The latest scientific reports confirm links between aspartame, the ubiquitous artificial sweetener found in most soft drinks and children's drinks, and brain cell disruption and cell death. Check my other blog post on this chemical for links to asthma and hyperactivity...
April 4, 2008
Review raises questions over aspartame and brain health
By staff reporter 03/04/2008- Excessive intake of aspartame may inhibit the ability of enzymes in the brain to function normally, suggests a new review that could fan the flames of controversy over the sweetener.
The review, by scientists from the University of Pretoria and the University of Limpopo and published recently in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, indicated that high consumption of the sweetener may lead to neurodegeneration.
Aspartame is made up of phenylalanine (50 per cent), aspartic acid (40 per cent) and methanol (10 per cent). It is commonly used in food products for the diet or low calorie market, including soft drinks and chewing gums. It was approved for use in foods in the US and EU member states in the early 1980s.
The sweetener has caused much controversy amid suspicions on whether it is entirely safe, with studies linking the ingredient and cancer in rats.
It has also previously been found that aspartame consumption can cause neurological and behavioural disturbances in sensitive individuals. Symptoms that have been reported include headaches, insomnia and seizures.
Despite strong concerns being raised from some quarters over the sweetener, both the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have not changed their guidelines regarding the safety of the ingredient or intake advice.
The new review also challenges finding published last year in the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology (Informa Healthcase) that considered over 500 studies, articles and reports conducted over the last 25 years - including work that was not published, but that was submitted to government bodies as part of the regulatory approvals process.
The earlier review concluded: “The weight of existing evidence s that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption… No credible evidence was found that aspartame is carcinogenic, neurotoxic, or has any other adverse effect on health when consumed even at quantities many times the established ADI [acceptable daily intake] levels.”
New review
Writing in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a Nature journal, the scientists behind the new review state: “The aim of this study was to discuss the direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain, and we propose that excessive aspartame ingestion might be involved in the pathogenesis of certain mental disorders, and also in compromised learning and emotional functioning.”
The researchers found a number of direct and indirect changes that occur in the brain as a result of high consumption levels of aspartame, leading to neurodegeneration.
They found aspartame can disturb the metabolism of amino acids, protein structure and metabolism, the integrity of nucleic acids, neuronal function and endocrine balances. It also may change the brain concentrations of catecholamines, which include norepinephrine, epinephrine and domapine.
Additionally, they said the breakdown of aspartame causes nerves to fire excessively, which can indirectly lead to a high rate of neuron depolarisation.
The researchers added: “The energy systems for certain required enzyme reactions become compromised, thus indirectly leading to the inability of enzymes to function optimally.
“The ATP stores [adenosine triphosphate] in the cells are depleted, indicating that low concentrations of glucose are present in the cells, and this in turn will indirectly decrease the synthesis of acetylcholine, glutamate and GABA (gamma-aminobutyric acid).”
Furthermore, the functioning of glutamate as an excitatory neurotransmitter is inhibited as a result of the intracellular calcium uptake being altered, and mitochondria are damaged, which the researchers said could lead to apoptosis (cell death) of cells and also a decreased rate of oxidative metabolism.
As a result of their study, the researchers said more testing is required to further determine the health effects on aspartame and bring an end to the controversy.
Source: European Journal of Clinical Nutrition2008, doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602866“Direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain”Authors: P. Humphries, E. Pretorius, H. Naude
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition Thursday, April 3, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Philadelphia Reconsiders Fluoridation
This article covers many of the relevant points that should be made to any governing body anywhere which currently advocates fluoridation and the Pennsylvania experience is in microcosm what other fluoridated areas are going through. Hopefully their City Fathers will do the right thing and halt fluoridation now.
Reprinted from New Jersey Cosmetic Dentistry Blog http://cent4dent.com:80/blog/?p=66
Fluoridation chemicals not pharmaceutical grade, but industry waste products
The issue of pharmaceuticals in drinking water has hit the mass media in the past couple of months. In response to numbers showing many drug residues in Philadelphia’s drinking water and water sources, Philadelphia City Council held a hearing on the issue. Of the four groups lined up to speak, I was (also) invited so that ActionPA would be one of two environmental groups to testify. With permission from the organizer, I used the opportunity to talk about water fluoridation at the hearing this past Monday.
My testimony is below and attached. Amazingly, it was well-received and when the city council turned around to ask the Philadelphia Water Department to verify if it was true that the fluoridation chemicals aren’t pharmaceutical grade, but are from the phosphate industry, the Water Department confirmed it (and some of my other statements). The affirmed that it’s not necessary or mandatory and that they do it because a city ordinance requires it. Of course, they contradicted me by claiming that they think it’s safe. However, they admitted that they weren’t on top of the recent science on the issue.
I was delighted to see the council president’s special counsel and the mayor’s legislative and government affairs coordinator express interest in it, asking for a copy of my testimony (which I put together after I delivered it). Maybe this is the first crack in the 54-year old fluoridation practice in this city.
Anyway… feel free to use any of this. Most of the info is the same as what we already have on our website, but repackaged for Philadelphia City Council.
Mike—–
Testimony of Mike EwallDirector of ActionPA before City Council Committee on Public Health & Human Services Public Hearing Concerning the Safety of the City’s Drinking Water Resolution #080288
April 14th, 2008
Hi, my name is Mike Ewall and I’m the Founder and Director of ActionPA, a statewide environmental group based here in Philadelphia.
I’m here to speak to the issue of the single most dangerous “drug” in the water – one that is the most preventable.
Others are here to talk about pharmaceutical drugs that are present in waters in parts per trillion (ppt), which is a real concern. The debate is about whether there are health effects at that level and the science is still being developed as more studies are done on the matter.
Philadelphia pays around $1,000,000 per year to put fluoridation chemicals in the water at one part per million (ppm) – a level one million times higher than what we’re talking about with the other drugs. This 1 ppm level is a level at which health effects are intended and expected.
Fluoridation chemicals not pharmaceutical grade, but industry waste products
However, the “fluoride” that is put in the drinking water isn’t pharmaceutical grade, even though it’s put in the water with a pharmaceutical intention. They’re not squirting toothpaste into the water. The chemical purchased by the Philadelphia Water Department (and 92% of U.S. drinking water systems that fluoridate) is hydrofluosilicic acid, a hazardous waste byproduct of the phosphate industry. Literally, if the same chemicals were dumped into a river or lake, it would be regulated as hazardous waste. However, injecting the same chemicals into drinking water supplies at 1 ppm is considered medication. Legally, upon being sold (unrefined) to municipalities as fluoridating agents, these same substances are then considered a “product”, allowing them to be dispensed through fluoridated municipal water systems to the very same ecosystems to which they could not be released directly. Over 99% of fluoridated water is released directly into the environment at around 1 ppm and is not even used for drinking or cooking.
These chemicals are not FDA approved for safety or effectiveness and the delivered chemicals are not batch tested for contaminants, even though these chemicals are known to be contaminated with arsenic, lead, mercury, radioactive particles and more. The arsenic levels in particular are enough to be at levels that should concern a water system, since they’re high enough to potentially push a water system over the safe drinking water act limit for arsenic (a limit that was lowered in 2001). [See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-arsenic.htm]
Fluoridation not effective at reducing tooth decayThe intended effect of putting hydrofluosilicic acid in the drinking water is to reduce tooth decay. However, data from our own state Department of Health [Oral Health Needs Assessment, 2000] shows that the worst tooth decay in the state is in Pittsburgh, with Philadelphia in second place. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason3] Both cities have been fluoridated since the 1950s. National and international data backs this up. Looking at the tooth decay trends in the few countries where fluoridation is common compared to comparable first world countries where fluoridation isn’t used, you can see that tooth decay is falling overall, regardless of fluoridation status. [See 2nd chart at http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.html] On the national level, a state-by-state review of data from the CDC and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services shows that the percentage of U.S. residents with ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ teeth is related directly to income levels and is totally unaffected by the percentage of the state’s population that is receiving fluoridated water. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/50states.pdf] Populations with more tooth decay are those who are poor and can’t afford dental care.
Fluoridation causes discoloration of teeth (fluorosis)
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh also have the state’s highest rates of dental fluorosis. Fluorosis is the white, brown or yellow spotting (or ‘mottling’) of tooth enamel. It’s a disease named after the fluoride chemicals that cause it. The PA Department of Health data from the aforementioned Oral Health Needs Assessment shows that Philadelphia’s rate of children with dental fluorosis is the highest in the state (25.6%) compared to a state-wide average of 14.9% and a rate in the (largely unfluoridated) Philadelphia suburbs of 9.9%. [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason3]
Agencies warn not to mix infant formula with fluoridated tap waterIn late 2006, two of the largest organizational promoters of fluoridation – the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control – both issued a press release warning that parents shouldn’t use fluoridated water to mix infant formula for infants in their first year of age. No warnings have gone to fluoridated water customers, however, to let parents of young children know that they’re not supposed to mix infant formula with Philadelphia tap water. [See links to the press releases here: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html#reason6]
Scientific studies in recent years show many health problems with fluoride exposure
Various other health problems have been linked to fluoride exposure, as documented many times in recent years. A recent Scientific American article [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/sciam.pdf] brought some of this to popular attention. The landmark study of the issue is the National Research Council’s March 2006 extensive review of over 1,000 scientific studies. [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/nrc/NRC-2006.pdf] The National Research Council (NRC) is part of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, which does research for the federal government, in this case, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The report concluded that the level determined to be “safe” by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is unsafe and needs to be lowered to protect public health. EPA’s “no longer considered safe” level of 4 ppm is already dangerously close to the 1 ppm level put in drinking water. Since the dose can’t be controlled, there are some populations that drink more water and are at higher risk, including diabetics and athletes. Health Departments and other fluoridation promoters will argue that the report isn’t relevant to water fluoridation due to the difference between the 4 ppm level studied and the 1 ppm level used. This position has been refuted by one of the NRC report’s authors and others. [See http://www.fluorideaction.net/health/epa/nrc/fluoridation.html] Additional links on the topic are here: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html#reason1
EPA scientists call for national ban on fluoridation
The NRC report affirmed the long-standing position of EPA’s own scientists, who have long objected to the determination that 4 ppm was a “safe” level. In August 2005, eleven EPA unions representing over 7,000 environmental and public health professionals at the federal agency wrote to Congress and called for a national moratorium on drinking water fluoridation programs. The unions acted following revelations of an apparent cover-up of evidence from Harvard School of Dental Medicine linking fluoridation with elevated risk of a fatal bone cancer in young males. The union representing scientists at the EPA Region III office in Philadelphia, which covers Pennsylvania is one of the unions signed onto this statement. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html#reason9]
Fluoride-lead connection implicates fluoridation with violence, drugs and learning problems
Another major concern is the fluoride-lead connection. Some studies have shown that hydrofluosilicic acid leaches lead from pipes. [For the most recent study, see: Neurotoxicology. Sept. 28, 2007, “Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass parts.” RP Maas, SC Patch, AM Christian, MJ Coplan] Other studies have shown that exposure to hydrofluosilicic acid increases the brain’s absorption of lead – especially in African-Americans and Latinos. [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason2] The increased exposure to (and absorption of) lead is well known to affect learning ability and IQ. Because it affects the dopamine levels in the brain, the fluoride-enhanced lead exposure has also been implicated with increased affinity for violence and cocaine addiction. That such pressing urban problems could be made worse by fluoridation is cause enough to take precaution and stop adding fluoride acids to the water system.
Philadelphia’s hydrofluosilicic acid purchases; rising chemical costs
Since hydrofluosilicic acid is a waste product of the phosphate industry, its availability is subject to the trend of falling phosphate production. In late 2007, the American Water Works Association and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection issued warnings of fluoridation chemical shortages. [See links to these warnings at the bottom section of: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/chemicals/shortagesandrisingcosts.html ] As phosphate production has been dropping, the costs of purchasing the chemicals has been rising dramatically, nation-wide. Since at least 1999, Philadelphia’s supplier has been Solvay Fluoride. In 1999, the city paid $447/ton, spending nearly $200,000 on the chemicals that year. In 2007, the city bought the same chemicals for $1,194/ton and the costs are expected to double again in the city’s current purchasing for the coming year. If this expected doubling takes place, the city will now be paying about $1 million a year just for the chemicals, not to mention the cost of handling and administering the chemicals.
State mandate would take away local control and further increase costsThe state legislature is considering House Bill 1649 [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/bills/], which would mandate fluoridation statewide, taking away the rights of local governments to choose whether to fluoridate their water systems. Currently, about 9% of the state’s water systems are fluoridated, affecting 52% of the state’s water customers (it’s mostly the urban systems that are fluoridating). [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/map/] If HB 1649 passes, it’ll nearly double the demand for fluoridation chemicals in the state, making the current chemical shortages even more dire and dramatically pushing the chemical costs even higher. Even if Philadelphia wanted to keep fluoridating forever, it’s in the city’s financial interest not to see HB 1649 pass, since the mandate would further drive up the cost to the city.
City Council can take precaution, repeal the 1951 ordinance and save moneyIn the medical profession, there is the principle “first, do no harm.” This precautionary principle should be applied in this case – where there is mounting evidence of harm, very questionable benefit and no requirement that the practice continue. The only requirement currently in place is a 1951 city ordinance that caused the city’s water to start being fluoridated in 1954. [The ordinance and related documents provided by the Philadelphia Water Department can be found here: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/philly/]
In light of the mounting costs and rising awareness of health and social problems relating to fluoridation, City Council is encouraged to repeal the 1951 ordinance and instruct the Philadelphia Water Department to cease water fluoridation – which would also save the city around $1 million or more a year. Ending water fluoridation can be done through a simple DEP permit process. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/383-2125-001.pdf]
There are many credentialed scientific experts who are familiar with the newest science on water fluoridation and fluoride exposure. I’d encourage this committee to invite some of these experts to the hearings on this important topic – and I’d be glad to provide access to these experts.
If the city wanted to effectively address the tooth decay problem, the savings from ending water fluoridation could be used to hire dentists that could treat eligible low-income city residents who can’t afford dental care.
Thank you.
Mike EwallFounder & DirectorActionPA1434 Elbridge St.Philadelphia, PA 19149215-743-4884catalyst@actionpa.orghttp://www.actionpa.org
This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 16th, 2008
Reprinted from New Jersey Cosmetic Dentistry Blog http://cent4dent.com:80/blog/?p=66
Fluoridation chemicals not pharmaceutical grade, but industry waste products
The issue of pharmaceuticals in drinking water has hit the mass media in the past couple of months. In response to numbers showing many drug residues in Philadelphia’s drinking water and water sources, Philadelphia City Council held a hearing on the issue. Of the four groups lined up to speak, I was (also) invited so that ActionPA would be one of two environmental groups to testify. With permission from the organizer, I used the opportunity to talk about water fluoridation at the hearing this past Monday.
My testimony is below and attached. Amazingly, it was well-received and when the city council turned around to ask the Philadelphia Water Department to verify if it was true that the fluoridation chemicals aren’t pharmaceutical grade, but are from the phosphate industry, the Water Department confirmed it (and some of my other statements). The affirmed that it’s not necessary or mandatory and that they do it because a city ordinance requires it. Of course, they contradicted me by claiming that they think it’s safe. However, they admitted that they weren’t on top of the recent science on the issue.
I was delighted to see the council president’s special counsel and the mayor’s legislative and government affairs coordinator express interest in it, asking for a copy of my testimony (which I put together after I delivered it). Maybe this is the first crack in the 54-year old fluoridation practice in this city.
Anyway… feel free to use any of this. Most of the info is the same as what we already have on our website, but repackaged for Philadelphia City Council.
Mike—–
Testimony of Mike EwallDirector of ActionPA before City Council Committee on Public Health & Human Services Public Hearing Concerning the Safety of the City’s Drinking Water Resolution #080288
April 14th, 2008
Hi, my name is Mike Ewall and I’m the Founder and Director of ActionPA, a statewide environmental group based here in Philadelphia.
I’m here to speak to the issue of the single most dangerous “drug” in the water – one that is the most preventable.
Others are here to talk about pharmaceutical drugs that are present in waters in parts per trillion (ppt), which is a real concern. The debate is about whether there are health effects at that level and the science is still being developed as more studies are done on the matter.
Philadelphia pays around $1,000,000 per year to put fluoridation chemicals in the water at one part per million (ppm) – a level one million times higher than what we’re talking about with the other drugs. This 1 ppm level is a level at which health effects are intended and expected.
Fluoridation chemicals not pharmaceutical grade, but industry waste products
However, the “fluoride” that is put in the drinking water isn’t pharmaceutical grade, even though it’s put in the water with a pharmaceutical intention. They’re not squirting toothpaste into the water. The chemical purchased by the Philadelphia Water Department (and 92% of U.S. drinking water systems that fluoridate) is hydrofluosilicic acid, a hazardous waste byproduct of the phosphate industry. Literally, if the same chemicals were dumped into a river or lake, it would be regulated as hazardous waste. However, injecting the same chemicals into drinking water supplies at 1 ppm is considered medication. Legally, upon being sold (unrefined) to municipalities as fluoridating agents, these same substances are then considered a “product”, allowing them to be dispensed through fluoridated municipal water systems to the very same ecosystems to which they could not be released directly. Over 99% of fluoridated water is released directly into the environment at around 1 ppm and is not even used for drinking or cooking.
These chemicals are not FDA approved for safety or effectiveness and the delivered chemicals are not batch tested for contaminants, even though these chemicals are known to be contaminated with arsenic, lead, mercury, radioactive particles and more. The arsenic levels in particular are enough to be at levels that should concern a water system, since they’re high enough to potentially push a water system over the safe drinking water act limit for arsenic (a limit that was lowered in 2001). [See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-arsenic.htm]
Fluoridation not effective at reducing tooth decayThe intended effect of putting hydrofluosilicic acid in the drinking water is to reduce tooth decay. However, data from our own state Department of Health [Oral Health Needs Assessment, 2000] shows that the worst tooth decay in the state is in Pittsburgh, with Philadelphia in second place. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason3] Both cities have been fluoridated since the 1950s. National and international data backs this up. Looking at the tooth decay trends in the few countries where fluoridation is common compared to comparable first world countries where fluoridation isn’t used, you can see that tooth decay is falling overall, regardless of fluoridation status. [See 2nd chart at http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.html] On the national level, a state-by-state review of data from the CDC and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services shows that the percentage of U.S. residents with ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ teeth is related directly to income levels and is totally unaffected by the percentage of the state’s population that is receiving fluoridated water. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/50states.pdf] Populations with more tooth decay are those who are poor and can’t afford dental care.
Fluoridation causes discoloration of teeth (fluorosis)
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh also have the state’s highest rates of dental fluorosis. Fluorosis is the white, brown or yellow spotting (or ‘mottling’) of tooth enamel. It’s a disease named after the fluoride chemicals that cause it. The PA Department of Health data from the aforementioned Oral Health Needs Assessment shows that Philadelphia’s rate of children with dental fluorosis is the highest in the state (25.6%) compared to a state-wide average of 14.9% and a rate in the (largely unfluoridated) Philadelphia suburbs of 9.9%. [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason3]
Agencies warn not to mix infant formula with fluoridated tap waterIn late 2006, two of the largest organizational promoters of fluoridation – the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control – both issued a press release warning that parents shouldn’t use fluoridated water to mix infant formula for infants in their first year of age. No warnings have gone to fluoridated water customers, however, to let parents of young children know that they’re not supposed to mix infant formula with Philadelphia tap water. [See links to the press releases here: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html#reason6]
Scientific studies in recent years show many health problems with fluoride exposure
Various other health problems have been linked to fluoride exposure, as documented many times in recent years. A recent Scientific American article [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/sciam.pdf] brought some of this to popular attention. The landmark study of the issue is the National Research Council’s March 2006 extensive review of over 1,000 scientific studies. [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/nrc/NRC-2006.pdf] The National Research Council (NRC) is part of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, which does research for the federal government, in this case, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The report concluded that the level determined to be “safe” by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is unsafe and needs to be lowered to protect public health. EPA’s “no longer considered safe” level of 4 ppm is already dangerously close to the 1 ppm level put in drinking water. Since the dose can’t be controlled, there are some populations that drink more water and are at higher risk, including diabetics and athletes. Health Departments and other fluoridation promoters will argue that the report isn’t relevant to water fluoridation due to the difference between the 4 ppm level studied and the 1 ppm level used. This position has been refuted by one of the NRC report’s authors and others. [See http://www.fluorideaction.net/health/epa/nrc/fluoridation.html] Additional links on the topic are here: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html#reason1
EPA scientists call for national ban on fluoridation
The NRC report affirmed the long-standing position of EPA’s own scientists, who have long objected to the determination that 4 ppm was a “safe” level. In August 2005, eleven EPA unions representing over 7,000 environmental and public health professionals at the federal agency wrote to Congress and called for a national moratorium on drinking water fluoridation programs. The unions acted following revelations of an apparent cover-up of evidence from Harvard School of Dental Medicine linking fluoridation with elevated risk of a fatal bone cancer in young males. The union representing scientists at the EPA Region III office in Philadelphia, which covers Pennsylvania is one of the unions signed onto this statement. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html#reason9]
Fluoride-lead connection implicates fluoridation with violence, drugs and learning problems
Another major concern is the fluoride-lead connection. Some studies have shown that hydrofluosilicic acid leaches lead from pipes. [For the most recent study, see: Neurotoxicology. Sept. 28, 2007, “Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass parts.” RP Maas, SC Patch, AM Christian, MJ Coplan] Other studies have shown that exposure to hydrofluosilicic acid increases the brain’s absorption of lead – especially in African-Americans and Latinos. [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason2] The increased exposure to (and absorption of) lead is well known to affect learning ability and IQ. Because it affects the dopamine levels in the brain, the fluoride-enhanced lead exposure has also been implicated with increased affinity for violence and cocaine addiction. That such pressing urban problems could be made worse by fluoridation is cause enough to take precaution and stop adding fluoride acids to the water system.
Philadelphia’s hydrofluosilicic acid purchases; rising chemical costs
Since hydrofluosilicic acid is a waste product of the phosphate industry, its availability is subject to the trend of falling phosphate production. In late 2007, the American Water Works Association and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection issued warnings of fluoridation chemical shortages. [See links to these warnings at the bottom section of: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/chemicals/shortagesandrisingcosts.html ] As phosphate production has been dropping, the costs of purchasing the chemicals has been rising dramatically, nation-wide. Since at least 1999, Philadelphia’s supplier has been Solvay Fluoride. In 1999, the city paid $447/ton, spending nearly $200,000 on the chemicals that year. In 2007, the city bought the same chemicals for $1,194/ton and the costs are expected to double again in the city’s current purchasing for the coming year. If this expected doubling takes place, the city will now be paying about $1 million a year just for the chemicals, not to mention the cost of handling and administering the chemicals.
State mandate would take away local control and further increase costsThe state legislature is considering House Bill 1649 [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/bills/], which would mandate fluoridation statewide, taking away the rights of local governments to choose whether to fluoridate their water systems. Currently, about 9% of the state’s water systems are fluoridated, affecting 52% of the state’s water customers (it’s mostly the urban systems that are fluoridating). [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/map/] If HB 1649 passes, it’ll nearly double the demand for fluoridation chemicals in the state, making the current chemical shortages even more dire and dramatically pushing the chemical costs even higher. Even if Philadelphia wanted to keep fluoridating forever, it’s in the city’s financial interest not to see HB 1649 pass, since the mandate would further drive up the cost to the city.
City Council can take precaution, repeal the 1951 ordinance and save moneyIn the medical profession, there is the principle “first, do no harm.” This precautionary principle should be applied in this case – where there is mounting evidence of harm, very questionable benefit and no requirement that the practice continue. The only requirement currently in place is a 1951 city ordinance that caused the city’s water to start being fluoridated in 1954. [The ordinance and related documents provided by the Philadelphia Water Department can be found here: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/philly/]
In light of the mounting costs and rising awareness of health and social problems relating to fluoridation, City Council is encouraged to repeal the 1951 ordinance and instruct the Philadelphia Water Department to cease water fluoridation – which would also save the city around $1 million or more a year. Ending water fluoridation can be done through a simple DEP permit process. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/383-2125-001.pdf]
There are many credentialed scientific experts who are familiar with the newest science on water fluoridation and fluoride exposure. I’d encourage this committee to invite some of these experts to the hearings on this important topic – and I’d be glad to provide access to these experts.
If the city wanted to effectively address the tooth decay problem, the savings from ending water fluoridation could be used to hire dentists that could treat eligible low-income city residents who can’t afford dental care.
Thank you.
Mike EwallFounder & DirectorActionPA1434 Elbridge St.Philadelphia, PA 19149215-743-4884catalyst@actionpa.orghttp://www.actionpa.org
This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 16th, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)