By: Jen Gerson, National Post, Calgary, Alberta 24-May-2013 – 

Fluoridated water is endorsed by virtually every credible health organization in North America, including Health Canada, the Centre for Disease Control and numerous dental associations. Yet, in its 60-year history, no public health measure has stirred up as much controversy and fear as the addition of the ion into the public water supply.

There are some concerns about whether fluoride doses need to be as high as they are, given the widespread use of the ion in food and toothpaste. But the more serious health claims made by anti-fluoride activists — including an alleged link between fluoride and reduced IQ — have been found wanting after scientific scrutiny by Health Canada and other researchers.

And yet, as decades have passed — and ongoing studies continue to show the efficacy and safety of minute amounts of fluoride in preventing cavities — the controversy continues. Campaigns to de-fluoridate the water supply continue to succeed at an ever growing pace across the country and continent.

Waterloo, Calgary and Windsor are among the most recent major municipalities to stop adding fluoride; Windsor cut its supply only weeks ago. Smaller municipalities have done it too: Okotoks, Alta., Lasalle, Ont., and Moncton, N.B.

To flouride’s many supporters, the decision has led to utterly predictable results: Calgary dentists are already reporting an increase in tooth decay since fluoride was removed in 2011.

“On the private side of practice, it does seem to be to be getting worse. The waiting lists are longer and longer for specialists,” said Dr. Kuen Chow, a local dentist who volunteers his time to help children who have escaped domestic violence.

“For us, we’re advocating for fluoride even though it’s going to hurt our bottom line. We don’t really care. We don’t want to see kids suffering.”

Municipalities vote to eliminate fluoride often despite the objections of their own experts; in Calgary’s case, Alberta Health Service actively urged the city to continue fluoridation. Dr. Allen Heimann, the medical officer of health at the Windsor Essex County Health Unit, failed to convince his city to keep the additive.

“Certainly the removal of fluoride does concern us,’’ he said.

“We do have to recognize that fluoridation of the water supply is one step in a good dental health program and if one portion of that program is removed, we have to redouble our efforts to ensure other steps are more effective.’’

Calgary’s mayor, Naheed Nenshi, did not support removal but was out of town for the vote; he said this week through a spokesman that he was unlikely to re-open the issue.

Likewise, city councillor Druh Farrell, who spearheaded the city’s bid to remove fluoride, said cavities have increased across North America in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas.

“I think Alberta Health Services needs to look at other countries that have been very successful with this issue. They need to provide alternatives and start focusing on hygiene,” she said.

With the $750,000 saved by cutting fluoride, the city will purchase a mobile dental health unit to service people in disadvantaged communities, she added.

One of Calgary’s leading citizens behind the anti-fluoridation campaign, family doctor Robert C. Dickson, noted the Calgary dentists complaining about increased cavities are relying solely on anecdotal evidence.

“I guess, in a nutshell, it’s not safe, it’s not effective and it’s very unethical,” he said. Numerous studies support his position, he said; all of the major medical associations have sided in favour of fluoride because they’re “old boys clubs” unwilling to admit they’ve made a decades-long mistake.

He traces the campaign to fluoridate water to the Manhattan Project.

“Fluoride was a major component of manufacturing atomic weapons during the 1940s,” he said. The aftereffects of nuclear weapons manufacture — fluorine compounds — were causing animals and plants to fall ill, prompting a campaign to “whitewash fluoride,” by claiming it strengthened teeth. They then put it in the water supply, he said.

The more established history of fluoride begins at the turn of the century, when a dentist in Colorado found local children had mysterious dark stains on their teeth. Although unsightly, they found the teeth resisted decay.

The cause was eventually traced to naturally occurring fluoride; after several studies, scientists suggested a small dose would make the tooth enamel more resilient without causing the spots.

Grand Rapids, Mich., was the first to add fluoride to the water in the mid ’40s. The recommended dose was similar to what health agencies recommend cities add to the water today.

‘I think almost every disease that’s ever been a plague on our bodies, some subset of the anti-fluoridation group leaps on the bandwagon and say fluoride is causing it’

A 2010 guideline published by Health Canada suggested a maximum concentration of 1.5 mg/L. The report found no link between that level of fluoride and any adverse health effects, “including those related to cancer, immunotoxicity, reproductive/developmental toxicity, genotoxicity and/or neurotoxicity,” it reported. “It also does not support a link between fluoride exposure and intelligence quotient deficit, as there are significant concerns regarding the relevant studies, including quality, credibility, and methodological weaknesses.”

Numerous studies have found that children who have access to the ion record fewer cavities, although the disparity between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities may be decreasing due to the use of fluoridated toothpastes, better hygiene and exposure through foods, said Allan Freeze, a groundwater scientist and retired University of British Columbia professor.

Mr. Freeze became fascinated by the fluoride debate about a decade ago, prompting him to write a book, The Fluoride Wars, in 2009.

“I wrote the book trying to be as objective as possible. I tried to lay out both sides,” he said. His conclusion was “fluoride did much more good than harm. It essentially stopped the epidemic of childhood and adult dental caries. There’s no question that dental caries and the number of cavities in kids went up and up and up until fluoride was introduced and then it went down and down and down to almost nothing.”

Mr. Freeze said the concerns about fluoride almost always mirror the prevailing health and political fears of the era.

“I think almost every disease that’s ever been a plague on our bodies, some subset of the anti-fluoridation group leaps on the bandwagon and say fluoride is causing it,” he said.

When it was first introduced, some anti-fluoride activists claimed it was a communist plot.

“They were worried about polio, then as cancer came on, it became about cancer. Then came AIDS,” he said, adding that the latest claims involve a link between fluoride and a depressed IQ. Whenever one connection is disproven, the movement focuses in on another. “Now I suppose the Taliban is putting it into the water supply.”

‘I guess, in a nutshell, it’s not safe, it’s not effective and it’s very unethical’

That’s not to say fluoride is harmless, Mr. Freeze added. At extremely high doses found naturally in some parts of the world, a lifetime of over-exposure can lead to major problems, including skeletal fluorosis, a crippling bone disease. However, the concentrations involved are many times higher than what Canadian and American municipalities put in their water. This disease, common to parts of China and India, is practically unheard of in developed nations, Mr. Freeze said.

In North America, the most common side effect of fluoride use is a slight cosmetic mottling of the teeth.

“Some of the more sophisticated ones will say we don’t need fluoride in the water any more because we have fluoride in the toothpaste and that’s enough. That has some merits,” he said. But when it comes to municipal water fluoridation, it’s local politics rather than science that tends to win the fight.

Longtime Montreal mayor Jean Drapeau’s anti-fluoride advocacy prevented the ion from ever being added to the water supply; a dental survey conducted in the late ’70s found children in Montreal had twice the number of cavities as those from nearby, fluoridated communities. Vancouver has always been free of fluoride.

Calgary’s recent decision is actually the latest round in political ping pong; plebiscites in 1956, 1961 and 1971 rejected fluoridation. Calgarians voted in favour in 1989, but the subject came under heated review and further votes regularly afterward.

Dr. Chow said the politics and the finances might make for a compelling case. But, he said, the savings are illusory.

“There’s not enough money saved to cover all the work we’re doing. It’s just so sad.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/24/fluoride-increasingly-removed-from-water-supply-despite-lack-of-evidence-it-is-harmful/

By: Dr. James S. Beck, Calgary Herald, Calgary, Alberta 24-May-2013 – 

The column by Rob Breakenridge on fluoridation is misleading on several points. Presumably the column is a reaction to the current flurry over the suggestion by two dentists that city council consider reintroducing fluoridation.

The decision to stop fluoridation was made after long consideration by members of council who had been in office for multiple terms. Twelve of the 15 members voted to stop fluoridation. Ald. Gord Lowe, a longtime supporter, voted to continue it. The remaining two who voted to continue, being new to the issue, had pleaded lack of knowledge and chose the status quo.

In his column, Breakenridge expresses puzzlement over what benefits council expected of its decision. I can’t speak for councillors, but from my experience with that process, I suggest that those who voted to stop fluoridation expected fewer adverse effects associated with swallowing fluoride and other products of hydrofluorosilicic acid (the industrial grade chemical that was used to fluoridate Calgary’s water). And I suppose they would expect the certainty that the residents of Calgary would have a significant control over their own medication, a control denied by fluoridation, and a matter of medical ethics and human rights.

Now council is urged by two Calgary dentists to reconsider. They claim that the prevalence of cavities in Calgary has increased since fluoridation was stopped. According to the dental officer of health of Alberta Health Services stationed in Calgary, there is no systematically gathered data on the prevalence of cavities since cessation of fluoridation. So we are left to weigh the purported findings or impressions of two dentists taken from their personal practices against the systematic collections of data from millions of patients. That more abundant and more systematically gathered data indicate no substantial prevention of cavities by fluoridated water and no increase in the incidence of cavities after stopping fluoridation, as determined by comparison of cities stopping it with cities continuing it.

There are dozens of such studies. They show either no difference with the control cities, or show improvement of dental health after stopping. I am referring to actual scientific research published in credible journals, not to endorsements by various societies and government departments.

In his column, Breakenridge refers to citation of evidence by Alberta Health Services that supports the notion that fluoridation prevents cavities. There is no study that shows such effectiveness. Admittedly, it is claimed by AHS that there are such studies, but examination of these cited studies reveals them to be uncertain or contrary to their findings. I have witnessed this in AHS presentations before several town and city councils, including the hearings of Calgary city council and committees.

The claim of safety is also erroneous. The most comprehensive evaluation of the scientific literature on possible adverse effects was done by a panel of 12 scientists for the National Research Council of the United States and reported in 2006. It found association of using water containing fluoride — water with various concentrations of fluoride, including concentrations comparable to those in fluoridated tap water — with several abnormalities.

Those abnormalities included thyroid disease, dental fluorosis and hip fracture, among others. And they found probable adverse effects not proven, but certainly indicating that further research is needed.

The degree of certainty of adverse effects depends on what groups within the population are considered. Groups more susceptible to particular effects include infants, diabetics, persons with kidney disease and the elderly. These groups constitute sizable fractions of a population of 1.3 million. The failure of fluoridation of tap water to control the dose a person gets, and the fact that fluoride is accumulated in several tissues throughout life in a fluoridated city, are also major problems.

Breakenridge cites the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and its dated overstatement on fluoridation. But the CDC, as of 1999, along with the American Dental Association, agree with research that seems to show a slight benefit in preventing cavities from topical application of fluoride directly to the tooth enamel rather than from a systemic effect.

So why risk harms, some of which are certain to occur, when swallowing fluoride is essentially ineffective and there are alternative measures that do seem to prevent cavities such as a good diet and consistent dental hygiene?

James S. Beck, MD, PhD, is professor emeritus of medical biophysics at the University of Calgary and co-author of a 2010 book on fluoridation.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/op-ed/Beck+Returning+fluoridation+would+health+risk/8432612/story.html

By: Dr. James S. Beck, Calgary Herald, Calgary, Alberta 24-May-2013 –

The Herald reports on comments of two pediatric dentists who think there has been a rise in incidence or severity of cavities in Calgary children since fluoridation was stopped. Such a limited sampling does not weigh heavily against the extensive systematic research on the consequences of stopping fluoridation in long-fluoridated cities.

There are many such studies involving tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of children. With perhaps one exception, all of these investigations have shown that, in comparison with control cities, the incidence of cavities have continued the same or have decreased in the cities that stopped fluoridation.

If the incidence of cavities is higher following stopping fluoridation, it is not necessarily because fluoridation was stopped. The same precaution applies to the decrease in cavities in 18 industrialized countries over four decades which occurred after fluoridation was introduced. In that case – a case of data from tens or hundreds of millions of patients – the decrease was the same in 14 countries not fluoridated as in four countries fluoridated.

The suggestion that there should be a plebiscite if the issue arises again in Calgary is not reasonable. Whichever result occurs, it amounts to asking our neighbours to decide whether we should take an unapproved drug at uncontrolled dose without our informed consent. That’s something that a physician or dentist cannot do.

Systematic studies have shown that fluoridation is not effective for low-income families. Or for high-income families, for that matter. Alternative measures such as better diet, better dental hygiene, and better access to professional dental care are likely effective and subject to personal choice.

Dr. James S. Beck, Calgary James S. Beck is a professor of medical biophysics at the University of Calgary.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/fluoride/8428765/story.html

By: Ryan Kost, The Oregonian, Portland, Oregon 21-May-2013 –

But none of that was enough. For the fourth time since 1956, Portlanders on Tuesday night rejected a plan to fluoridate city water, 60 percent to 40 percent.

“There’s a libertarian component to Oregon politics … a kind of opposition to what the establishment might want,” said Bill Lunch, a political science professor at Oregon State University. “Those who have more money, despite the kind of popular presumptions in this regard, don’t always win elections.”

The lesser-known of two issues on the Portland ballot passed easily. Voters approved a third renewal of the city’s Children’s Levy with more than 70 percent in favor. The levy directs more than $9 million a year to programs that support about 14,000 children annually in areas such as child abuse prevention, after-school activities and foster care.

The campaign to renew the levy, however, took a back seat to the fight over fluoride, which intensified in the weeks leading to Election Day.

In Portland, where a largely Democratic electorate often finds liberal candidates struggling to differentiate themselves, the fluoride debate created stark, and heated, divisions.

Both campaigns accused the other of stealing yard signs. A thinly veiled anti-fluoride push poll went out to voters. Opponents were described as insensitive to equity issues, while proponents were accused of wanting to willingly pollute the city’s famously pure water.

The issue also wound up politicizing a statewide health report that showed falling cavity and tooth decay rates in the state over the past five years. One of the report’s authors said she felt pressured by Upstream Health, the group spearheading fluoridation, to present the findings in a certain way.

More than $1 million was spent on the campaign, a considerable total for a Portland-only election. But Portland finds itself back where it has historically been, as the only city among the nation’s 30 most populous to not approve fluoridation.

Clean Water Portland, the group leading the opposition, was hesitant to claim victory, but it was clear an hour after the 8 p.m. ballot deadline that the measure didn’t have enough support.

Still, said Kelly Barnes, a spokeswoman for the group, “when you really get down to it, clean water is a universal issue.

“When citizens took a look at the information, they decided for themselves that the risk wasn’t worth it.”

Barnes wouldn’t discuss possible next steps, although the group has said it would like a ban on fluoride written into the city charter.

“I think we’re going to take a little rest and reevaluate where we are.”

The pro-fluoride group Healthy Kids, Healthy Portland conceded defeat early. “Disappointed” was the word of the night.

“The results are certainly disappointing, but I think they’re mostly disappointing because, at the end of the day, we were not able to provide this preventative measure” to people who need it, said Alejandro Queral, co-chair of the group’s steering committee. “The issue doesn’t go away at the end of the election.”

Dana Haynes, Mayor Charlie Hales’ spokesman, said Hales had no plans to come back at the issue but shared supporters’ frustration.

“The measure lost even with my own ‘yes’ vote,” the mayor said in a statement. “Disappointing, but I accept the will of the voters.”

Portland has been at odds with fluoridation for more than half a century.

In the 1950s, residents considered the question of fluoridation about the same time many of the nation’s other large metro areas were adopting the practice as a way of fighting tooth decay. Portland voters bucked the trend and rejected the proposal. They said no again in 1962.

It seemed Portlanders had come around to the idea in 1978 when they approved a fluoridation plan. But two years later, they reversed course and voted to scrap it.

Since then, fluoridation has remained a constant political issue, on par with mandatory gas station attendants, occasionally coming up at the Legislature but never finding any traction.

That changed in September when, after a year of pro-fluoride lobbying, the Portland City Council quickly approved a plan to add fluoride at 0.7 parts per million beginning in March 2014.

The decision affected not just Portland, but 19 other cities, including Gresham, Tigard and Tualatin, that contract with the city to buy water from the Bull Run Reservoir. All told, the fluoridated water would have reached 900,000 people.

Early estimates put the project at $5 million for startup costs and $575,000 annually after that.

Opponents, however, quickly moved to get fluoride on the ballot.

In the months leading to the election, Healthy Kids, Healthy Portland focused on making the issue about equity. The group pulled together support among communities of color and raised more than $800,000 in cash and in-kind contributions. The group sold fluoridation as a scientifically sound method for fighting what they called the state’s dental crisis, continuously noting that nearly three-fourths of Americans drink fluoridated water.

Despite its financial disadvantage, however, Clean Water Portland proved better at mobilizing an electorate wary of adding a chemical to one of the nation’s cleanest sources of drinking water. Signs calling for residents to reject “fluoridation chemicals” popped up on lawns across the city even as stories in the national media popped up, poking fun at the city’s resistance to a common practice.

“The simplicity of their message was certainly an advantage,” said Queral from Healthy Kids, Healthy Portland. “I think the opponents did a very good job of casting doubt on the science. I think they homed in on their message and they hammered away on it.”

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013/05/portland_fluoride_for_the_four.html

By: Tyler Kula, Sarnia Observer, Sarnia, Ontario 20-May-2013 –

“The caution is it should be properly regulated,” said Dr. Sudit Ranade.

Fluoride in water has been used since the mid-20th century to strengthen teeth, although questions have been raised about whether it does any good — and whether it may actually cause harm.

Consuming excess amounts has been linked to low IQ and other health concerns, but the amount in tap water, which should be regulated to between 0.5 and 0.7 parts per million, doesn’t cause adverse affects, Ranade said.

“There isn’t a lot of evidence that fluoride is damaging to people in the quantities that it’s added to the water supply, or even when you add in the other kinds of treatment, like fluoride treatments and fluoridated toothpaste,” he said.

The cost of adding $1 of the controversial chemical to water can save up to $38 in dental treatment and oral health care costs — a relatively cheap preventative measure against tooth decay for people who can’t afford dental care, Ranade said.

“If we take it out, we’re disadvantaging all of the people who would like to have fluoride in their water,” he said, noting more than 90 professional health organizations, including Health Canada, support current fluoride levels in water.

Ranade recently recommended the Lambton Area Water Supply System (LAWSS) continue water fluoridation.

It’s six member municipalities in Sarnia-Lambton are in the midst of voting on whether to replace LAWSS’ $300,000 fluoridation system.

http://www.theobserver.ca/2013/05/20/dr-sudit-ranade-says-the-chemical-is-safe-if-regulated-properly

By: Clara Ho, Calgary Herald, Calgary, Alberta 17-May-2013 –

With the fluoride gone, Dr. Sarah Hulland, president of the Alberta Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, said kids are coming into her office with bigger cavities than historically seen before.

“More importantly, the progression to getting larger from go is much more rapid, which is really bad,” Hulland said.

Dr. Leonard Smith, who has been working as a pediatric dentist in Calgary for 42 years, said he noticed an improvement in his patients’ teeth after fluoride was introduced.

“Now we’re seeing again the horror stories in a younger population of children since they’ve taken the fluoride out,” Smith said, citing higher levels of decay in young children and even babies as young as 11 months.

“I predicted we’d see a big increase 12 months from the time the city took it out. We are busier.”

He acknowledges that fluoride alone does not stop dental decay cold, but it helps prevent dental problems primarily in the high-risk population by changing the density of the enamel and making it more resistant to acids produced by bacteria.

Hulland said she’s not confident city council would be willing to address the fluoride topic again, but added she wished council members would have been more willing to consider the information and knowledge of dentists, particularly those working with kids and in public health.

If the issue comes to council again, Hulland said there should be a plebiscite.

“Personally, I would like to see the fluoride brought back,” she said. “People benefiting from fluoride are lower income or on a fixed income. It’s not just pediatrics but also geriatrics, and it’s shameful we’re putting so much disrespect and disregard on that subpopulation.”

The city agreed to spend $750,000 — the same amount it would have spent adding the substance to the drinking water supply — to go to anti-cavity programs for children in need who are living in poverty.

But Hulland said the city has not consulted or updated pediatric dentists on the programs.

Ward 2 Ald. Gord Lowe, who voted against removing fluoride from the water, said he is “not the least bit surprised” to hear pediatric dentists reporting an increase in cavities among children.

“I was appalled when council took that decision,” Lowe said. “It was dead wrong, in my view.”

But Ward 7 Ald. Druh Farrell, who spearheaded the removal of fluoride from municipal drinking water, said cavities are on the rise across North America, including cities that fluoridate their water.

She said she’d prefer Alberta Health Services to address the problem in some other way.

Farrell also said she’s heard little on the issue since council scrapped fluoride treatment. “It’s gone quiet. It’s over.”

— With files from Jason Markusoff, Calgary Herald

http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Dentists+report+more+cavities+kids+after+fluoride+removed+from+water/8397862/story.html

By: Chris Eakin, Fairview Post, Fairview, Alberta 01-May-2013 –

Director of public works Garry Leathem started off the evening by explaining what Fairview does at present. The chemical used (hydrofluorosilicic acid) costs $2,000 per year and the water treatment plant is licensed to add it to the water supply although operators must keep the concentration in the water around 0.7 mg/litre. Leathem explained that if they go more than .2mg/l above or below that level they have 24 hours to get the concentration back where it should be before reporting the plant as out of compliance. He explained the testing required usually takes about an hour but when the operator has run into problems it has taken as long as four hours.

Dr. de Villiers and Dr. Luke Shwart spoke on behalf of Alberta Health in favour of fluoridation, Dr. James Beck against with the Alberta Health team of de Villiers and Shwart speaking first.

The starting point was a series of questions that included: is it safe? Is it ethical? Is it effective? De Villiers and Shwart said yes, Beck said no.

De Villiers and Shwart carefully explained how Alberta Health and Health Canada used existing scientific studies as a basis for their approval of fluoridation to improved general dental health. They quoted several studies showing fluoridation is effective in improving dental health and is not linked to any health problems bar fluorosis which they say is more of a esthetic problem than a health problem.

“We reached this position [on fluoridation] not just willy-nilly. We’ve looked at all the data, all the ongoing research, all the published literature.”

Beck went on the attack from the start, saying the studies were incorrect or biased or misrepresented the authors’ actual intent. He also disagreed with their take on fluorosis, saying it can be very serious.

He did not cite any studies for his own conclusions but did offer to give website addresses with information about the studies that favour his side.

Beck said councillors have a tough job making the decision to fluoridate or not and likened it to a doctor trying to give a patient a drug without consent, without a prescription a drug which hasn’t been approved for the purpose it’s being given and the dosage isn’t controlled.

Beck went so far as to compare fluoridation to thalidomide and Shwart called it a smear tactic.

Beck said he merely meant to point out that doctors have made mistakes before.

He doesn’t accept the 1955 plebiscite as giving consent and said most plebiscites are close decisions with only a few percentage points between the yes and no side.

Councillor Tony Prybysh rebutted that by saying the conservative government rules with only 30% of the vote, “it’s the way the system works.”

As for the drug being approved, Health Canada does approve of the use of fluoride for water treatment as does Alberta Health and the amount in the water is very tightly controlled, although Dr. Beck did point out the total amount an individual ingests will vary with how much water they drink.

De Villiers and Shwart pointed out the health authorities have to take that into consideration as well as varying levels of health when they determine safe concentrations for drinking water.

The question came from the audience asking which would make more difference to children’s dental health – getting a proper diet with no junk food or having fluoride in the water.

Shwart said without hesitation proper diet would have a greater affect but would be much more difficult to bring about than fluoridation of the water supply.

At the end of the debate/forum, CAO Davidson asked everyone to fill out a questionnaire which asked how they felt about fluoridation, whether the town should stop it, continue it or take it to a plebiscite.

The next town council meeting should show where council is prepared to go on the question.

In the weeks before the forum, AHS had done a phone survey, talking to local residents and sounding them out on the topic and apparently 60% of those they talked to are in favour of continuing fluoridation.

http://www.fairviewpost.com/2013/05/01/fluoridation-forum-not-decisive-time-will-tell-on-taxpayer-conclusions

By: Ruth Bednar (Letter to the Editor), What’s Up Muskoka, Gravenhurst, Ontario 01-May-2013 – It has been two years now since our Muskoka District councillors have received a big “pat-on-the-back” from the Ministry of Health for voting to continue the practice of adding the drug called fluoride (Hydrofluorosilicic Acid or HFSA) to the drinking water to ostensibly treat dental disease in our Muskoka communities. This chemical has nothing to do with the potability of the drinking water, such as chlorine.

With 50 or more communities across Canada stopping or saying “no” to adding this chemical, plus the overwhelming recent scientific research, some councillors and citizens have looked at these independent, unbiased studies. They are aware of the accumulation and overexposure of fluoride in so many other food, beverage and dental products.

Many communities, such as Barrie or Orillia, have never had fluoridation chemicals added to their drinking water. It is clearly apparent that adding more HFSA to the drinking water supply is irresponsible and certainly unethical.

If you think drinking bottled water prevents you from receiving this chemical… think again, as artificially fluoridated water is used in Muskoka restaurants, as well as in beverages including wine and beers made in Muskoka.

Do you think your family should be medicated without a doctor monitoring the dosage and without your consent?

We can fight dental disease with a healthy diet, eliminating sugars, and teaching your children how to take care for their teeth. However, fluoridated toothpaste should never be swallowed.

Health Canada concedes that the chemical HFSA that we use to fluoridate our water has not been regulated under Canada’s Food and Drug Act, nor is it regulated under Canada’s Natural Health Product Regulations.

This is why members of Muskoka Citizens Opposing Fluoridation www.muskokacof.webs.com are speaking up and joining over 4,000 health professionals to put a stop to this unsafe, uneffective, unnecessary, and most importantly unethical practice.

http://eedition.whatsupmuskoka.com/doc/Whats-Up-Muskoka/wum_may1_2013/2013050101/#8

By: Cathy Dobson, Sarnia Observer, Sarnia, Ontario 29-Apr-2013 –

Coun. Mike Kelch unexpectedly brought the issue up at the end of Monday’s council meeting, setting the stage for renewed public discussion.

“A lot has changed in the world since someone thought fluoride was a good thing to stick in drinking water,” Kelch said. “We are now trying to reduce the chemical burden on people.”

He said the “jury is out” on whether fluoridated water is harmful. But people these days are more conscious of what goes in their bodies than they were when fluoride was first added to Sarnia’s drinking water to fight tooth decay in the 1960s.

Local residents should now be given the right to determine if they want to consume it or not, he said.

Kelch began by making a motion for city council to direct the Lambton Area Water Supply System (LAWSS) to stop fluoridating local drinking water.

If council had voted on it Monday, there would have been no chance for public input.

Kelch agreed it was unusual to make such a significant motion without giving any notice but said he was taken off guard himself by a staff report in Monday’s council package that he received only four days prior.

That report said the LAWSS board wants to hear from its six member municipalities about adding fluoride before it commits to replacing its aging $300,000 fluoride system.

Coun. Jon McEachran, the city’s rep at LAWSS, said he wants to find out if local residents are in favour of fluoridation before spending the money.

McEachran voted against fluoridating water last time the question came to council in 2010.

“I’m still against it,” he said Monday. “I think we should err on the side of caution. It’s a dangerous chemical and there are a lot of unknowns. I suspect that one day we’ll see it wasn’t wise to add it.”

Kelch, who was absent for the 2010 vote that ended in a tie, said he isn’t in favour of fluoridated water either.

“Let’s provide the purest water available with the least amount of chemical added. How about that?” he said.

Mayor Mike Bradley has advocated for fluoride in the past.

He grew up in a community without fluoride in the water and has said he regrets that as an adult.

Bradley cautioned council about taking action on Kelch’s motion without any public debate.

“It’s unfair to have no discussion,” he said.

Adding fluoride to local water produced heated debate in the 60s and ultimately resulted in a plebiscite to allow Sarnians to vote on it.

Bradley said a plebiscite should be held again at the next election to see what the majority wants now.

Kelch agreed to table his motion and wait for a staff report to answer questions and possibly hold a public meeting.

“I recognize I didn’t provide notice. It’s a bit like dropping the bomb,” he said. “…I could have unleashed a thunderdome here.”

LAWSS provides drinking water to Sarnia, Point Edward, St.Clair Township, Plympton-Wyoming, Lambton Shores and Warwick Township.

In 2010, the LAWSS board relied on a weighted voting system since Sarnia consumes 70% of the water. If the weighted system is used again, Sarnia will have five votes, St. Clair two and the rest of the communities one each.

St. Clair Township’s council recently voted against fluoride use.

http://www.theobserver.ca/2013/04/29/kelch-says-chemical-use-should-be-a-choice

Le ministre de la Santé, Réjean Hébert, se dit clairement en faveur de la fluoration de l’eau, malgré les promesses électorales du Parti québécois disant qu’un gouvernement péquiste « modifiera la loi pour interdire la fluoration de l’eau potable ».

Jessica Nadeau, Le Nouvelliste, Le Devoir, Québec, 22-avril-2013 – Le ministre de la Santé, Réjean Hébert, se dit clairement en faveur de la fluoration de l’eau. « En fonction des données scientifiques démontrées, la fluoration de l’eau est considérée comme une bonne mesure de santé publique selon le ministre, notamment pour la prévention de la carie dentaire », affirme son attachée de presse, Arianne Lareau.

« Toutefois, conscient qu’il y a des divergences d’opinion à ce sujet, le ministre était ouvert à l’idée que la Commission de la santé se penche sur ce sujet », précise-t-elle à la demande du Devoir, à la veille des travaux qui s’ouvriront à Québec lundi.

Cette position va clairement à l’encontre du programme électoral du Parti québécois, dans lequel on pouvait lire qu’un gouvernement péquiste « modifiera la loi pour interdire la fluoration de l’eau potable ».

Fort de cette promesse, les opposants à la fluoration ont interpellé le gouvernement ces dernières semaines afin qu’il respecte son engagement, plus de sept mois après son élection.

Question d’éthique

Le mois dernier, la députée libérale de Richmond, Karine Vallières, a déposé à l’Assemblée nationale une pétition signée par un regroupement de citoyens de sa circonscription réclamant une commission parlementaire pour « faire la lumière sur les aspects scientifiques, sanitaires, économiques et légaux » de la fluoration de l’eau potable. Les signataires demandent aux parlementaires de « statuer sur la nécessité d’abolir le programme de fluoration de l’eau potable ».

Les opposants ont réussi à imposer leur agenda et pourront exprimer leur point de vue lundi et mardi dans le cadre d’une commission parlementaire.

« Le gouvernement doit prendre ses responsabilités en déposant une loi claire et interdire la fluoration de l’eau potable pour éviter les conflits locaux, sources de tensions inutiles dans les municipalités du Québec », écrit la Coalition Eau Secours dans son mémoire, dont Le Devoir a obtenu copie.

L’organisme, qui milite depuis plusieurs années pour sensibiliser les citoyens et élus municipaux aux risques de la fluoration, estime que « de nombreux arguments scientifiques contredisent la thèse selon laquelle les fluorures dans l’eau potable sont bénéfiques pour la santé publique et sans effet observable pour l’environnement ».

En entrevue, la présidente de l’organisme, Martine Chatelain, affirme que c’est d’abord et avant tout une question d’éthique puisqu’un citoyen vivant dans une ville où l’eau est fluorée n’a pas le choix d’en ingérer. « C’est une médication sans l’accord de la personne. C’est comme si on disait : on va ajouter du fluorure pour la carie dentaire, mais on trouve aussi que les gens ne sont pas assez de bonne humeur, on va leur mettre un peu de Prozac et pour le cancer, il y a tel produit… on va arriver à quoi ? C’est de l’eau potable, de l’eau pour boire, pas de l’eau pour soigner les gens ! »

Stratégie nationale

Plusieurs tenants de la fluoration viendront également partager leur avis sur la question. Les parlementaires entendront notamment l’Ordre des dentistes du Québec, de même que l’Institut national de santé publique du Québec (INSPQ), dont la stratégie nationale prévoyait de « mobiliser un vaste ensemble des partenaires » afin de rejoindre, par cette mesure préventive, plus de 50 % de la population du Québec.

Depuis 2005, l’INSPQ fait la promotion de la fluoration auprès des municipalités de plus de 5000 habitants, qui sont libres de choisir si elles acceptent ou non de fluorer l’eau aux frais de l’État. Dans plusieurs villes, comme à Mont-Joli, où le débat sera tranché par référendum lors des prochaines élections municipales, les représentants de l’INSPQ se heurtent à la résistance des opposants sur le terrain. « Plus les gens sont informés, plus ils sont contre », estime Martine Chatelain de la Coalition Eau secours.

Il y a quelques années à peine, la ministre des Ressources naturelles, Martine Ouellet, tenait le même discours. Car avant de se lancer en politique, c’est elle qui menait la bataille contre la fluoration de l’eau à titre de présidente de la Coalition Eau Secours.

Mais son collègue de la Santé et des Services sociaux, le docteur Réjean Hébert, penche plutôt du côté de l’INSPQ. Il en va de même pour le critique de l’opposition officielle, Yves Bolduc. « La position du Parti libéral, c’est de respecter l’opinion des experts et les experts, présentement, recommandent la fluoration de l’eau, répond l’ancien ministre de la Santé en entrevue. Mais quand on arrive en commission parlementaire, on arrive avec l’esprit d’écouter. Probablement que mardi soir, après avoir entendu tous les groupes, ça va nous permettre de nous faire une meilleure tête sur le sujet. »

http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/376292/fluoration-de-l-eau-quebec-a-un-prejuge-favorable?utm_source=infolettre-2013-04-22&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=infolettre-quotidienne