourced explicitly as “non-GM,” using expensive traceability schemes, but that doesn’t cover all of their bases. Keisuke Amagasa, of the Tokyo-based No! GMO Campaign, summed it up:

Japan does not produce any GM crops. However, because Japan imports GM canola from Canada, GM contamination has already occurred and it is spreading to a much greater degree than one could imagine. Judging by the ominous precedent of Canada, once GM crops are cultivated, segregation between GM and non-GM will become almost impossible, and keeping pure non-GM varieties away from GM contamination will be very hard.

France Defines GMO-free Labeling

Currently, there is no European regulation on what constitutes GMO-free, although products that contain more than 0.9 percent genetically modified ingredients must indicate GM content on their labels. That doesn’t apply to animals, though, and their meat and dairy products don’t require a distinction whether they were fed GMO foods or not.

In France, the Haut Conseil des Biotechnologies is attempting to clear things up, when it comes to the labeling used to identify GMOs; their recent recommendations are expected to become law in the second half of 2010. These recommendations include an upgrade to a threshold of 0.1 percent for genetically modified material in plant products and animal feed, and a minimum distance between apiaries and fields where GM crops are grown (though that distance was not specified). Labels could then designate plant products as ‘GMO-free,’ animal products as ‘fed on GMO-free feed’ or ‘derived from animals fed without GM feed,’ and honey as ‘biotech-free.’ Stay tuned for final results on this one.

GMO Sorghum has made inroads in Africa. Photo credit: cyanocorax via Flickr

GMO Sorghum Comes to Africa

Despite the growing tide against GMOs, they’re finding their way (legally) into the food systems in some places. In South Africa, the government gave permission to proceedwith trials of genetically modified sorghum, with the blessing of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and DuPont, among other supporters. The justification is that, while it is one of the few crops that grows well in arid regions, it lacks most essential nutrients and it has poor protein digestibility; modifying it allows more nutrients to be “put” back in. Opponents of the decision are concerned that the introduction of the GMO crop threatens one of Africa’s most important heritage crops.

The U.S. Bans GMOs. In Missouri. In a National Wildlife Refuge

While the U.S. has engaged in a much-publicized holdout from widespread GMO bans, a few small events have started the GMO-free ball rolling. A federal judge issued a ruling in Missouri stating that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife shouldn’t have allowed genetically modified crops on a national wildlife refuge. That may not sound like much, but, thanks to the ruling, 37 farming contracts — many being used for GMO soybean and corn crops — have been canceled.

Will it lead to more widespread action? Whole Foods Market is on board with a GMO ban, having its store-brand products independently tested to certify that they contain zero GMO content — who’ll be next?

ST. LOUIS—Monsanto Company will introduce new Genuity™ Roundup Ready 2 Yield® soybeans and Genuity™ SmartStax™ corn next year, which are expected to create approximately one-third of the company’s gross profit growth to 2012, said Chairman and CEO Hugh Grant during the Credit Suisse 22nd Annual Chemical and Ag Science Conference.

“As we upgrade the technology platform on each acre of corn, soybeans and cotton, we create more yield—and more profit—for our farmer customers,” Grant said. “As a result of delivering benefits on the farm and to our many seed company licensees, we expect our U.S. seed business alone to generate more gross profit in 2012 than our entire seed portfolio did around the world in 2009.”

http://www.foodproductdesign.com/news/2009/09/monsanto-to-introduce-new-soybeans-and-corn.aspx?tw=20090919145050&tw=20090920012425