There are numerous reasons why we need to end water fluoridation in Durham Region:
Fluoridation is unethical.
Informed consent is standard practice for all medication, and one of the key reasons why most of Western Europe has ruled against fluoridation. With water fluoridation we are allowing governments to do to whole communities (forcing people to take a medicine irrespective of their consent) what individual doctors cannot do to individual patients.
Fluoridation discriminates against those with low incomes.
People on low incomes are least able to afford avoidance measures (reverse osmosis or bottled water), or treatment of dental fluorosis
The dose cannot be controlled.
Once fluoride is put in the water it is impossible to control the dose each individual receives because people drink different amounts of water. Being able to control the dose a patient receives is critical. Some people (e.g., manual laborers, athletes, diabetics, and people with kidney disease) drink substantially more water than others.
The fluoride goes to everyone regardless of age, health or vulnerability.
People vary considerably in their sensitivity to any toxic substance, including fluoride. Infants, the elderly, diabetics, those with poor nutrition (e.g. low calcium and low iodine), and those with kidney disease are especially vulnerable to specific adverse effects of fluoride.
No health agency in fluoridated countries is monitoring fluoride exposure or side effects.
No regular measurements are being made of the levels of fluoride in urine, blood, bones, hair, or nails of either the general population or sensitive subparts of the population (e.g., individuals with kidney disease).
There has never been a single randomized controlled trial to demonstrate fluoridation’s effectiveness or safety.
Despite the fact that fluoride has been added to community water supplies for over 60 years, “there have been no randomized trials of water fluoridation” (Cheng 2007). Randomized trials are the standard method for determining the safety and effectiveness of any purportedly beneficial medical treatment. In 2000, the British Government’s “York Review” could not give a single fluoridation trial a Grade A classification – despite 50 years of research (McDonagh 2000). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to classify fluoride as an “unapproved new drug.”
People now receive fluoride from many other sources besides water.
Fluoridated water is not the only way people are exposed to fluoride.
Other sources of fluoride include food and beverages processed with
fluoridated water (Kiritsy 1996; Heilman 1999), fluoridated dental products
(Bentley 1999; Levy 1999), mechanically deboned meat (Fein 2001), tea
(Levy 1999), and pesticide residues (e.g., from cryolite) on food (Stannard
1991; Burgstahler 1997). It is now widely acknowledged that exposure to
non-water sources of fluoride has significantly increased since the water
fluoridation program first began (NRC 2006).
Tooth decay does not go up when fluoridation is stopped.
Where fluoridation has been discontinued in communities from Canada,
the former East Germany, Cuba and Finland, dental decay has not increased
but has generally continued to decrease (Maupomé 2001; Kunzel & Fischer,
1997, 2000; Kunzel 2000; Seppa 2000).
More information visit: