There are significant and legitimate questions concerning safety, efficacy and quality of the fluoride products used, lack of accountability by the manufacturers and distributors of these products, and lack of any federal, state or local authority regulating or taking responsibility for these products.

 There is genuine concern that the government should not be in the business of distributing a non-FDA approved drug through the drinking water supply. In addition, a growing body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence indicates that compounds used for fluoridation have sever adverse health effects including; bone cancer, hip fracture in the elderly, depressed thyroid function and lowered I.Q. in children.

A recently published study from Harvard Dental School found that young boys between the ages of five and ten years old who drink fluoridated water at so called “optimally fluoridated” levels (1 ppm) are 500% more likely  to develop an often fatal bone cancer (osteosarcoma) than boys who do not drink fluoridated water.  This study corroborates earlier studies on the fluoride/osteosarcoma link by the National Cancer Institute and the New Jersey Health Department.  

Despite the body of peer-reviewed research raising health concerns, fluoride compounds such as the hydrofluosilisic acid have never been safety tested or approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  The FDA confirms that fluoride meets the legal definition of a “drug” and has approved its topical use in toothpaste and mouthwash, but the FDA has never approved fluoride compounds for ingestion for the purpose of caries reduction.  Proponents are unable to produce any controlled, peer-reviewed studies showing that long-term ingestion of fluoride compounds is safe.  

The federal Department of Health and Human Services recently lowered the recommended daily “dose” of fluoride from 0.7 - 1.2 mg/liter to a maximum of 0.7 mg/liter.  This represents a lowering of the so called “optimal amount” by 41%.  For six decades we have been told fluoride is safe and effective at 1 mg/liter.  We now know that  amount was excessive, in addition to the fact that we are getting fluoride from so many other sources: pharmaceuticals, dental pastes and treatments as well as pesticides and fumigants.  Now that we are finally learning the truth about fluoridation chemicals, more and more communities are demanding that this questionable and arcane practice be abandoned. 

A common question is, “If it is so bad, why would Picker and his ilk recommend it?” It is important to understand that dentists and other professionals are extremely busy and often follow the advice of their trade associations.  Trade associations are paid to look out for the interest of their members, not the public. Often, these organizations are paid to promote fluoridation. These organizations have a duty and responsibility to fully disclose they have a financial interest in offering testimony.  Ordinary citizens with serious concerns regarding fluoridation are not being paid to defend the safety of our drinking water.

Fluoride is a by-product of phosphate mining and is contaminated with lead, arsenic and a host of other toxic chemicals. Normally, the industry would have to pay very expensive fees to have it disposed of in a toxic waste facility.  Instead, they sell it in its raw industrial state to water providers and municipalities to dispense via their drinking water purportedly to prevent dental caries.  

Yet these same manufactures refuse to stand by their “product” and declare it safe and effective for its intended purpose.  Astoundingly, they specifically disclaim that it is any of those things. It is never prudent to rely on third party endorsements, especially where the manufacturer, distributor and third party endorsers stand to benefit financially by the practice and promotion of fluoridation. 

One need only to follow the money.