Ban Fluoridation of Water

Executive Summary

The fluoridation of public water supplies has been a common practice in the United States since the mid-20th century, aimed at reducing dental cavities. However, growing evidence suggests that the practice poses significant health risks that outweigh its benefits. This proposal outlines the key reasons for banning water fluoridation in the United States, including potential health risks, ethical concerns, and the availability of safer alternatives for dental health.

1. Medical Treatment and Ethical Concerns: Fluoridation of water is essentially a medical treatment administered without individual consent. According to the Geneva Conventions of Human Rights, every individual has the right to informed consent before receiving any medical treatment. The compulsory addition of fluoride to public water supplies violates this principle, as it does not allow individuals to opt-out or choose the dosage they receive, raising significant ethical issues.

2. Indigenous Perspectives and Natural Law: Indigenous nations emphasize the importance of natural law, teaching that natural resources, including water, are inherently perfect as created. The Western perspective, which seeks to improve water by adding chemicals like fluoride, reflects an egotistical approach that assumes superiority over natural processes. This belief undermines the wisdom of Indigenous teachings and disregards the fundamental integrity of natural water as provided by nature or a higher power.

Background

Water fluoridation began in the United States in the 1940s, following studies that indicated fluoride could reduce dental caries (cavities). Today, approximately 73% of the U.S. population served by public water systems receives fluoridated water. Despite its widespread use, the practice has become increasingly controversial.

Key Concerns

1. Health Risks: Emerging research has identified several potential health risks associated with long-term fluoride exposure, including:

   • Dental Fluorosis: Excessive fluoride can cause dental fluorosis, a condition that results in the discoloration and pitting of teeth, particularly in children.

   • Skeletal Fluorosis: High levels of fluoride consumption over time can lead to skeletal fluorosis, a condition that causes pain and damage to bones and joints.

   • Neurological Effects: A study conducted by Harvard researchers found a potential link between fluoride exposure and lower IQ scores in children, suggesting that fluoride could have adverse effects on neurodevelopment .

   • Thyroid Dysfunction: Fluoride can interfere with the normal functioning of the thyroid gland, potentially leading to hypothyroidism and related health issues.

2. Ethical and Legal Concerns:

   • Informed Consent: Fluoridation of public water supplies does not allow individuals to choose whether or not they consume fluoride, raising ethical issues regarding informed consent.

   • Individual Dosage Control: Unlike other medical treatments, water fluoridation does not account for individual differences in fluoride consumption, potentially leading to overexposure in some individuals.

3. Environmental Impact: Fluoride compounds used in water treatment can accumulate in the environment, potentially harming wildlife and ecosystems.

4. Effectiveness and Alternatives:

   • Topical Fluoride Treatments: Research indicates that the primary benefit of fluoride in preventing dental caries is through topical application, not systemic ingestion. Fluoride toothpaste, mouth rinses, and professional treatments are effective alternatives that do not carry the same risks as water fluoridation.

   • Improved Dental Care Access: Increasing access to dental care and education about oral hygiene can also effectively reduce dental caries without the need for water fluoridation.

Evidence

• A 2020 study found that higher levels of aluminum and fluoride in drinking water were associated with dementia risk in a group of men and women who consumed relatively low levels of both: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30868981/

• In a meta-analysis, researchers from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and China Medical University in Shenyang for the first time combined 27 studies and found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children. Based on the findings, the authors say that this risk should not be ignored, and that more research on fluoride’s impact on the developing brain is warranted: https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1104912

• In 2006, the U.S. National Research Council (NRC) evaluated the fluoride standards of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and concluded that fluoride can adversely affect the brain through both direct and indirect means: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6923889/#:~:text=In%202006%2C%20the%20U.S.%20National,be%20of%20concern%20for%20neurotoxic

• Fluoride accumulates in the body. Even low doses are harmful to babies, the thyroid, kidney patients and heavy water-drinkers. There are even doubts about fluoridation's effectiveness (2).

• https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/bellinger-editorial.2019.pdf

• More resources are available at the Flouride Action Network: https://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/

Proposal

In light of these concerns, we propose the following actions to ban the fluoridation of public water supplies in the United States:

1. Immediate Moratorium: Implement an immediate moratorium on the addition of fluoride to public water supplies until further comprehensive and unbiased studies can be conducted to fully understand the health implications of fluoride ingestion.

2. Legislation: Enact federal legislation to prohibit the fluoridation of public water supplies. This legislation should mandate:

   • The cessation of fluoride addition to all public water systems within a specified timeframe.

   • The establishment of a national task force to oversee the transition and ensure compliance with the new regulations.

3. Public Awareness Campaign: Launch a public awareness campaign to educate citizens about the potential risks of fluoride ingestion and promote alternative methods for maintaining dental health.

4. Support for Alternatives: Increase funding and support for programs that provide access to dental care and fluoride-free dental products, particularly in underserved communities.

Conclusion

Banning the fluoridation of public water supplies is a necessary step to protect public health, uphold ethical standards, and preserve environmental integrity. By focusing on safer, more effective alternatives for dental health, the United States can continue to combat dental caries without the associated risks of water fluoridation.

References

1. National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press.

2. Grandjean, P., & Landrigan, P. J. (2014). Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. The Lancet Neurology, 13(3), 330-338.

3. Peckham, S., & Awofeso, N. (2014). Water fluoridation: a critical review of the physiological effects of ingested fluoride as a public health intervention. The Scientific World Journal, 2014.

4. Connett, P., Beck, J., & Micklem, H. (2010). The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There. Chelsea Green Publishing.

5. Choi, A. L., Sun, G., Zhang, Y., & Grandjean, P. (2012). Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(10), 1362-1368.