Fluoridation

In response to C Price’s letter (Wanganui Chronicle, July 19), there are many institutions opposed to fluoridation. The institution leading the pro-fluoride side of the debate are dentists, who, for a number of reasons, have a conflict of interest. However, many dentists are speaking out, including Dr Stan Litras, Dr Lawrie Brett and Dr John Jukes, who are heading up the Rethink campaign. They say, “International peerreviewed research has shown fluoridation to be unsafe and ineffective, which is why it is not endorsed by the majority of international health authorities.”

Fluoride Action Network and other environmental and public health groups are suing the US Environmental Protection Agency under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act. EPA’s own Guidelines on Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment highlight the importance of having a robust margin between doses of a chemical that cause neurotoxic effects and the doses that humans receive, yet has not acted after being presented with over 180 studies showing fluoride causes neurotoxic harm, including at levels within the range millions now receive. The case is set for August 2019.

It is a known fact fluorosis of the teeth makes them more brittle, so arguments on decay resistance are irrelevant if the teeth are going to break.

As regards C Price saying Indian research has no relevance to water fluoridation in New Zealand, he is wrong as the levels studied are similar to exposure here.

“The largest study on fluoridation and tooth decay involved 400,000 students (median age 13, range 5-17) in Indian schoolchildren vs. fluoride content of their drinking water.The percentage of children with decay was 23 per cent at 0.0 ppm F-; 35 per cent at 0.7 ppm; and 75 per cent at 2.75 ppm.” (Water Fluoridation: A Review of Recent Research and Actions ,p40— Kauffman, 2005). LUCY MCDOUGALL

Whanganui