February 8, 2018

Budget for fluoridation system climbs

COF-COF News Find 300 x 300

By: Michael-Allan Marion, Brantford Expositor, Brantford, Ontario 17-Feb-2017 – City councillors want to discuss behind closed doors the ballooning budget for construction of a liquid fluoridation system at the Holmedale water treatment plant.

Council’s operations and administrations committee voted this week to support a motion from Coun. Dan McCreary to defer to an in-camera meeting further discussion on a staff request for an additional $350,000 to install a permanent liquid fluoridation system at the plant.

For decades, the city has used a system of putting sodium silicofluoride powder into batch tanks, which then was released into the water treatment stream. But municipal staff observed particulate fluoride settling out in the batch tanks.

A consultant determined last March that the hardness of the water made some of the powder insoluble. A temporary liquid system was put in place last May, while a permanent solution was found.

Council earlier approved allocating $200,000 toward the installation of the permanent system that would inject the fluoride as a liquid. About $50,000 of the budget was used for consultant design, contract administration and inspection fees, leaving $150,000 to pay for the installation itself.

However, staff said in a report to the committee that it is necessary to increase the budget to $500,000 and add another $350,000.

“The estimated cost to implement a permanent liquid dosing system is higher than anticipated, due to more complex than anticipated changes required at the plan,” the report says.

“The proposed system will not only provide adequate fluoridation of the drinking water, but also address required health and safety measures to protect staff and residents.”

Staff said that they asked the consultant to investigate the use of existing out-of-service systems in other areas of the plant for the new liquid system, but were told all were incompatible.

Councillors Brian Van Tilborg and Rick Weaver balked at the budget hike.

Van Tilborg said he fears the city could be getting itself into a hole.

Weaver said he wants to see what other municipalities are doing to fluoridate their water.

“We had a system that worked for 55 years and now we’re hearing it hasn’t worked,” he said.

“I can’t support this.”

The committee voted 8-2 to recommend taking the issue behind closed doors. The recommendation will be discussed at the next council meeting.


Peel asks Ontario government to test toxicity of fluoride added to local drinking water

COF-COF Special News Find 300 x 300By: Roger Belgrave, Brampton Guardian, Region of Peel, Ontario 15-Feb-2017 – Peel is asking the provincial government to conduct toxicity tests on the additive used to fluoridate the region’s drinking water.

Regional council wants the Ontario government to provide clear evidence the additive is safe for human consumption.

After months of hearing scientific studies that have concluded water fluoridation has proven oral health benefits and contradictory arguments that the practice poses serious health risks, Peel councillors decided to drop the local controversy in the Ontario government’s lap.

For a year now, councillors on Peel Region’s Community Water Fluoridation Committee have been re-examining the benefits and potential health risks associated with adding fluoride to the municipal drinking water system.

The committee was established to form a recommendation for the regional position on continued use of water fluoridation in Peel.

However, it appears council members are no closer to forming that position than they were a year ago.

Committee Chair Carolyn Parrish admitted councillors have been “struggling” with the contradictory information presented on the benefits and dangers of fluoridation.

“It’s not been an easy committee,” she confessed at recent council meeting, where council agreed to request the province take responsibility for testing and/or regulating the drinking water additive.

Peel is currently using hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) produced from Phosphorite Rock.

Critics of the water treatment have warned HFSA is a highly toxic form of fluoride, produced as a waste byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer manufacturing process.

Regional health and water system officials have assured politicians the water based liquid additive used in Peel is NSF 60 (National Sanitation Foundation) certified, as required under the Safe Drinking Water Act, meets purity standards and complies with all Ministry of Environment and Climate Change regulations.

A motion, presented by Brampton Coun. Michael Palleschi, asks Ontario to carry out comprehensive toxicity tests and/or assume legislative responsibility for regulating and administering HFSA in drinking water across the province.

Brampton Coun. Martin Medeiros was the only council member present at the meeting to vote against the motion.

Medeiros, who described the move as passing the buck, said he is comfortable with the advice received from regional staff on the issue and ready to make a decision on the future of fluoridation in Peel.

“I was elected to make these types of decisions,” he said in an interview.

Staff has consistently said HFSA meets health standards and there is scientific evidence to support the benefits of water fluoridation.

“The vast majority of the scientific community does support (water fluoridation),” Peel Medical Officer of Health Eileen de Villa told councillors.

She insisted opposition is coming from a small minority of the scientific community.

“It’s not that there’s two equally sized factions,” she remarked.

A loud antifluoridation lobby has countered any information presented in support of the practice.

Brampton Coun. John Sprovieri, a vocal opponent of water fluoridation, said council members are not shirking their responsibility and will make a decision after the province responds to these requests.

Peel had this same debate more than five years ago and decided to continue fluoridation.


Moncton city council extending fluoride decision deadline

COF-COF News Find 300 x 300By: Tori Weldon, CBC News, 07-Feb-2017 – Council is giving itself more time to decide if fluoride will return to the city’s drinking water.

Moncton Mayor Dawn Arnold has told a group of citizens council will take more than a month to decide if fluoride will go back into the city’s drinking water.

About 25 people rose to stand behind fluoridation opponent Jennifer Jones as she spoke at Monday’s meeting.

“Many of us watched last Monday’s presentation [and] can’t understand why you would only give yourselves a month to study this issue,” Jones said.

Jones, a mother and teacher in Moncton, asked council to take more time to consider the important decision, although her own mind has been made up.

“Public water does not belong to dentists,” she said. “Public water is not the way to administer a drug, especially a drug as controversial as fluoride.”

One week earlier, council held a special meeting to allow two groups to speak on the issue. Those who favour fluoride in water supplies say it is highly effective in reducing the number of cavities in children.

Those who oppose it say it is dangerous and there isn’t enough information about the long-term effects on people.

Fluoride debate a ‘hot potato,’ says Moncton mayor

Moncton to debate return of fluoride in drinking water

Mayor Arnold and council decided before the meeting that the Feb. 27 deadline should be extended.

“They were in agreement that we need a bit more time to make the decision and to have a proper mechanism in place so we can get the answers to some of our questions because as we dig through some of the research we’re getting more and more questions,” she said.

Arnold said council will meet again to put a timeline in place.

Five-year history

In 2011, a group of citizens approached the city to remove fluoride from the water, citing health concerns and saying medicating water is a violation of rights.

Moncton phasing fluoride out of water

The city endured a contentious debate that year which ended with Moncton council voting 7–4 to remove fluoride from the water supply.

At the time, Dieppe had voted to remove fluoride from the water supply, while Riverview voted to keep it. As the three communities all get their water from Moncton’s Turtle Creek Resevoir, Moncton broke the deadlock between the communities.

Dollars and cents

In 2011, fluoridating the water cost an estimated $100,000 a year.

Isabelle LeBlanc, Moncton’s director of communications, said to bring it back would cost about $60,000 a year in supplies plus maintenance, power and human resources, as well as a one-time cost of $20,000 to update the facility.


Water Fluoridation Chemicals Now Officially Linked to Brain Harm & Cognitive Deficits

COF-COF Special News Find 300 x 300By: Alanna Ketler, The Event Chronicle, 14-Jan-2017 – A few weeks ago, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was served with a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) petition, from a coalition of environmental, medical, and health groups, including national non-profit Moms Against Fluoridation (MAF). This notice is calling on the agency to completely ban the addition of artificial fluoridation chemicals to public water supplies due to an astounding amount of evidence that proves the risks that the consumption of such chemicals pose to the brain.

The TSCA Petition includes over 2500 pages of scientific documents to support its claims that drinking water that has been fluoridated has the potential to cause profound harmful effects on the brain. These effects were not yet understood years ago when communities began adding fluoride and other chemicals to the municipal drinking water supply.

Science is now a lot more sophisticated than it was at that time, and the proper laboratory tools and technologies are now available to more accurately examine the brain in greater detail. The petition reveals evidence of broad changes to the brain due to water fluoridation such as: IQ deficits, neuroanatomical and chemical effects, and the dire concerns of the effects on the developing fetal brain.

“In times past when fluoridation was instituted, science only had the scalpel or basic X-ray technology, and we simply weren’t able to assess the brain in the way technology can today,” states MAF leadership.

Because this petition was filed under the TSCA it authorizes the EPA with the ability to prohibit the “particular use” of a chemical that presents an “unreasonable risk” to the general public or any sub-populations that are susceptible. This petition argues that the addition of artificial water fluoridation chemicals now absolutely constitutes an “unreasonable risk” to citizens. These risks have now been revealed by 196 new scientific studies that are included in the petition.

Over A Decade Of Increasing Scientific Concern

“…it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means.”

“Not only do fluorides [adversely]affect transmitter concentrations and functions but also are involved in the regulation of glucagon, prostaglandins, and a number of central nervous system peptides including vasopressin… and other hypothalamic peptides.”

“Fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways. These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease.”

Dozens more findings such as the ones listed above were published in the 507 page NRC report.

If you’re wondering about the reported benefits that drinking fluoridated water has on our teeth, well those questions were addressed as well. Author of the petition, Michael Connet says, “It is now understood that fluoride’s predominant effect on tooth decay comes from topical contact with the teeth, not ingestion.”

The Petition states: “Since there is little benefit in swallowing fluoride, there is little justification in exposing the public to any risk of fluoride neurotoxicity…”

“It is important to note,” says a MAF representative, “that not only does it appear that drinking fluoride does nothing for the enamel, but not a single long-term fluoridation safety trial has ever been conducted on the fetus, the brain or the thyroid by our government. Not one.”

It certainly appears as though the government has not done any safety trials on the effects of fluoride at all, but luckily there are many scientists around the world that are interested in fluoride and its toxic effects. The research has become so extensive that it can now be classified as in the same category as lead, mercury and PCBs as one of the “developmental neurotoxicants” according to the journal, Lancet Neurology.

Physicians are also deeply concerned about adding this chemical to the drinking water, as Angela Hind, M.D. notes: “Right now we have 1 in 6 children in the U.S. with neuro-developmental brain disease, including ADHD, Autism Spectrum Disorders, low IQ and behavioral disorders, and 1 in 8 women who will develop thyroid disease. These two epidemics tell us that chemicals like fluoride and lead, both developmental neurotoxins and endocrine disruptors, have no place in our public water.”

Leading professionals in the field of dentistry are bothered as well. “As a practicing general dentist of 39 years, I was stunned when I saw the studies demonstrating the effects that drinking artificial fluoridation chemicals can have on the body—particularly, on the brain,” comments Dr. Bill Osmunson, D.D.S. of Bellevue, Washington.

“This Petition is a watershed,” adds MAF. “Just as people once thought lead, DDT and asbestos were safe, there was a time, after much work and pushing by the people, when those erroneous assumptions shifted and the policies were forced to change. This is now that time for artificial fluoridation chemicals, as the science raises far too many concerns, and the EPA must act to protect the people.”

Various organizations supporting this petition include Moms Against Fluoridation, The Fluoride Action Network, Food and Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, The American Academy of Environmental Medicine, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology and many other individual co-petitioners.

The Cat Is Finally Out Of The Bag

Did you know that the majority of Europe has rejected water fluoridation? That alone should make you question- why? Someone once brought up an interesting point, they say fluoride is good for our teeth, so they add it in unregulated amounts to our drinking water. If they really cared that much for our health, wouldn’t they be adding essential vitamins and minerals as well? Do they really care about the health of our teeth. Something to consider.

No longer can this crucial research go unnoticed and ignored. The evidence is there, how can they even reject this petition? It’s all there. Only time will tell how this situation is handled. The EPA has 90 days to respond.

If you would like to view the petition you can do so here:


Thank you so much for all of the hard work to all those diligent and dedicated people who were involved in putting this research together and presenting this petition. This is so important, and it would appear that there is nothing they can say now and water fluoridation will hopefully become a thing of the past, that we look back and say, “What were we thinking? How could we have ever thought that was a good idea to begin with?”




Exit le fluor, bienvenue la santé dentaire ! / Exit fluoride, welcome dental health !

Boris 2016 CaricatureRéal Boisvert, Gazette de la Mauricie, 5 janvier 2017 – Maintenant que la fluoration de l’eau à Trois-Rivières est chose du passé, revenons à l’essentiel. Intéressons-nous à la santé dentaire de tous les enfants de la région. Et rappelons-nous en même temps que la carie dentaire est probablement l’un des problèmes de santé les plus faciles à traiter.

Comme de fait, une très large proportion d’enfants de la région ne présente aucune carie. Sauf exception, il est vrai que ces enfants ont la chance d’appartenir à un milieu familial relativement aisé. En effet, la carie –et cette statistique n’a pas encore été démentie- évolue selon un profil épidémiologique voulant que 80 % des caries se retrouvent dans la bouche de 20 % des enfants les plus défavorisés, qui résident eux-mêmes dans les communautés locales les plus déshéritées de la Mauricie. La fluoration de l’eau avait donc pour seul objectif de prévenir la carie chez les enfants les plus pauvres et, détail non négligeable, à Trois-Rivières seulement. Cela en espérant que ceux-ci ingèrent effectivement leur dose quotidienne d’eau fluorée, nonobstant son inefficacité contre le tartre, la gingivite ou une carence vitaminique quelconque.

« 80 % des caries se retrouvent dans la bouche de 20 % des enfants les plus défavorisés »

La recette à la base de la santé dentaire passe par une alimentation correcte, une hygiène buccodentaire adéquate et une visite annuelle chez le dentiste. Si la santé publique est résolue dans sa volonté de combattre la carie chez les enfants les plus pauvres, il lui suffit de tabler sur ces axes d’intervention en les adaptant au contexte particulier des familles en situation de précarité socio-économique.

Au premier chef, il s’agirait d’inclure davantage de considérations relatives à la santé dentaire dans le domaine de la lutte contre l’insécurité alimentaire. Du même coup, il serait indiqué d’en faire autant en ce qui concerne les interventions propres à l’adoption de saines habitudes de vie, surtout que l’hygiène buccodentaire s’avère à la portée de tous, quitte à distribuer gratuitement des brosses à dents et du dentifrice dans les écoles les plus défavorisées. Ces deux mesures restent cependant insuffisantes en l’absence de l’amélioration significative des conditions de vie des enfants les plus démunis. La santé publique nous a toutefois démontré par le passé qu’elle agissait comme un acteur de premier plan en matière de développement collectif, en particulier en ce qui a trait à ses efforts visant l’amélioration de la capacité d’agir des individus et des communautés regroupés dans les premiers quartiers de nos villes. Dans cette mouvance, on retrouve un bassin de leaders et d’entrepreneurs sociaux aptes à soutenir une forte mobilisation citoyenne autour de l’importance d’offrir aux enfants les plus démunis une visite annuelle chez le dentiste. Au demeurant, les dentistes du réseau de la santé, si on se fie à l’opiniâtreté avec laquelle ils ont promu la fluoration, sont bien placés pour rappeler au ministre l’excellent rapport coûts-bénéfices d’une telle politique.

À moyen terme, en tant que vecteur de l’estime personnelle et de la confiance en soi, on sera surpris de voir à quel point un sourire complet et éclatant peut créer un effet positif sur la réussite scolaire des élèves les moins favorisés.



Boris 2016 CaricatureRéal Boisvert, Gazette de la Mauricie, 5-Jan-2017 – Now that water fluoridation in Trois-Rivières is a thing of the past, let’s get back to the basics. Let’s look at the dental health of all the children in the area. Remember that tooth decay is probably one of the easiest health problems to treat.

As a matter of fact, a very large proportion of children in the region have no caries. Except, it is likely that these children have benefited by belonging to a relatively affluent family environment. Indeed, decay – and this statistic has not yet been denied – evolves according to an epidemiological profile that 80% of the cavities are found in the mouth of 20% of the most disadvantaged children, who themselves reside in the most deprived localities of the region of Mauricie. The only objective of water fluoridation was to prevent dental decay in the poorest children and, not surprisingly, in Three-Rivers only. This, while hoping people would ingest their daily dose of fluoridated water as being worthwhile, notwithstanding its ineffectiveness against tartar, gingivitis or any vitamin deficiency. After fluoridation, what about a mobilization for overall dental health? Now that fluoridation in Three-Rivers is a thing of the past, let’s return to the essentials. Let’s be concerned about dental health for all the children of the region. Let’s remember at the same time that dental decay is probably one of the easiest health problems to treat.

“80% of cavities are found in the mouth of 20% of the most disadvantaged children”

The basic recipe for dental health is a healthy diet, adequate oral hygiene and an annual visit to the dentist. If public health is resolved in its fight against caries among the poorest children, it is enough to rely on these methods of intervention by adapting them to the particular context of families carrying the most socioeconomic risk.

First and foremost, it would involve the inclusion of more dental considerations in the area of food insecurity. At the same time, it would be useful to look for interventions appropriate to the adoption of healthy lifestyles, especially since oral hygiene is available to everyone, especially if we freely distribute tooth brushes and toothpaste within the most disadvantaged schools. These two measures, however, remain insufficient in the absence of significant improvement in the living conditions of the poorest children. However, public health has demonstrated to us in the past that it has acted as a major player in community development, particularly in its efforts to improve the capacity of individuals and communities in the oldest/poorest neighbourhoods of our cities. In this movement, there is a pool of leaders and social entrepreneurs able to support a strong citizen mobilization around the importance of offering to the poorest children an annual visit to the dentist. In fact, dentists in the health care system, based on the perseverance with which they have promoted fluoridation, are already well-placed to remind the minister of the excellent cost-benefit ratio of such a policy.

In the meantime, as a vehicle for self-esteem and self-confidence, it will be interesting to see how a complete and brilliant smile can have a positive effect on the academic success of less privileged students.

Moncton to debate return of fluoride in drinking water

COF-COF News Find 300 x 300By: CBC News, 16-Dec-2016 – Council wants to hear from interest groups at public meeting Jan. 30 and residents online by Feb. 6.

Moncton councillors will hold a special public meeting next month to discuss reintroducing fluoride to the city’s drinking water supply.

Only special interest groups will be allowed to make presentations at the committee-of-the-whole meeting, which is set for Jan. 30, at 5 p.m., in council chambers, the city said in a statement on Friday.

But residents are being encouraged to submit their comments online at www.moncton.ca/fluoride by Feb. 6.

Council will debate the topic during a second public meeting, which will be held a few weeks later, once councillors have had an opportunity to review all the information, the statement said. A date has not yet been set.

Dentists call for return of fluoride in Moncton water

It was on Dec. 19, 2011, that council voted to stop adding hexafluorosilicic acid to the water supply for five years, “at which time it will be reviewed.”

The motion included a pledge to ask the provincial Health Department or the New Brunswick Dental Society or both to collect data during the five-year period “using valid statistical research methods, comparing dental cary rates among individuals of different ages in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated communities in New Brunswick, in order that the issue may be appropriately assessed.”

50% increase in tooth decay in children

Earlier this fall, the New Brunswick Dental Society publicly urged Moncton to resume the practice of putting fluoride in the water.

“A tremendous change” has occurred in the level of tooth decay in Moncton patients in the last five years, vice-president Suzanne Drapeau-McNally had said in September.

She estimated tooth decay in children has increased approximately 50 per cent. Elderly patients are also exhibiting more decay, she said.

The Department of Health did not conduct a study to measure the effects.

“The benefits of fluoridation are well-documented for all individuals in the community regardless of age, education, or socio-economic status,” spokeswoman Véronique Taylor had said.

Council voted to remove flouoride following a call to do so by a Moncton group that argued water fluoridation was “dangerous and a violation of rights.”


Groups Urge EPA to Ban Fluoridation Based on Risk to Brain

COF-COF Special News Find 300 x 300PRNewswire, Press Release Provided By Fluoride Action Network, United States 30-Nov-2016 – A coalition of environmental, medical and health groups have served the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with a Petition calling on the Agency to ban the addition of fluoridation chemicals to public water supplies due to the risks these chemicals pose to the brain, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

The Petition, which includes over 2,500 pages of supporting scientific documentation, explains that “the amount of fluoride now regularly consumed by millions of Americans in fluoridated areas exceeds the doses repeatedly linked to IQ loss and other neurotoxic effects.” Signers to the Petition include FAN, Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, and Moms Against Fluoridation.

“If EPA applies its own risk assessment guidelines to fluoridation, we believe it will agree that fluoridation poses an unacceptably high risk to the brain,” says attorney Michael Connett, FAN legal adviser.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authorizes EPA to prohibit the “particular use” of a chemical that presents an unreasonable risk to the general public or susceptible subpopulations. TSCA gives EPA the authority to prohibit drinking water additives.

Subpopulations especially vulnerable to fluoride’s neurotoxic effects include infants, the elderly, kidney patients, and the nutrient deficient (e.g. iodine and calcium). Evidence also suggests that African-Americans may suffer disproportionate harm as well.

EPA scientists characterize chemicals with human evidence of neurotoxicity as “gold standard” chemicals warranting assessment priority. Not only is there human research on fluoride neurotoxicity, it is so extensive that fluoride is classified alongside lead, mercury and PCBs as one of only 12 chemicals “known to cause developmental neurotoxicity in human beings.” (Lancet Neurology)

At EPA’s request, the National Research Council (NRC) reviewed fluoride toxicology research and concluded in 2006, “It is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain.”

Since NRC’s review, 196 fluoride/brain studies have been published, including 61 human studies.

Contrary to claims that only high doses of fluoride are linked to brain damage, studies of fluoride-exposed human populations consistently find neurotoxic effects at water fluoride levels well below the EPA’s “safe” level (4 mg/L).

One recent study from China found that children ingesting just 1.4 milligrams of fluoride each day suffered a 5-point loss in IQ. Some children living in fluoridated areas in the United States ingest doses comparable to this level.

Research also shows that some Americans have fluoride levels in their urine and blood that equal or exceed the levels linked to cognitive deficits.

“As with lead, fluoride is a neurotoxic and an endocrine disrupting substance that has no place in our drinking water,” Connett states. “The EPA should follow Europe’s lead and end fluoridation.”

EPA has 90 days to respond to the Petition.


SEE PETITION: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/epa-petition.pdf

York professor leads study that could help answer fluoride safety questions

COF-COF Special News Find 300 x 300By: YFile, York University, Toronto, Ontario 25-Nov-2016 – A $300,000 grant from the National Institute of Health (NIH) will allow York University to lead the largest study to date that investigates whether early life exposure to low level fluoride affects the developing brain.

Faculty of Health Professor Christine Till, principal investigator of the study, will use the funding to determine if prenatal and childhood exposure to fluoride impacts learning abilities and behavioural problems in young Canadian children.

Previous studies led by Till and former PhD student, Ashley Malin, indicate that fluoride in tap water is associated with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents. Findings were determined using information collected by the National Survey of Children’s Health as well as the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the U.S.

This two-year study, however, will access data from a Canadian pregnancy cohort, Maternal Infant Research on Environmental Contaminants (MIREC), to determine whether or not there is a link.

The research team consists of scientists from complementary fields spanning environmental health (Professor Lanphear, Simon Fraser University; Professor Muckle, Universite Laval), dentistry (Dr. Martinez-Mier, Indiana University), toxicology (Professor Ayotte, University of Montreal), and environmental epidemiology (Professor Hornung, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital).

“Our study employs a prospective design that includes biomarkers of exposure to fluoride, detailed assessment of potential confounders, a comparison group, and the use of sensitive cognitive and behavioural measures that have been collected in one of the world’s most comprehensively characterized national pregnancy cohorts (MIREC),” said Till.

Fluoride concentrations will be measured using urine samples obtained in each trimester from a sample of 1,960 pregnant women living in 10 large Canadian cities – half of which add fluoride to municipal water.

The children born to these women have been followed since infancy and underwent cognitive testing between the ages of 3 and 4 years.

The study will also examine whether neuro-developmental outcomes differ among children who ingested infant formula using fluoridated versus non-fluoridated water. It will also examine whether serial urinary fluoride concentrations in pregnant women are higher in women who live in communities that fluoridate their municipal drinking water.

“We are doing this research because it addresses a topic of great public health relevance for both Canada and the United States where community water fluoridation is a widespread practice. Scientific advisory boards, including the National Toxicology Program, conclude that there is insufficient laboratory evidence to support or refute the likelihood of fluoride neurotoxicology. We need high quality data to address this gap in knowledge,” said Till.

“Results of the study will have the potential to strengthen environmental health risk assessments related to water fluoridation and inform policy decisions about the safety of vulnerable populations, including young children and pregnant women, consuming fluoridated water.”

She describes the research as a “win-win” situation, where both potential outcomes will provide valuable information in the hotly contested fluoride issue.



Something in the Water – Does adding fluoride put you at risk?

Fluoridation May Not Prevent Cavities, Scientific Review Shows

Water Fluoridation Linked to Higher ADHD Rates

Fluoride in tap water associated with ADHD in children, researchers find

Malin and Till, Exposure to fluoridated water and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder prevalence among children and adolescents in the United States: an ecological association, Environmental Health

Fluoride foes protest after staff tell Peel that water treatment is safe

COF-COF Special News Find 300 x 300By: Roger Belgrave, Brampton Guardian, Region of Peel, Ontario 24-Nov-2016 – Peel’s Medical Officer of Health told a committee reviewing the use of fluoride in the region’s drinking water that there is no “quality” or “relevant” research to suggest the longtime practice poses a health risk when Health Canada standards are followed.

Dr. Eileen de Villa spoke to the region’s Community Water Fluoridation Committee Nov. 24 to present staff findings from a review of studies on the effectiveness and safety of community water fluoridation.

De Villa brought two thick binders filled with studies to the meeting — illustrating the vast library of research material produced worldwide on the health effects of fluoride in drinking water.

She noted the volumes of available data vary in quality and relevance to the situation in Peel, where fluoride is added to municipal water under strict government guidelines and at low levels.

De Villa attempted to respond to a number of concerns raised during this process initiated earlier this year to produce a recommendation to council on whether the region should continue water fluoridation.

Concerns about the region’s fluoridated water causing fluorosis are not supported by evidence that show rates of moderate to severe cases are “so low that they cannot even be reported,” she said.

Associate Medical Officer of Health Dr. Lawrence Loh was also on hand to support De Villa’s insistence that the type of fluoride and the amount added to local drinking water is safe for public consumption.

Loh told committee members there is no evidence to indicate a link between adverse health and fluoride added to drinking water at the “optimal” level recommended by Health Canada.

De Villa added that dentists in jurisdictions where fluoride has been removed from the water are beginning to report increased incidents to tooth decay.

This report from the regional health officials came as no surprise from anti-fluoride lobbyists, who have accused De Villa and her staff of bias during this process and dismissing research that has concluded water fluoridation is essentially poisoning the public.

A handful of fluoride opponents were in council chambers to hear the presentation — two were dressed in yellow HAZMAT suits.

“There’s an information war on fluoride,” said Richard Allan, who explained he was wearing the type of suit workers at water treatment plants must wear when dealing with fluoride.

A larger group staged a protest outside the Peel Centre Drive regional headquarters after the meeting.

The demonstration was organized by Mississauga resident Liesa Cianchino, who launched the ongoing court challenge against the region and provincial government two years ago to stop water fluoridation in Peel.

Cianchino claimed the Fluoridation Act and Peel Region are violating charter rights and the region’s artificial water fluoridation program violates the Safe Drinking Water Act and Food and Drugs Act.

In statements of defence filed in February 2015, the region and provincial government deny the dangers of artificial water fluoridation and maintain that fluoride at the safe levels maintained in Ontario has proven health benefits.

Both the province and region are calling for dismissal of the court challenge.


Fluoration: Châteauguay garde le dossier ouvert / Fluoridation: Châteauguay keeps the file open

Trouvailles Médiatiques 300 x 300Paule Vermot-Desroches, Le Nouvelliste (Trois-Rivières), 22 novembre 2016 – Châteauguay, qui a d’ailleurs consulté ses citoyens à ce sujet au début de l’année 2016, admet que le dossier est loin d’être fermé et mise beaucoup sur l’étude du Dr Christian Caron, commandée par la Santé publique, afin de prendre une décision éclairée sur la poursuite ou non du programme.

La mairesse de Châteauguay, Nathalie Simon, a accueilli positivement la décision de la Santé publique de lancer cette vaste étude à Châteauguay, Trois-Rivières et Shawinigan, afin d’obtenir des réponses plus claires sur la réelle efficacité de la fluoration.

La Ville avait d’ailleurs mené une consultation publique au début de l’année 2016, avec des représentants de la Santé publique, mais également des intervenants s’opposant à la fluoration, afin de permettre aux citoyens d’avoir les deux côtés de la médaille. Par la suite, un sondage Léger Marketing mené dans la population de la ville avait révélé que 65 % étaient en faveur du maintien de la fluoration.

«Le sondage nous a démontré que la population a suivi le débat et que la majorité est en faveur. Mais le devoir premier de la Santé publique est de nous donner l’heure juste sur la réelle efficacité de la mesure. Lors des consultations, ce sont des données américaines d’il y a quelques années qui ont été présentées aux citoyens. Mais peut-on savoir ce qu’il en est chez nous, ce qu’il en est à l’heure actuelle», se questionne la mairesse Simon.

Cette dernière semblait d’ailleurs partager en partie l’avis du maire Yves Lévesque, qui reprochait à la Santé publique d’avoir manqué de leadership pour cette mesure dont elle prône les bienfaits.

«Jusqu’à la mise en place de l’étude, la Santé publique n’avait pas été très proactive. Si c’est une mesure de santé publique efficace, comment se fait-il qu’il y ait de moins en moins de villes qui fluorent leur eau? Comment peut-on les appuyer dans leurs démarches s’ils ne nous fournissent pas les outils pour appuyer leur position», indique Mme Simon.

La mairesse de Châteauguay se dit maintenant consciente qu’avec l’abandon de Trois-Rivières, le focus pourrait bien se transposer sur Châteauguay comme porte-étendard de la fluoration au Québec.

«On va attendre. On veut avoir les chiffres. Abandonner pour abandonner, ce n’est pas une option surtout quand la population se dit en faveur. On ne veut pas prendre une décision émotive, on veut la prendre basée sur des chiffres réels», signale-t-elle.

Outre Châteauguay, rappelons que Dorval, Lévis (secteur Saint-Romuald), Pointe-Claire et Saint-Georges-de-Beauce sont les seules villes au Québec à toujours fluorer l’eu potable, pour un total d’un peu moins de 145 000 citoyens au Québec.



Paule Vermot-Desroches, The Nouvelliste (Trois-Rivières), November 22, 2016 –

Châteauguay, who consulted its citizens on this issue in early 2016, admits that the dossier is far from being closed and relies heavily on the study of Dr. Christian Caron, commissioned by Public Health, to to make an informed decision on whether or not to pursue the program.

The mayor of Chateauguay, Nathalie Simon, welcomed the public health decision to launch this vast study at Châteauguay, Trois-Rivières and Shawinigan, in order to obtain clearer answers on the real effectiveness of fluoridation.

The City held a public consultation in early 2016, with representatives from Public Health, and also stakeholders opposing fluoridation, in order to allow citizens to have both sides of the matter. Subsequently, a Léger Marketing poll conducted across the city’s population revealed that 65% were in favor of maintaining fluoridation.

“The survey has shown that the public has followed the debate and that the majority is in favor. But the primary duty of public health is to give us the current actual effectiveness of the measure. During the consultations, American data from a few years ago were presented to the citizens. But can we know what it is with us, what it is at the moment, “questions the Mayor Simon.

The latter seemed to share in part the opinion of Mayor Yves Lévesque, who criticized Public Health for lacking leadership for this measure whose benefits it advocates.

“Until the study was implemented, Public Health had not been very proactive. If it is an effective public health measure, how are fewer and fewer cities fluoridating their water? How can we support them in their efforts if they do not provide us with the tools to support their position, “says Simon.

The mayor of Chateauguay is now aware that with the abandonment of Trois-Rivières, the focus could well be transposed to Châteauguay as standard-bearer of fluoridation in Quebec.

“We will wait. We want the numbers. Abandoning to give up is not an option, especially when the population is in favor. We do not want to make an emotional decision, we want to take it based on real numbers, “she says.

In addition to Châteauguay, Dorval, Lévis (Saint-Romuald sector), Pointe-Claire and Saint-Georges-de-Beauce are the only cities in Quebec to always fluoridate drinking water, for a total of just under 145 000 citizens in Quebec.