Webster Falls (Formerly Dr. Hamilton's Falls), Photo By: by Dan Court

By: Kevin Werner, Hamilton Community News.com, Hamilton, Ontario 07-May-2012 –

Hamilton’s Board of Health is asking the federal government to classify fluoride as a drug so it can be properly regulated and studied.

“It’s a difficult issue for us,” said Ward 1 councillor Brian McHattie, who introduced the motion at the board’s May 7 meeting. “There is a need for more information. We need the federal government to take the lead on it.”

The motion, which is similar to one Peel Region approved in January 2012, requests Health Canada classify fluorosilicates as a drug under the Food and Drug Act, or as an additive or supplement through the Bureau of Chemicals.

The idea, say councillors, is that fluoride would then be subjected to a long-term toxicology study to determine its health effects. Councillors also asked the provincial environment ministry to provide assurances the fluoride being poured into the city’s waste supply is safe.

But Stoney Creek councillor Brad Clark suggested the board go one step further and establish a moratorium on pouring fluoride into the city’s drinking water, while the federal government considers the city’s request. He said the city’s $223,000 contract for fluoridating the water ends September 2012.

“The only reason fluoride is in the system is because it has always been done,” he said.

Last fall Moncton, New Brunswick agreed to a five-year moratorium on fluoridating its water supply.

Mountain councillor Tom Jackson said he has always kept an “open mind” on the fluoride issue, even after some of the information has “scared me.”

But he agreed with his colleagues Health Canada needs to establish some core protocols for fluoride.

“I want Health Canada to clarify the issues,” he said.

Politicians are scheduled to vote on the Board of Health’s recommendation at their May 9 council meeting.

McHattie’s motion comes on the heels of a contentious debate last month at city hall over whether the city should continue to put fluoride into its water supply. Opponents of fluoride argue it is a chemical that is putting residents’ health at risk, while proponents of fluoride say it has prevented tooth decay in children. About 90 health organizations around the world support fluoride, including the World Health Organization, Health Canada, and the Canadian and American dental associations.

Cindy Mayor, of the organization Canadians Opposed to Fluoridation, backed McHattie’s motion, saying other politicians have also asked Health Canada for answers about fluoridation’s effects on the population.

“Now it’s your turn to act diligently and consider that everything is not as it seems,” she said.

Opponents of fluoride have made a concerted effort over the last five years to convince municipalities to end fluoridation. After a heated debate in 2008, Hamilton politicians narrowly voted to continue fluoridating its water supply. Halton Region in 2012 voted to keep fluoride, as did Peel Region andToronto. But other jurisdictions eliminated fluoride, including Amherstburg in 2012, Waterloo in 2010 and Calgary in 2011.

By: The Eagle 100.9 FM, Okotoks Online, Okotoks, Alberta 25-Apr-2012 – The Town of Okotoks is taking the Fluoride out of it’s drinking water.

In a 6-1 vote council agreed to repeal the existing fluoridation bylaw and direct administration to apply to Alberta Environment to stop putting it into the town’s water.

Councillor Florence Christophers, who originally brought the motion forward, was pleased that it passed.

“I think it’s a cautious, conservative way forward. I think it basically says to our community there’s some doubt around this issue, the science isn’t clear and we’re asking for that science before we deny you the choice,” she explains. “I take very serious the ethical argument that there’s many, many citizens in our community that really want to be given the choice about whether or not this pharmaceutical, this chemical is in their bloodstream.”

She stresses that Fluoride is not the only option for good dental hygiene, pointing to the province of PEI as an example.

“60 percent of 12 year olds in their province have never had a cavity – it’s the lowest in Canada. And do they fluoridate? They don’t. They’ve done it in creative ways – they’ve worked with schools, they’ve done really great promotion campaigns around dental hygiene – that gets me excited!  Let’s get to the root of the issue instead of putting a controversial pharmaceutical in our water and dividing our community on this.”

A second motion passed will see administration consult with Alberta Health Services to ensure a program is in place to provide topical fluoride treatments or fluoridated toothpaste for individuals at risk of dental cavities and may need assistance.

Mayor Bill Robertson was the lone vote against the motion as he tried, unsuccessfully, to put the issue to a plebiscite as part of the next municipal election.

About 66-percent of respondents to the town’s survey said they either somewhat or strongly opposed the use of Fluoride in public drinking water.

http://www.okotoksonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17726&Itemid=33

By: Don Patterson, Okotoks Western Wheel, Okotoks, Alberta 25-Apr-2012 — Fluoride will be removed from Okotoks’ drinking water, but town councillors still have a few more steps to take before the Town stops adding the chemical for good.

Councillors voted 6-1 on April 23 to stop adding fluoride to drinking water, but they still need to approve a bylaw at a future meeting before the practice finally stops.

The vote is a victory for coun. Florence Christophers who proposed stopping fluoridation in January. She has argued science is divided on the effectiveness and safety of the practice and it comes down to a matter of choice.

“It’s a call for clearer science and until we have it, to me, I really believe the citizens deserve the option of whether or not to have this pharmaceutical floating in their blood stream,” said Christophers.

Opponents of fluoridation say the chemical contributes to a range of health problems including florosis of the teeth and creating brittle bones. Supporters of fluoridation say it’s a low-cost, effective public health program to prevent tooth decay, especially among low-income people who may not be able to afford dental care.

The Okotoks community is also divided on the issue, but there is support for stopping fluoridation in Okotoks. A survey on the Town’s website showed 66 per cent of respondents opposed fluoridation, with 33 supporting it. The Town also received comments on both sides of the issue through letters, its website and at a public hearing.

Council also approved a motion to consult with Alberta Health Services to ensure a program is in place to provide fluoride toothpaste or topical treatments for people at risk of dental decay. However, there was some concern this would not happen.

Christophers voted against this motion because she had wanted the Town to take the lead on creating such a program.

“I just think there’s such an opportunity here for our community to step up to the plate to work together in partnerships to make sure we are taking oral health seriously,” he said.

Okotoks mayor Bill Robertson cast the lone vote against removing fluoride saying there are benefits to having fluoridation, particularly for children.

“I tend to err on the side of protecting our most vulnerable people,” he said.

Robertson unsuccessfully tried to have a plebiscite held in conjunction with the Oct. 2013 municipal election. He was the lone member on council to support a plebiscite.

“I would’ve preferred it go to a pleblicite,” he said. “It’s been such an emotional issue in the community and I had a number of people say I’d like a say in this.”

Robertson pointed out fluoridation was first brought in because of a plebiscite in 1989, but the results of the 1989 vote are not known. A 1998 referendum saw 1,442 people support keeping fluoride in water over 879 who didn’t.

Robertson said the Town could use the $8,700 it puts into fluoridation towards an oral health program.

However, he questions whether the proposed program will get off the ground and he won’t support the final bylaw to stop fluoridation without a program in place. He said Calgary hasn’t been able to create such a program since fluoride was removed from the city’s drinking water last year.

Coun. Stephen Clark also doesn’t think the Town should have to run a program, saying the Province already has existing programs that can help low-income families.

However, he has some concerns an Okotoks-specific program will never get off the ground.

Clark also spoke out against a plebiscite.

“If Alberta health can’t give us clear direction, the medical community can’t give us clear direction, I don’t know how our community can give us a clear direction,” he said.

Coun. Matt Rockley also opposed a plebiscite saying it could force the will of a possible slim majority on the town.

With strong opinions on both sides of the issue in town, he said it’s a tough decision for a councillor to make and it’s unfortunate the issue is left to laymen to decide.

“Here I am, a municipal councillor, I have no medical training , I have doctors on one side saying it’s good to put fluoride in water I have doctors on the other side saying it’s not good to put fluoride in water,” said Rockley.

http://www.westernwheel.com/article/20120425/WHE0801/304259980/-1/whe/town-council-votes-to-stop-fluoridation

Photograph by: Tim Fraser, Postmedia News

By: Rachel Naud, National Post, Canada 10-Apr-2012 — Like many moms, Alison Duncan got tired of fighting a losing battle with her four-year-old daughter, Taylor. Every day, twice a day, tooth brushing was met with screams and tears.

“We tried to talk to her, calm her down, tell her it’s really important,” says the Toronto stay-at-home mom. “We’d sing songs to pass the time, we bought funky toothbrushes that would sing to her, fun toothpaste — all the gimmicks and gadgets. But she wasn’t having it.”

Duncan found the only way to get Taylor’s teeth brushed was to let her do it herself. But when Taylor had her first dental appointment at age three, the dentist discovered she already had four cavities.

Contrary to what many people believe, the rate of Canadian children with cavities are rising.

“We just found that for the first time in 40 years, the incidence in cavities in children in fluoridated communities has gone up,” says Dr. Diederik (Diedo) Millenaar, a pediatric dentist in Vancouver and president of the B.C. Society of Pediatric Dentistry.

A recent Canadian Health Measures Survey collected information on the average number of baby (or primary) teeth that were either decayed (d), missing (m) or filled (f). This survey’s “dmft” count indicated the severity of the disease. For instance, if a child had a dmft count of four, it meant the child had four teeth that were either decayed, missing or filled.

Results of the survey indicated that 48% of children ages six to 11 with their primary or baby teeth had a dmft count of at least one. Moreover, the average number of teeth that are decayed, missing or filled in this category was 1.99.

“The numbers can be attributed to the fact that parents think they’re traumatizing the child with brushing, as well as the availability and frequency children are eating processed snacks,” says Millenaar. “Also, people are ill-informed on the value of fluoride. Parents choose not to use it. Or there are some cities that don’t have fluoride in their water. Calgary just took [fluoride] out of its drinking water and they experienced a 30% increase in their level of tooth decay.”

For Duncan, treating her daughter’s tooth decay was more of a nightmare than the daily brushings. During her first treatment at the family dentist, Taylor was traumatized by the drill and the dentist was only able to fix one cavity. From there, they went to a pediatric dentist who used laughing gas, which upset Taylor even more and left her screaming and looking for her mother, who was sitting beside her the whole time. The only other option was fully sedated oral surgery to fix the remaining three cavities.

“But where do we go from there,” asks Duncan. “We can’t just keep taking her for surgery every time she gets a cavity.”

Millenaar says there are many things parents can do to avoid Duncan’s situation and keep on top of their children’s oral care, and they can start before children even pop their first tooth.

He advises parents to take a cloth or a small toothbrush and wipe or lightly brush the gums where the teeth are coming in. “It’s meant to get the child stimulated so they know it’s a normal thing to do when their teeth show up,” says Millenaar. “Most people usually start when the first tooth is there but I encourage to do it earlier if they can.”

Millenaar also says parents should not put their babies to bed with bottles of milk or juice, as the natural sugars can cause tooth decay. He says water is the best option if a child needs a bottle to sleep.

When it comes to diet, he suggests parents stay clear of sugary, processed snacks and opt for more fibrous fare such as apples, carrots or crunchy, tough bread. “Anything that really promotes chewing and is tough to tear apart,” says Millenaar. “It’s good for the teeth and makes the body produce more saliva.”

When it comes to brushing, Sophia Baltzis, a dental hygienist in Laval, Que., advises parents to have younger children lay down on a bed with their heads propped on the parent’s lap.

“That way parents have direct access and can see and brush that way,” says Baltzis. “Try to brush in a circular motion for at least two minutes, passing over every tooth.”

Flossing in a C-motion is also important, says Baltzis who says it can be introduced as early as age one if no spaces can be seen between the teeth.

And last, Millenaar says parents should make brushing non-negotiable. “Don’t apologize for brushing your child’s teeth,” Millenaar says. “When they fuss, take your time, be supportive but don’t rush. Brushing teeth is a lot easier than getting them fixed later on.”

http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/04/10/coming-clean-good-hygiene-key-to-curbing-rising-tooth-decay-rates-in-kids/

By: Eric Mayne, The Windsor Star, Windsor, Ontario 04-Apr-2012 — Quick! Name a milestone of progress that trickled down from the status quo …

Time’s up.

Nearly every landmark achievement in Western society stems from a grassroots movement.

Women’s suffrage. Child labour laws. Civil rights protection. At one time, all were regarded as outrageous notions.

Grassroots movements foisted these issues on the public consciousness against the vigorous objections of – you guessed it – the status quo.

This drama is being played out again today in Ontario as municipalities debate whether the artificially fluoridated water glass is half full, or half empty.

Venerable agencies such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention voice approval. This newspaper cites “almost 60 years of scientific research that supports the case to fluoridate our drinking water.”

Sounds like someone’s been drinking the Kool-Aid.

Supplemental statistics to those that prop up the CDC’s endorsement of artificial water fluoridation also challenge its fundamental effectiveness.

Boosters smugly note the CDC’s pronouncement that AWF is one of “the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century.” This claim is based on a World Health Organization study that shows a steady, long-term decline in dental caries where AWF programs were implemented.

The unpublished story: A corresponding plunge in tooth decay occurred in countries that have not adopted AWF.

This strongly suggests additional factors contributed to our improved dental health and raises the question: Why would any fiscally prudent decision making body approve expenditures associated with AWF?

Certainly public awareness of proper hygiene contributed to the gains. Credit the same dental community that so actively promotes AWF, with the alarming exception of an American Dental Association caution against mixing infant formula with “optimally” fluoridated water.

Then there’s the prevalence of fluoridated toothpaste. There are more brands on today’s store shelves than the Osmond family has teeth. And for a good deal less money.

So, what of those 60 years of research supporting AWF? Not a lie. But not the whole truth, either. There are no clinical research studies – zero, zilch, nada – to demonstrate the safety of the chemical delivery agent used to artificially fluoridate water in Windsor and countless other Ontario communities.

The status quo has given an unprecedented free pass to hydrofluorosilicic acid, an expedient sodium fluoride alternative discovered in the 1960s. Expedient because it is readily available as a byproduct of fertilizer production.

This makes curious the derisive call to accountability levelled at AWF’s grassroots opponents – a global community whose number includes more than a dozen Nobel laureates and the 5,000-member Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.

Lost in the murky waters of this debate is the fundamentally critical issue of fluoride ingestion, the unfortunate consequence of using drinking water to deliver a chemical intended for topical use.

(Hand-washing prevents colds and flu; why don’t municipalities distribute Dove? But I digress.)

Over-exposure to fluoride causes unsightly dental fluorosis and, over time, causes crippling skeletal fluorosis. Questions also have been raised about links to thyroid malfunction and arthritis.

Not surprisingly, the grassroots and status quo disagree on the validity of those questions. But drowned out by their dispute is the disturbing fact that AWF is not our only source of fluoride exposure and that total exposure is unknown.

It’s in the food we eat and the air we breathe. Health Canada, another avid AWF backer, concedes total fluoride exposure for children in communities with AWF is nearly 44 per cent higher than in communities without.

Hear that? That’s the sound of a shrug by the status quo.

So remember this: Grassroots is not a dirty word.

http://www.windsorstar.com/health/Fluoride+challenge/6407585/story.html#ixzz1sW6wyoRd

By: Ayesha Drouillard (Letter to the Editor), The Windsor Star, Windsor, Ontario 28-Mar-2012 — Re: Fluoride debate: Advice for city council, Star editorial, March 19.

The report submitted by the Windsor Utilities Commission a few weeks ago clarified one critical issue that council cannot ignore. Can the WUC provide clinical evidence to show fluorosilicic acid (HFS) is safe?

The report refers to the National Sanitation Foundation’s regulatory statute Standard 60, which establishes minimum requirements to ensure the safety of fluoride-delivery agents. Compliance demands a toxicology review of such agents.

However, WUC general manager, John Stuart, confirmed there are no toxicology studies of HFS that he is aware of. So the answer to the question is, no. There is no evidence that demonstrates HFS is safe.

It was also confirmed at the Feb. 29 fluoridation meeting that, contrary to public claims by the Medical Officer of Health, HFS is indeed a byproduct of phosphate fertilizer production. More importantly, HFS is classified as toxic waste and is illegal to dump anywhere in the environment – unless it is funneled into tankers for sale as a fluoride-delivery agent. This simple act results in reclassification as a commercial product but it is still hazardous, still toxic, still persistent and still bio-accumulative, even when it’s diluted.

Since nearly all of this water returns to the environment – where legislation prohibits dumping of HFS in the first place – the negative impact on our ecosystem is undeniable.

http://www.windsorstar.com/opinion/Fluorosilicic+acid+toxic+waste/6370377/story.html

By: David Pattenaude, The Petrolia Topic, Petrolia, Ontario 28-Mar-2012 — Fluoridation of drinking water has been a contentious debate in communities for years and the debate has begun in Petrolia — and may continue at Petrolia council’s April 23 meeting.

Councillors have received inquiries about fluoride being added to the town’s drinking water so the town asked for the opinion of Dr. Christopher Greensmith, Lambton County’s Medical Officer of Health.

Greensmith has told the town in a letter that “…community water fluoridation is beneficial to all residents, especially children, low income families and the elderly. Over 90 international organizations (such as the World Health Organization, Public Health Agency of Canada and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) support the addition of fluoride into community water supplies.”

Greensmith added it’s important that children have access to fluoride “…to strengthen their teeth enamel and prevent dental disease.”

But Petrolian Al Petersen, speaking to council at its March 19 meeting, said “…the risks (of fluoride) outweigh the limited benefits.”

He gave council a report, based on his research, that said “…producing safe drinking water does not require fluoride to be added to it.”

Petersen asked council to take a precautionary approach and discontinue fluoridation.

Fluoride (fluorosilic acid) is added at the town’s water treatment plant in Bright’s Grove at a dosage rate between .60 and .70 parts per million, according to town corporate services director Scott Gawley.

Ontario Clean Water Agency operators contracted by the town to operate the water treatment plant are responsible for adding fluoride to the drinking water, as required under the plant’s certificate of approval issued by the Environment Ministry, said Gawley in a report to council.

“The addition of fluoride in the town’s drinking water is primarily a municipal issue in consultation with the public and the medical officer of health, he said. After the meeting, Gawley explained the ministry doesn’t require a municipality to use fluoride.

Gawley said staff is checking to see how long fluoride has been added to Petrolia’s drinking water.

Petersen’s report also said fluoridation is not required under Ontario’s Safe Drinking Water Act; it is a municipality’s option.

His report said Petrolia council “…assumes full responsibility for verifying the safety of the product (fluoride) used, its application to the water supply, and the health risks which occur; yet take it on faith from other authorities the product used not only meets the criteria, but is otherwise safe, even though it’s up to the town alone to make that final determination.

“The Ministry of Environment, local medical officer of health, Health Canada, and the American Water Works Association can state in a general sense the concept of fluoridation is beneficial because they assume no liability for responsibility and decisions about Petrolia’s drinking water system and chemical supplies.”

Petersen said fluoride is only potentially effective in protecting teeth as a topical treatment; not from ingestion. He added because fluoride is also ingested with mouthwash, food, toothpaste and beverages, “…total fluoride exposure needs to be limited.”

He said by adding fluoride to the water supply, council is accepting unnecessary liability for potential damages and health impacts.

Petersen said ending the use of fluoride would:

• Eliminate the risk of chronic workplace exposure to hydrofluorosilic acid chemical emissions for water treatment plant operators;

• Eliminate the potential risk to the health of drinking water consumers; and

• Eliminate exposure to liability for damages and impacts.

Peterson said it’s challenging to determine if exposure to low concentrations of any known hazardous compound over a long period of time causes health impacts.

But he said many municipalities have discontinued using fluoride and added “It’s clear from a simple risk/benefit analysis the benefits of water fluoridation don’t justify the cost and the risk.”

Council tentatively tabled discussion about fluoride to its April 23 meeting after Councillors Mary-Pat Gleeson and Joel Field said Peterson’s report and supplementary information is a “lot of information” to digest.

“There’s a lot of information to go through, to make sure we are making the right decision,” said Field.

Mayor John McCharles said a municipal referendum would be needed to take fluoride out of the town’s drinking water

Gawley said after the meeting staff is checking to see if a referendum would actually be needed; and is also checking to see if a referendum was used to begin the use of fluoride. If a referendum was used to start it, another would be needed to end it, he said.

Gawley said April 23 is only a tentative date to continue the fluoride debate because the town is still trying to secure the attendance of people such as Greensmith and Petersen.

http://www.petroliatopic.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3517108

By: Roger Dzugan (Letter to the Editor), The Windsor Star, Windsor, Ontario 23-Mar-2012 — Re: Removing fluoride unwise, costly, by Harry Hoediono, March 9.

In response to Dr. Harry Hoediono’s letter regarding fluoride in our drinking water, how do you know what and how much of any food or liquid each and every patient consumes?

I personally consume very little tap water, drinking more milk, juice, pop, Gatorade and other liquids. People may drink more bottled water.

Our bodies are as different as our DNA, so making any kind of accurate comparisons seems impossible to me. The other fact is that, out of all the water the city puts this hydrofluorosilicic acid in, only about one per cent gets ingested, the rest being wasted into our Great Lakes, posing another threat to environmental sustainability.

There are other ways to apply fluoride to your teeth without jeopardizing your health or the environment. We just need to be more educated.

http://www.windsorstar.com/technology/fluoride+water+ways/6346480/story.html