Americans’ distrust of societal institutions continues to grow, and now comes evidence of yet another burgeoning scandal: Fluoride-Gate. A torrent of recent bad news about the safety of fluorides has brought key names to the surface from the murky alphabet soup of players in the fluoride game at EPA, CDC, FDA, NIDCR, USDA, ADA, and AMA. The inevitable questions have begun about who knew what, when, and why was certain information kept quiet.

The first ominous drumbeats started in 2006, when a National Research Council committee recommended that the Environmental Protection Agency lower the allowable amount of fluoride in drinking water – to an unspecified level. As if that wasn’t unnerving enough, the committee specifically stated that kidney patients, diabetics, seniors, infants, and outdoor workers were susceptible populations especially vulnerable to harm from fluoride ingestion.

Centers for Disease Control officials strove mightily to dismiss NRC’s report as irrelevant, but in August of 2007 CDC’s ethics committees received a formal ethics complaint about CDC’s activities in promoting fluoridation. The complaint circled the globe via the Internet. A Kentucky attorney began assembling a list of “potentially responsible parties.” After having been contacted by angry kidney patients, in September he formally notified the National Kidney Foundation that the organization may be held liable for failure to warn its constituents that kidney patients are particularly susceptible to harm from fluorides. The issue was immediately put on the agenda of the next meeting of the foundation’s national board and the foundation’s former position statement about fluoridated water has been retracted and the issue is now undergoing review.

The ethics complaint became a hot potato. How would CDC explain why its own data showed blacks to be disproportionately harmed by moderate and severe “dental fluorosis” teeth damage, yet CDC had not felt it necessary to openly show photos of the conditions to the black community? What would be the response of CDC’s Chief of Public Health Practice, Dr. Stephanie Bailey, an African American woman who witnessed the presentation of the complaint? The complaint embarrassingly documented that Bailey had acknowledged earlier that a CDC-funded and nationally distributed public health ethics policy was not being implemented internally by CDC.


http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE1101/S00032/fluoride-gate-us-paves-way-for-legal-action.htm

Fluoride-gate – U.S. Paves Way for Legal Action in N.Z.

U.S. lawyers are actively compiling a case against the people who are, or who have been, responsible for promoting fluoridation.

According to an explosive article release to the U.S. Press this week[1] “A series of disclosures are surfacing about the actions of water fluoridation promoters that point to a likely tsunami of Fluoridegate investigations, hearings, and explosive courtroom entanglements.”

Tennessee state legislator Frank Niceley states, “There is a real Fluoridegate scandal here. Citizens haven’t been told about harm from fluorides, and this needs to be investigated by the authorities and the media.”

And Washington D.C. toxic-tort attorney Chris Nidel says, “I think when we look back we’ll ask why Fluoridegate didn’t surface earlier. There are serious concerns about possible conflict of interest and heavy editing of information being fed to the public about fluoride risks and impacts.”

In 2006 the American Dental Association and US Public Health Service’s CDC[2] quietly issued a warning not to use fluoridated water for making up baby formula, ignored by the NZ Ministry of Health. In December 2010 the U.S. decided that water with more than 0.7 ppm, the lowest level recommended in NZ, was a health risk to the whole population. Just in the last week the US Environmental Protection Association has moved to ban a fluoride-containing pesticide, because of the added risk of fluoride exposure[3].

“This all shows that current exposure to fluoride is a known health risk” points out Mark Atkin, legal advisor for health group Fluoride Action Network New Zealand (FANNZ).

“Once the U.S. lawyers have compiled the case, it would be easier for lawyers in New Zealand to do the same. There are 26 councils (out of a total of 69) that still continue to fluoridate even though they have been warned of the risks.” according to Mr Atkin.

“Councillors’ excuse that they are following the advice of the Ministry of Health, is no defence. We have provided them with comprehensive scientific information proving there is a risk, refuting Ministry advice. The responsibility of fluoridation rests squarely on each Council.” says Mr Atkin.

Adds Mary Byrne, spokesperson for FANNZ,” Fluoridation is the deliberate addition of a hazardous industrial waste to the public drinking water[4]. This is outrageous and unacceptable, and these people need to be held accountable”.

www.fannz.org.nz
[1] http://www.infonews.co.nz/news.cfm?id=62733
[2] http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm
[3] http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/sulfuryl-fluoride/evaluations.html
[4] http://www.fannz.org.nz/pdfs/Sodium%20fluorosilicate%20ORICA.pdf

http://www.fannz.org.nz/pdfs/Prayon%20Manufacturers%20Safety%20Data%20Sheet.pdf