Sodium Metabisulfite - the preservative used in this kiddies drink, along with the sweetener Aspartame (disguised as Phenylalanine, see post further below) !!!
From Wikipedia:
General
Other names
Sodium Pyrosulfite Sodium Disulfite
Molecular formula
Na2S2O5
Molar mass
190.1 g/mol
Appearance
white powder
CAS number
7681-57-4
Properties
Density and phase
1100 to 1200 kg/m³, solid
Solubility in water
65 g/100 ml (25 °C)
Melting point
>170 °C
Boiling point
Hazards
MSDS
External MSDS
EU classification
Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C, 100 kPa)Infobox disclaimer and references
Structural formula of sodium metabisulfite
Sodium metabisulfite or sodium pyrosulfite (American spelling; English spelling is Sodium metabisulphite or sodium pyrosulphite) is an inorganic compound of chemical formula Na2S2O5. The name is sometimes referred to as disodium (metabisulfite, etc). It is used as a sterilizer and antioxidant/preservative.
Contents[hide]
1 Uses
1.1 Food additive
1.2 Sterilization / Cleaning agent
2 Packaging
3 Chemical properties
4 External links
//
[edit] Uses
[edit] Food additive
It is used as a food additive, mainly as a preservative and is sometimes identified as E223. As an additive, it may cause allergic reactions, particularly skin irritation, gastric irritation and asthma.
It is not recommended for consumption by children.
[edit] Sterilization / Cleaning agent
It is commonly used in homebrewing preparations to sanitize equipment. It is used as a cleaning agent for potable water reverse osmosis membranes in desalination systems. It is also used to remove chloramine from drinking water after treatment.
[edit] Packaging
It can be purchased in powdered form, and is also the primary ingredient in campden tablets. In solid form it ranges in color from white to slightly yellow.
[edit] Chemical properties
When mixed with water, sodium metabisulfite releases sulfur dioxide (SO2), a pungent, unpleasant smelling gas that can also cause breathing difficulties in some people. For this reason, sodium metabisulfite has fallen from common use in recent times, with agents such as hydrogen peroxide becoming more popular for effective and odorless sterlization of equipment.
Monday, June 04, 2007
How do you hide Aspartame in drinks? Just call it Phenylalanine!
Phenylalanine - Aspartame
Phenylalanine is a hidden danger to anyone consuming aspartame. Most consumers don't know that too much Phenylalanine is a neurotoxin and excites the neurons in the brain to the point of cellular death.
ADD/ADHD, emotional and behavioral disorders can all be triggered by too much Phenylalanine in the daily diet. If you are one in ten thousand people who are PKU or carry the PKU gene, Phenylalanine can cause irreversible brain damage and death, especially when used in high quantities or during pregnancy. Phenylalanine is 50% of aspartame, and to the degree humans consume diet products, Phenylalanine levels are reaching a dangerous peak.
It is important to learn about the ingredients within your foods, especially isolated amino acids like Phenylalanine. They are in combination within nature for a reason - they don't belong in isolated form for the healthy human diet.
Aspartame Information:
Aspartame Side Effects
Aspartame Case Histories
Artifical Sweeteners
Phenylalanine
Phenylketonuria
Aspartame Detoxifcation:
How to Detox
Read about SweetPoison
Phenylalanine - Aspartame
Nutrition fact about Phenylalanine in aspartame:
The 1976 Groliers encyclopedia states cancer cannot live without phenylalanine. Phenylalanine makes up 50% of aspartame.
Phenylalanine is one of the essential amino acids found in proteins, but I am one of the believers that amino acids should be eaten in combination, not in isolated form. Nature provides amino acids in combination; only man isolates them for processing purposes.
Phenylalanine is found naturally in foods such as eggs, milk, bananas, and meat. If you are PKU (Phenylketonuric) or sensitive to phenylalanine, you will react to the phenylalanine in aspartame. You may want to get a blood test to check for this condition. Over the past 20 years, humans have become more aware of PKU reactions because human beings began using isolated phenylalanine to the degree it is harmful to some individuals, many as aspartame side effects. My suggestion would be to research PKU and phenylalanine extensively. Phenylalanine can be very harmful to diabetics.
Read all food labels and avoid anything with isolated amino acids. You want to buy products with at least eight amino acids in combination.
Phenylalanine is a hidden danger to anyone consuming aspartame. Most consumers don't know that too much Phenylalanine is a neurotoxin and excites the neurons in the brain to the point of cellular death.
ADD/ADHD, emotional and behavioral disorders can all be triggered by too much Phenylalanine in the daily diet. If you are one in ten thousand people who are PKU or carry the PKU gene, Phenylalanine can cause irreversible brain damage and death, especially when used in high quantities or during pregnancy. Phenylalanine is 50% of aspartame, and to the degree humans consume diet products, Phenylalanine levels are reaching a dangerous peak.
It is important to learn about the ingredients within your foods, especially isolated amino acids like Phenylalanine. They are in combination within nature for a reason - they don't belong in isolated form for the healthy human diet.
Aspartame Information:
Aspartame Side Effects
Aspartame Case Histories
Artifical Sweeteners
Phenylalanine
Phenylketonuria
Aspartame Detoxifcation:
How to Detox
Read about SweetPoison
Phenylalanine - Aspartame
Nutrition fact about Phenylalanine in aspartame:
The 1976 Groliers encyclopedia states cancer cannot live without phenylalanine. Phenylalanine makes up 50% of aspartame.
Phenylalanine is one of the essential amino acids found in proteins, but I am one of the believers that amino acids should be eaten in combination, not in isolated form. Nature provides amino acids in combination; only man isolates them for processing purposes.
Phenylalanine is found naturally in foods such as eggs, milk, bananas, and meat. If you are PKU (Phenylketonuric) or sensitive to phenylalanine, you will react to the phenylalanine in aspartame. You may want to get a blood test to check for this condition. Over the past 20 years, humans have become more aware of PKU reactions because human beings began using isolated phenylalanine to the degree it is harmful to some individuals, many as aspartame side effects. My suggestion would be to research PKU and phenylalanine extensively. Phenylalanine can be very harmful to diabetics.
Read all food labels and avoid anything with isolated amino acids. You want to buy products with at least eight amino acids in combination.
Just a quick look at other beverages besides fluoridated water...
Caution: Some soft drinks may seriously harm your health
Expert links additive to cell damage
By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent , The Independent
Published: 27 May 2007
A new health scare erupted over soft drinks last night amid evidence they may cause serious cell damage. Research from a British university suggests a common preservative found in drinks such as Fanta and Pepsi Max has the ability to switch off vital parts of DNA.
The problem - more usually associated with ageing and alcohol abuse - can eventually lead to cirrhosis of the liver and degenerative diseases such as Parkinson's.
The findings could have serious consequences for the hundreds of millions of people worldwide who consume fizzy drinks. They will also intensify the controversy about food additives, which have been linked to hyperactivity in children.
Concerns centre on the safety of E211, known as sodium benzoate, a preservative used for decades by the £74bn global carbonated drinks industry. Sodium benzoate derives from benzoic acid. It occurs naturally in berries, but is used in large quantities to prevent mould in soft drinks such as Sprite, Oasis and Dr Pepper. It is also added to pickles and sauces.
Sodium benzoate has already been the subject of concern about cancer because when mixed with the additive vitamin C in soft drinks, it causes benzene, a carcinogenic substance. A Food Standards Agency survey of benzene in drinks last year found high levels in four brands which were removed from sale.
Now, an expert in ageing at Sheffield University, who has been working on sodium benzoate since publishing a research paper in 1999, has decided to speak out about another danger. Professor Peter Piper, a professor of molecular biology and biotechnology, tested the impact of sodium benzoate on living yeast cells in his laboratory. What he found alarmed him: the benzoate was damaging an important area of DNA in the "power station" of cells known as the mitochondria.
He told The Independent on Sunday: "These chemicals have the ability to cause severe damage to DNA in the mitochondria to the point that they totally inactivate it: they knock it out altogether.
"The mitochondria consumes the oxygen to give you energy and if you damage it - as happens in a number if diseased states - then the cell starts to malfunction very seriously. And there is a whole array of diseases that are now being tied to damage to this DNA - Parkinson's and quite a lot of neuro-degenerative diseases, but above all the whole process of ageing."
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) backs the use of sodium benzoate in the UK and it has been approved by the European Union but last night, MPs called for it to investigate urgently.
Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat chair of Parliament's all-party environment group said: "Many additives are relatively new and their long-term impact cannot be certain. This preservative clearly needs to be investigated further by the FSA."
A review of sodium benzoate by the World Health Organisation in 2000 concluded that it was safe, but it noted that the available science supporting its safety was "limited".
Professor Piper, whose work has been funded by a government research council, said tests conducted by the US Food and Drug Administration were out of date.
"The food industry will say these compounds have been tested and they are complete safe," he said. "By the criteria of modern safety testing, the safety tests were inadequate. Like all things, safety testing moves forward and you can conduct a much more rigorous safety test than you could 50 years ago."
He advised parents to think carefully about buying drinks with preservatives until the quantities in products were proved safe by new tests. "My concern is for children who are drinking large amounts," he said.
Coca-Cola and Britvic's Pepsi Max and Diet Pepsi all contain sodium benzoate. Their makers and the British Soft Drinks Association said they entrusted the safety of additives to the Government.
Expert links additive to cell damage
By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent , The Independent
Published: 27 May 2007
A new health scare erupted over soft drinks last night amid evidence they may cause serious cell damage. Research from a British university suggests a common preservative found in drinks such as Fanta and Pepsi Max has the ability to switch off vital parts of DNA.
The problem - more usually associated with ageing and alcohol abuse - can eventually lead to cirrhosis of the liver and degenerative diseases such as Parkinson's.
The findings could have serious consequences for the hundreds of millions of people worldwide who consume fizzy drinks. They will also intensify the controversy about food additives, which have been linked to hyperactivity in children.
Concerns centre on the safety of E211, known as sodium benzoate, a preservative used for decades by the £74bn global carbonated drinks industry. Sodium benzoate derives from benzoic acid. It occurs naturally in berries, but is used in large quantities to prevent mould in soft drinks such as Sprite, Oasis and Dr Pepper. It is also added to pickles and sauces.
Sodium benzoate has already been the subject of concern about cancer because when mixed with the additive vitamin C in soft drinks, it causes benzene, a carcinogenic substance. A Food Standards Agency survey of benzene in drinks last year found high levels in four brands which were removed from sale.
Now, an expert in ageing at Sheffield University, who has been working on sodium benzoate since publishing a research paper in 1999, has decided to speak out about another danger. Professor Peter Piper, a professor of molecular biology and biotechnology, tested the impact of sodium benzoate on living yeast cells in his laboratory. What he found alarmed him: the benzoate was damaging an important area of DNA in the "power station" of cells known as the mitochondria.
He told The Independent on Sunday: "These chemicals have the ability to cause severe damage to DNA in the mitochondria to the point that they totally inactivate it: they knock it out altogether.
"The mitochondria consumes the oxygen to give you energy and if you damage it - as happens in a number if diseased states - then the cell starts to malfunction very seriously. And there is a whole array of diseases that are now being tied to damage to this DNA - Parkinson's and quite a lot of neuro-degenerative diseases, but above all the whole process of ageing."
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) backs the use of sodium benzoate in the UK and it has been approved by the European Union but last night, MPs called for it to investigate urgently.
Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat chair of Parliament's all-party environment group said: "Many additives are relatively new and their long-term impact cannot be certain. This preservative clearly needs to be investigated further by the FSA."
A review of sodium benzoate by the World Health Organisation in 2000 concluded that it was safe, but it noted that the available science supporting its safety was "limited".
Professor Piper, whose work has been funded by a government research council, said tests conducted by the US Food and Drug Administration were out of date.
"The food industry will say these compounds have been tested and they are complete safe," he said. "By the criteria of modern safety testing, the safety tests were inadequate. Like all things, safety testing moves forward and you can conduct a much more rigorous safety test than you could 50 years ago."
He advised parents to think carefully about buying drinks with preservatives until the quantities in products were proved safe by new tests. "My concern is for children who are drinking large amounts," he said.
Coca-Cola and Britvic's Pepsi Max and Diet Pepsi all contain sodium benzoate. Their makers and the British Soft Drinks Association said they entrusted the safety of additives to the Government.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Now Fluoride Linked To Gum Disease!
Scientists report a link between dental fluorosis and periodontal disease in the June 2007 Indian Journal of Dental Research. (1) Dental fluorosis - white spotted, yellow, brown stained and/or pitted teeth - is a visual manifestation of fluoride overdose during childhood. Dental fluorosis afflicts from 1/3 to 1/2 of U.S. schoolchildren (and 40% of Irish schoolchildren), according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. (2) Inhabitants of the Davangere district of India were studied where natural water fluoride levels ranged from 1.5 to 3.0 parts-per-million (ppm) which is similar to fluoride levels allowed in U.S. water supplies (up to 4 ppm). The sample consisted of 1,029 subjects between 15- and 74-years-old. As the degree of dental fluorosis increased, periodontitis (advanced gum infection) increased. "The results suggest that there is a strong association of occurrence of periodontal disease in high-fluoride areas," write Vandana and Reddy. "Surprisingly, studies have not paid attention to the periodontal status in high-fluoride areas from a research perspective," the authors write. "In addition to inflammatory process, which remains common to high- and low-fluoride areas, the fluorosis-induced changes in hard and soft tissues of periodontium requires … attention to suspect fluoride as an etiological (environmental) agent for periodontal disease," the authors conclude. Two thirds of U.S. public water suppliers ( and 100% of Irish public water supplies ) purposely add fluoride chemicals (silicofluorides) in an attempt to reduce tooth decay in tap water drinkers.
Some U.S. communities have natural fluoride levels up to 4 ppm.. "How much longer do the American ( AND IRISH!)people have to be the guinea pigs in the U.S.'s fluoridation experiment," asks lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. The National Research Council advises more studies are required on fluoride's effects on reasoning ability, endocrine functions, the immune deficient, fertility, gastric response, bladder cancer, kidney and liver enzyme functions and more. (3) Studies already link fluoride to cancer, genetic defects, IQ deficits, thyroid dysfunction, kidney, tooth and bone damage. (3a) But government officials want even more studies before they condemn fluoridation. "Who will decide when fluoride's mounting risks outweigh its questionable benefits. The individual or the government?" asks Beeber. "Fluoridation leaves it in the hands of the government." "Fluoridation chemicals are in short supply these days," (5) says Beeber, "This would be a good time to gracefully bow out of water fluoridation." New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=71584
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Fluoridation Doing More Harm Than Good, Studies Show
Article Date: 12 May 2007 - 1:00 PDT
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=70558'
Contrary to belief, fluoridation is damaging teeth with little cavity reduction, according to a review of recent studies reported in Clinical Oral Investigations.(1) Pizzo and colleagues reviewed English-language fluoridation studies published from January 2001 to June 2006 and write, "Several epidemiological studies conducted in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities suggest that [fluoridation] may be unnecessary for caries prevention…"They also report that fluoride-damaged teeth spiked upwards to 51% from the 10-12% found over 60 years ago in "optimally" fluoridated communities. Dental fluorosis is white-spotted, yellow, brown-stained and/or pitted teeth. Fluoridation began in 1945 when dentists thought that ingested fluoride incorporated into children's developing tooth enamel to prevent cavities. However, Pizzo's group reports that fluoride ingestion confers little, if any, benefit and fails to reduce oral health disparities in low-income Americans. Also, any difference in fluoride tooth enamel surface concentration between fluoridated and low-fluoridated areas is minimal. And the relationship between higher enamel fluoride levels to less tooth decay was not found. "Some risk of increasing fluorosis may be attributed to the ingestion of powdered infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water… [and] foods and beverages processed in fluoridated areas… Furthermore, the use of dietary fluoride supplements during the first 6 years of life is associated with a significant increase in the risk of developing fluorosis," they write. Lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation says, "Recent news reports claiming fluoride-free bottled water caused the cavity increase trends in toddlers are implausible because rising fluorosis rates clearly indicate that children are over-fluoridated, not under-fluoridated." "There's no dispute that too much fluoride damages teeth, actually making them more decay-prone. Research is indicated to see if fluoride is causing the cavity escalation," says Beeber. Some studies Pizzo reviewed focused on communities that stopped water fluoridation. "…after the cessation, caries prevalence did not rise, remained almost the same or even decreased further," writes Pizzo's group. "In most European countries, where [water fluoridation] has never been adopted, a substantial decline [75%] in caries prevalence has been reported in the last decades," they report. To avoid dental fluorosis, the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control advise against mixing concentrated infant formulas with fluoridated water. "Fluoride is bone- and health-damaging as well," says Beeber.
-- www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/Pizzo-2007.pdf
New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, IncPO Box 263Old Bethpage, NY 11804www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof http://www.fluorideaction.net/
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=70558'
Contrary to belief, fluoridation is damaging teeth with little cavity reduction, according to a review of recent studies reported in Clinical Oral Investigations.(1) Pizzo and colleagues reviewed English-language fluoridation studies published from January 2001 to June 2006 and write, "Several epidemiological studies conducted in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities suggest that [fluoridation] may be unnecessary for caries prevention…"They also report that fluoride-damaged teeth spiked upwards to 51% from the 10-12% found over 60 years ago in "optimally" fluoridated communities. Dental fluorosis is white-spotted, yellow, brown-stained and/or pitted teeth. Fluoridation began in 1945 when dentists thought that ingested fluoride incorporated into children's developing tooth enamel to prevent cavities. However, Pizzo's group reports that fluoride ingestion confers little, if any, benefit and fails to reduce oral health disparities in low-income Americans. Also, any difference in fluoride tooth enamel surface concentration between fluoridated and low-fluoridated areas is minimal. And the relationship between higher enamel fluoride levels to less tooth decay was not found. "Some risk of increasing fluorosis may be attributed to the ingestion of powdered infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water… [and] foods and beverages processed in fluoridated areas… Furthermore, the use of dietary fluoride supplements during the first 6 years of life is associated with a significant increase in the risk of developing fluorosis," they write. Lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation says, "Recent news reports claiming fluoride-free bottled water caused the cavity increase trends in toddlers are implausible because rising fluorosis rates clearly indicate that children are over-fluoridated, not under-fluoridated." "There's no dispute that too much fluoride damages teeth, actually making them more decay-prone. Research is indicated to see if fluoride is causing the cavity escalation," says Beeber. Some studies Pizzo reviewed focused on communities that stopped water fluoridation. "…after the cessation, caries prevalence did not rise, remained almost the same or even decreased further," writes Pizzo's group. "In most European countries, where [water fluoridation] has never been adopted, a substantial decline [75%] in caries prevalence has been reported in the last decades," they report. To avoid dental fluorosis, the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control advise against mixing concentrated infant formulas with fluoridated water. "Fluoride is bone- and health-damaging as well," says Beeber.
-- www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/Pizzo-2007.pdf
New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, IncPO Box 263Old Bethpage, NY 11804www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof http://www.fluorideaction.net/
Friday, May 11, 2007
Fluoride Shortage in U.S.
Fluoride shortages abound throughout US
Friday, May 11, 2007
EVANSVILLE, INDIANA — A fluoride shortage has been reported in this city as well as other cities in the Midwest and along the East Coast, a May 11 Courier Press story reported.
In Evansville, fluoride has not been added to the water since last February, and the company that runs the city's treatment plant has not been able to get more.
The water quality manager for American Water Enterprises at Evansville, Mary Armacost, said the shortage is due to damages caused by Hurricane Katrina at fluoride processing facilities, according to the State Board of Health.
Armacost said in the story that everyone is facing the same problem, and the company has looked to many other vendors without luck. She said suppliers are no longer saying when supplies will be back to normal.
Another cause of the shortage is due to a slump in the phosphate mining industry.
Early this year, distributors in Florida were quoted as saying that fluoride had been in short supply for 18 months following the closing of one of the state's major mining companies and a production problem at another, as reported by WaterTech Online™.
The Florida distributors had also said the cost of the compound was skyrocketing due to demand and the fact that there weren't a lot of companies to produce it. A number of Florida water systems were forced to cease fluoridation earlier this year at least temporarily, due to the shortage.
Don't they realise that the fluoridation was really only for the convenience of industry anyway! If they don't produce it there is no need to dispose of the toxic waste in the public water supply. They should thank their lucky stars!
Friday, May 11, 2007
EVANSVILLE, INDIANA — A fluoride shortage has been reported in this city as well as other cities in the Midwest and along the East Coast, a May 11 Courier Press story reported.
In Evansville, fluoride has not been added to the water since last February, and the company that runs the city's treatment plant has not been able to get more.
The water quality manager for American Water Enterprises at Evansville, Mary Armacost, said the shortage is due to damages caused by Hurricane Katrina at fluoride processing facilities, according to the State Board of Health.
Armacost said in the story that everyone is facing the same problem, and the company has looked to many other vendors without luck. She said suppliers are no longer saying when supplies will be back to normal.
Another cause of the shortage is due to a slump in the phosphate mining industry.
Early this year, distributors in Florida were quoted as saying that fluoride had been in short supply for 18 months following the closing of one of the state's major mining companies and a production problem at another, as reported by WaterTech Online™.
The Florida distributors had also said the cost of the compound was skyrocketing due to demand and the fact that there weren't a lot of companies to produce it. A number of Florida water systems were forced to cease fluoridation earlier this year at least temporarily, due to the shortage.
Don't they realise that the fluoridation was really only for the convenience of industry anyway! If they don't produce it there is no need to dispose of the toxic waste in the public water supply. They should thank their lucky stars!
The Irish " Expert Body of Dentists" and Their Hypocrisy.
Dear Sir,
To pretend that the hydrofluorosilicic acid added to public water supplies is a common naturally occurring element is highly misleading and erroneous. It is in fact a hodge-podge of chemicals, a waste product of the phosphate fertiliser industry! We are expected to believe the standard mantra repeated ad nauseam by the pro-fluoride lobby that 40, 50 or 60, (take your pick) years of fluoridation have proven it safe and efficacious. Why should we believe that? Well, let's have a look at some of that 50 years research, will we? York University (UK) had a review in 1999-2000 to assess the merits or otherwise of fluoridation. The Report was commissioned by the UK government who wanted to lay the anti-fluoride lobby's arguments to rest once and for all so that they could bring fluoridation into the UK en masse. The report looked at all the fluoride literature worldwide since the inception of fluoridation. Unfortunately for them and for the whole fluoride lobby, they found the following, and I quote: "We were UNABLE to discover ANY reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What evidence we found SUGGESTED that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, BUT that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight DISBENEFIT to children's teeth. This beneficial effect comes at the EXPENSE of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was POOR." My emphasis. OK, so the pro-fluoride evidence over 50 years was POOR. So we will discount it because an expert and independent and comprehensive university / government report has said so. What about since 2000? York say that up until October 2003 they still had not received any convincing research to change their minds. Nothing that I am aware of has come out in fluoride's defence since! http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm for what the York Report REALLY said!
The WHO support which Dr O'Hickey regularly quotes was based on "over 100 studies of fluoride over 50 years". These reports and studies have been minutely examined by Philip Sutton and published in Chemical & Engineering News in 1988,and have been PROVEN to be highly suspect: No controls, no allowance for bias, 34 didnt exist, 2 studies with data from more than 1 town were listed as 6, 7 case reports in different years from the same study were listed as 14, 20 were about something else, 51 were of poor scientific quality, 4 could not be verified and the last 19 were from fluoridated countries and did not show in a scientific manner that fluoridation was efficacious! Moreover, the WHO has always stated that "the TOTAL fluoride intake of the individual MUST ALWAYS be taken into account BEFORE adding more"! Just for a start, this nation has always had tea as its main beverage, unlike the US coffee culture, and the fact that tea already contains between 6-8mg/L of naturally occurring fluoride seems to have passed all the fluoride pushers by! Ireland is SIXTH in the European caries league BEHIND non-fluoridating countries and all countries have shown a similar caries reduction curve over the last 40 years - even without fluoridation!
Please send me any links to recent health research that shows the efficacy of dumping toxic waste into our drinking water, I would love to see it. On the other hand, the last 30 years have shown major links to damage of the health of fluoridated people. How many cavities avoided justify the death through osteosarcoma of a young boy? How many suffer from hypothyroidism, kidney trouble, broken hips, Alzheimer's Disease, fluorosis, brittle bones and general illness due to the attack hydrofluorosilicic acid and its attendant chemicals (including mercury, lead, arsenic, chromium, phosphate) wreak on the human immune system all because someone CLAIMS this helps kids teeth? There has NEVER been a long-term health survey on a fluoridated population ANYWHERE! Rather strange, isn't that?
Caries have reduced world wide over the past 30 years and faster in some non-fluoridated countries than in fluoridated ones. So where is the PROOF that these pro-fluoride people offer? I am sick and tired of hearing the generalisations based on old and discredited "research". Wasn't it only in the 70's that the lawyers, scientists and experts who worked for the tobacco companies claimed: There is your proof that smoking does not damage ones health or cause cancer - BECAUSE two or three hundred years of smoking proves it!!! Sounds like the same argument that the fluoride lobby are trying to pass off on us. Fluoride can't hurt us BECAUSE it hasn't shown up major health problems yet! As has been said - if you don't look for it, you won't find it! People should research the issue and make themselves aware of what may turn out to be a major health calamity in the (near) future. Fluoride attacks iodine and magnesium in the body, absolutely vital nutrients, along with enzymes, the body's neuro transmitters. Give me the word of a trained toxicologist(the major discipline which was NOT represented on the Irish "Expert Body of Dentists" researches)above that of a mere dentist, who has NO overview of the whole body, any day!
In the end, decisions that have long ranging implications on health should only be made when considering ALL the evidence gathered over a period of time and not just the same tired and discredited fluoride mantra that Dr. O'Hickey repeats ad nauseam. When will Dr O'Hickey admit that HE makes a lot of money by "pushing" fluoride to countries such as South Africa, and indeed , acting as a consultant to the WHO along with Prof. O'Mullane, also on the "Expert Body of Dentists"? He has a hypocritical nerve to regularly accuse anyone in the anti-fluoride lobby of making money from the fluoride debate, as he does so himself! EUES Ireland
To pretend that the hydrofluorosilicic acid added to public water supplies is a common naturally occurring element is highly misleading and erroneous. It is in fact a hodge-podge of chemicals, a waste product of the phosphate fertiliser industry! We are expected to believe the standard mantra repeated ad nauseam by the pro-fluoride lobby that 40, 50 or 60, (take your pick) years of fluoridation have proven it safe and efficacious. Why should we believe that? Well, let's have a look at some of that 50 years research, will we? York University (UK) had a review in 1999-2000 to assess the merits or otherwise of fluoridation. The Report was commissioned by the UK government who wanted to lay the anti-fluoride lobby's arguments to rest once and for all so that they could bring fluoridation into the UK en masse. The report looked at all the fluoride literature worldwide since the inception of fluoridation. Unfortunately for them and for the whole fluoride lobby, they found the following, and I quote: "We were UNABLE to discover ANY reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What evidence we found SUGGESTED that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, BUT that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight DISBENEFIT to children's teeth. This beneficial effect comes at the EXPENSE of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was POOR." My emphasis. OK, so the pro-fluoride evidence over 50 years was POOR. So we will discount it because an expert and independent and comprehensive university / government report has said so. What about since 2000? York say that up until October 2003 they still had not received any convincing research to change their minds. Nothing that I am aware of has come out in fluoride's defence since! http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm for what the York Report REALLY said!
The WHO support which Dr O'Hickey regularly quotes was based on "over 100 studies of fluoride over 50 years". These reports and studies have been minutely examined by Philip Sutton and published in Chemical & Engineering News in 1988,and have been PROVEN to be highly suspect: No controls, no allowance for bias, 34 didnt exist, 2 studies with data from more than 1 town were listed as 6, 7 case reports in different years from the same study were listed as 14, 20 were about something else, 51 were of poor scientific quality, 4 could not be verified and the last 19 were from fluoridated countries and did not show in a scientific manner that fluoridation was efficacious! Moreover, the WHO has always stated that "the TOTAL fluoride intake of the individual MUST ALWAYS be taken into account BEFORE adding more"! Just for a start, this nation has always had tea as its main beverage, unlike the US coffee culture, and the fact that tea already contains between 6-8mg/L of naturally occurring fluoride seems to have passed all the fluoride pushers by! Ireland is SIXTH in the European caries league BEHIND non-fluoridating countries and all countries have shown a similar caries reduction curve over the last 40 years - even without fluoridation!
Please send me any links to recent health research that shows the efficacy of dumping toxic waste into our drinking water, I would love to see it. On the other hand, the last 30 years have shown major links to damage of the health of fluoridated people. How many cavities avoided justify the death through osteosarcoma of a young boy? How many suffer from hypothyroidism, kidney trouble, broken hips, Alzheimer's Disease, fluorosis, brittle bones and general illness due to the attack hydrofluorosilicic acid and its attendant chemicals (including mercury, lead, arsenic, chromium, phosphate) wreak on the human immune system all because someone CLAIMS this helps kids teeth? There has NEVER been a long-term health survey on a fluoridated population ANYWHERE! Rather strange, isn't that?
Caries have reduced world wide over the past 30 years and faster in some non-fluoridated countries than in fluoridated ones. So where is the PROOF that these pro-fluoride people offer? I am sick and tired of hearing the generalisations based on old and discredited "research". Wasn't it only in the 70's that the lawyers, scientists and experts who worked for the tobacco companies claimed: There is your proof that smoking does not damage ones health or cause cancer - BECAUSE two or three hundred years of smoking proves it!!! Sounds like the same argument that the fluoride lobby are trying to pass off on us. Fluoride can't hurt us BECAUSE it hasn't shown up major health problems yet! As has been said - if you don't look for it, you won't find it! People should research the issue and make themselves aware of what may turn out to be a major health calamity in the (near) future. Fluoride attacks iodine and magnesium in the body, absolutely vital nutrients, along with enzymes, the body's neuro transmitters. Give me the word of a trained toxicologist(the major discipline which was NOT represented on the Irish "Expert Body of Dentists" researches)above that of a mere dentist, who has NO overview of the whole body, any day!
In the end, decisions that have long ranging implications on health should only be made when considering ALL the evidence gathered over a period of time and not just the same tired and discredited fluoride mantra that Dr. O'Hickey repeats ad nauseam. When will Dr O'Hickey admit that HE makes a lot of money by "pushing" fluoride to countries such as South Africa, and indeed , acting as a consultant to the WHO along with Prof. O'Mullane, also on the "Expert Body of Dentists"? He has a hypocritical nerve to regularly accuse anyone in the anti-fluoride lobby of making money from the fluoride debate, as he does so himself! EUES Ireland
Thursday, May 10, 2007
There's Both Eatin' and Drinkin' In It!
Although a FAN (Fluoride Action Network) fan, I think it would be beneficial to let people know that water fluoridation is not the only type of mass medication being practiced by some governments and that salt fluoridation now affects even more people than water fluoridation does! The following article is from the Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children (PFPC) Canadian website in response to a FAN article, which you can link to at the end of this posting. Fluoride for food - food for thought.
June 15, 2003
FAN’s “Swiss Cheese”
In the past few weeks we have received a flurry of mails, mainly from Europe and Canada, about the situation in Basel, Switzerland and the reports which have been circulated by the anti-fluoridation movement on this issue. It has become obvious that many anti-fluoridation campaigners are and have been misinformed.
Of particular concern to most were several bulletins by the International Fluoride Information Network (IFIN) and the present lead article on the newly revamped website by FAN, the global Fluoride Action Network. FAN distributes the IFIN bulletins, which are usually authored by Prof. Paul Connett, to other anti-fluoridation activists worldwide.
Please be informed that the lead item on the FAN website site entitled "Basel Switzerland Votes to Stop Water Fluoridation" (1) is very inaccurate, highly misleading, and has “as many holes as Swiss Cheese”.
Background
The FAN article refers to a report by the Commission on Health and Social Issues (GSK) which led to the cessation of water fluoridation in Basel. The report was written on Feb. 26, 2003 and passed on to the Great Council on March 19, 2003. The Council voted upon the matter on April 9th, 2003. The original GSK report has been placed on-line by the GSK (2) as well as the PFPC (3).
Unfortunately, throughout the FAN article key points of the GSK report are mis-represented.
A few examples:
[1] FAN:
"In March, the GSK presented their advice to end water fluoridation in a ten page report delivered to Parliament. The two main reasons supporting their recommendation were:
COMMENT: First of all, there were THREE main reasons given by the GSK, not two. They are listed further below. But for now, let's go to the next item, allegedly reason #1:
[2] FAN:
1) Lack of evidence that water fluoridation is more effective than other, less intrusive, means of reducing tooth decay.
As noted in GSK's report:
"No study or investigation can belay clearly that water fluoridation obtains better results as a measure to reduce tooth decay than other uses of fluoride."
COMMENT: Not only is this matter not reason "1)", but the GSK report does NOT say this. The sentence above shows up under reason #3:
"No study or investigation can show plainly and clearly that water fluoridation as a measure to protect against caries can achieve better results than other measures of BASE-FLUORIDATION."
This is a VERY important difference.
Base-fluoridation ("Basisfluoridierung") describes fluoride which is taken up by the masses via the oral/intestinal tract (systemic), while "Individualfluoridierung" (individual fluoridation) means local applications via toothpaste, mouthrinse, gel, etc. Another associated term encountered in the document is the word "flächendeckend" which means area-covering, i.e. both water fluoridation and salt fluoridation cover large population areas, thus are described as "area-covering". This is a very important aspect if we are to discuss "forced medication", but more on this later.
The fact is: what water fluoridation is being specifically compared to here is SALT fluoridation - another form of systemic fluoride intake by the masses and which is in place in virtually all of Switzerland, the first country to sell fluoridated salt in 1955, and where 85% of the population uses fluoridated salt. This aspect is clearly described in the GSK report [Point 4, Page 5].
It is hard to understand how this could have been misinterpreted as FAN’s own postings of newsarticles report on the fluoride-salt “ersatz” (4). It is further very hard to understand how an organization campaigning against systemic fluoride intake can show such ignorance.
Newspaper articles had been circulating on the Internet on this issue since March 20th, specifying the GSK position and its “political” motive - a day after the report was handed to the Great Council (i.e. Tagesblatt Bern, March 20, 2003).
[3] FAN:
"In 1999, the GSK had asked public dental clinics to investigate whether Basel had a lower rate of tooth decay than 'areas or cities with similar population structures, such as Zurich or St. Gall'. Four years later, these investigations had yet to be conducted, or if they were, the results were never presented."
COMMENT: The GSK did not ask such thing and should never be quoted as such, really. What the GSK DID ask for were studies which investigated if fluoride in water was any better than fluoride in salt, both being examples of "base- fluoridation" (Feb, 1999). Zurich and St. Gallen are BOTH fluoridated salt areas with "similar population structures", and were therefore proposed. (There are 11 unique ethnic communities). Zurich has used fluoridated salt since 1955.
NOTE: Numerous cantons in Switzerland fluoridate all salt destined for human consumption, thus fluoride is taken in from all processed foods, bakery products, in restaurants, cafeterias, canteens, etc. - in short, any food item with salt. In those areas, the daily intake of bread alone may already provide more than 1.2 mg per day of fluoride - per person (5). Such measures certainly are “forced mass-medication”, and worse than any water fluoridation, as now all foods made with such salt contain much more fluoride.
[4] FAN:
Adding to these doubts were recent findings showing that tooth decay had risen in Basel's children since 1996, coupled with an absence of any evidence showing Basel to have a lower rate of tooth decay than other Swiss cities (most of which have very low rates of tooth decay).
COMMENT:
This is also an incorrect and misleading statement. Again the impression is created that “other Swiss cities” are “un-fluoridated”, which is entirely untrue, as discussed above. It is further untrue that most other Swiss cities have very low rates of tooth decay.
The GSK reports on the position statement given by the Director of Public Dental Clinics, who said that caries had become clearly worse between 1996 and 2001 in Basel. Especially for seven-year-olds caries occurrence had actually doubled. The GSK report states this with special emphasis ("Verdopplung!"). However, a similar situation exists in Zurich, and a similar increase is seen in this age group. From the year 1992 to 2000, caries prevalence in 7-year-olds increased by 64% in Zurich (6). (Please note that nowhere in Switzerland can there be any “fluoride deficiency”. There are extensive school-brushing programs with fluoride toothpaste, almost all people use fluoride toothpastes (w/ organic fluoride compounds), fluoridated salt is used by 85 % of the population - yet there is such an alarming increase in caries?
[5] FAN:
According to extensive data collected by the World Health Organization and various national/regional surveys, unfluoridated countries in western Europe have experienced - without exception - the same general decline in tooth decay over the past 30 to 50 years, as that experienced in the US. As a result, children today in unfluoridated countries such as Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, and Sweden have as low - or even lower - levels of tooth decay as US children.
This is sheer nonsense and it boggles the mind how anyone can speak of “unfluoridated countries” here, or even attempt to compare caries rates without any apparent knowledge on fluoride exposure and intake in these countries.
If the Netherlands are “unfluoridated” - how come Dutch public health officials in 1988 calculated total daily fluoride intake to be up to 6.0 mg of fluoride? Food was estimated to be the source of 80-85% of fluoride intake; intake from drinking-water was 0.03-0.68 mg/day and from toothpaste 0.2-0.3 mg (7). “For children, total intake via food and water is decreased because of lower consumption. Intake of food and water relative to body weight is higher, however, and is further increased by the swallowing of toothpaste or fluoride tablets (up to 3.5 mg of fluoride per day)” (8).
NOTE: For comparison - in 1991 the US PHS estimated daily fluoride intake of adults in “optimally” fluoridated areas of the US to be up to 6.6 mg/day (9).
In Germany, fluoridated salt has within a few years grabbed the major share of the market, driven by a PR campaign initiated by salt producers (13). Dentists have been lobbying to have regulations lifted to allow bakeries and large kitchens to use fluoridated salt. Test case has been the kitchen at the University of Heidelberg which has used fluoridated salt in its foods since 1999.
FAN has a special page alerting to “other sources of fluoride intake” (10). However, fluoridated salt is not mentioned at all.
THE GSK's THREE REASONS
1) No reason for Basel to be the "lone island" in Switzerland. As around Basel other methods of caries prophylaxis are in existence, and no unique benefit of fluoridated water could be identified, the GSK felt this "lone island" approach of water fluoridation was not justified. The GSK rejected the idea to “half the fluoridation” (fluoridate at 0.5 ppm), as had been proposed by Peter H. Miehl, the Director of the Public Dental Clinics. [It is noted in the report that fluoridated salt is available in Basel as well, posing another problem commonly described in the literature as “overlap”. Earlier there had been a sort of "gentleman's agreement" with distributors "sacrificing" sales, but now fluoridated salt was once again widely available.]
2) The second reason was that fluoridated water has a "Streuverlust" (scatterloss), meaning it is being scattered, not used for drinking or cooking, but ends up being wasted. The report states: "with fluoridated food salt, as is used in the rest of Switzerland for base-fluoridation, this scatter-loss and with it the unnecessary burden on the environment would be considerably less."
3) Here it is stated that the "island solution" as well as "scatterloss" could only be justified if there were no other alternative and comparable means to base-fluoridate available. It is here where it is stated that no study exists which can show that fluoridated water is better than other means of base-fluoridation - meaning fluoridated salt - NOT "other uses of fluoride" or “less intrusive measures”, as stated by FAN. It is here that the report also addresses the question of "personal freedom" and "forced medication" imposed upon by water fluoridation. This has been a political item since 1990 when a Basel couple sued because fluoride-free water was not available and the case made it to Supreme Court (Bundesgericht)[see Point 2, page 4 ].
SO - the GSK recommended to stop water fluoridation, and to use fluoridated salt instead. Has the government stopped “fluoridation”? No, it will chose another medium to fluoridate the people. The GSK report further states that the transition from fluoridated water to fluoridated salt should be accompanied by a one-time info-campaign, and that this could be done when water bills were being sent out by the IWB (Industrial Works Basel).
Please also note that elsewhere in the report [Point 6, page 7] it is stated that the IWB cannot sell its water to other cantons or countries because of the fluoride content. The GSK claims that it has not concerned itself with this aspect of the "Politikum of TWA" (fluoridated drinking water). One can see this point also stressed in the submission by Ziegelbecker from the day before the report was made (11).
The report further states that no longer fluoridating the water of Basel will save 200,000 francs a year. Fluoridated salt has no costs what-so-ever to the state.
NOTE:This fact is very advantageous for dental public health officials everywhere who, long aware of the political implications in water fluoridation, now quietly go about starting massive fluoridated salt programs. More on this below.
Fluoridated salt is no more expensive than other salt, and is actually sold under a slight subsidy, making its selling price just a bit lower than other salt (Yewe-Dyer, 2002). The "poor" family - which really doesn’t exist in Switzerland where 99% of the population is literate and the average income is above US $28,000 a year - will go for fluoride salt, the cheaper salt. Marketing is aggressive and has been very successful, aided greatly by salt producers - as in many other countries. Now even common recipes call specifically for fluoridated salt (12).
98% fluoridation- free?
Often encountered on FAN’s website is the statement that 98% of Europe is “unfluoridated”. Anyone who knows about the global drive to fluoridate salt supplies knows how wrong such a statement really is. “Fuzzy Math”? Perhaps one day soon FAN will wake up and take its mandate to “minimize fluoride exposure” seriously and actually pay a bit of attention to the remaining 98% NOT affected by water fluoridation programs, but other means of “base-fluoridation” and “mass-medication” programs?
While it was estimated in the 1990s that worldwide 230 million people received artificially fluoridated water (13), the number of people now affected by fluoridated salt programs greatly exceeds those affected by water fluoridation. 350 million people were added in 1996 alone when the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) launched a massive salt fluoridation program in Bolivia, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and Venezuela (14).
The project was part of a multi-year plan launched by PAHO in 1994 to “fluoridate the entire Region of the Americas”. The project was funded - once again - by a multi-year deal grant from Kellogg’s (15).
Since then many other countries have been added and many more are currently in the process. In Jamaica, Costa Rica and Columbia all salt destined for human consumption is fluoridated (“universal” salt fluoridation).
Forced Medication?
Just like in water fluoridation - where it was presumed that people would drink 4 glasses of water every day and thus take in the “optimal” intake of 1 mg of fluoride/per day - salt was fluoridated at 250 ppm. Here it was presumed that “individual application” (meaning use of the salt shaker at the table - the “sprinkling over food”) would contribute 1 to 4 g of the daily total salt intake, thus a person would take in 1 mg of fluoride a day at 4 grams a day - the “optimal” dose of fluoride intake to “protect against caries”.
How dentists ever convinced public health policy makers that the same salt (also called “cooking salt”) wasn’t also used for all cooking, including breadmaking, soups, etc. is anyone’s guess.
Fluoridated salt - which also has plenty of contaminants (16) - has one quality much worse than fluoridated water: an individual's preferred level of salt may be raised or lowered by progressively raising or lowering the actual level over a period of time. In other words, the amount of salt you use today might not be enough for you a month from now when you will be adding a little bit more! Salt consumption has shot through the roof, and worldwide efforts are underway to reduce overall salt intake to 5 g/day. In Costa Rica - just as one example - all salt is fluoridated at 250 ppm and people consume on average 10 g of salt per day, ensuring a daily fluoride intake of 2.5 mg/day from this source alone.
“Fluoride-free by 2003”?
Not this way.
Bob Johannsen, Rainer Neuhaus & Andreas Schuld
Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children (PFPC)Vancouver, BC, Canada
PFPC Website: http://www.bruha.com/pfpc
E-mail: pfpccanada@shaw.ca
To read FAN’s updated article see: http://www.fluoridealert.org/basel.htm
June 15, 2003
FAN’s “Swiss Cheese”
In the past few weeks we have received a flurry of mails, mainly from Europe and Canada, about the situation in Basel, Switzerland and the reports which have been circulated by the anti-fluoridation movement on this issue. It has become obvious that many anti-fluoridation campaigners are and have been misinformed.
Of particular concern to most were several bulletins by the International Fluoride Information Network (IFIN) and the present lead article on the newly revamped website by FAN, the global Fluoride Action Network. FAN distributes the IFIN bulletins, which are usually authored by Prof. Paul Connett, to other anti-fluoridation activists worldwide.
Please be informed that the lead item on the FAN website site entitled "Basel Switzerland Votes to Stop Water Fluoridation" (1) is very inaccurate, highly misleading, and has “as many holes as Swiss Cheese”.
Background
The FAN article refers to a report by the Commission on Health and Social Issues (GSK) which led to the cessation of water fluoridation in Basel. The report was written on Feb. 26, 2003 and passed on to the Great Council on March 19, 2003. The Council voted upon the matter on April 9th, 2003. The original GSK report has been placed on-line by the GSK (2) as well as the PFPC (3).
Unfortunately, throughout the FAN article key points of the GSK report are mis-represented.
A few examples:
[1] FAN:
"In March, the GSK presented their advice to end water fluoridation in a ten page report delivered to Parliament. The two main reasons supporting their recommendation were:
COMMENT: First of all, there were THREE main reasons given by the GSK, not two. They are listed further below. But for now, let's go to the next item, allegedly reason #1:
[2] FAN:
1) Lack of evidence that water fluoridation is more effective than other, less intrusive, means of reducing tooth decay.
As noted in GSK's report:
"No study or investigation can belay clearly that water fluoridation obtains better results as a measure to reduce tooth decay than other uses of fluoride."
COMMENT: Not only is this matter not reason "1)", but the GSK report does NOT say this. The sentence above shows up under reason #3:
"No study or investigation can show plainly and clearly that water fluoridation as a measure to protect against caries can achieve better results than other measures of BASE-FLUORIDATION."
This is a VERY important difference.
Base-fluoridation ("Basisfluoridierung") describes fluoride which is taken up by the masses via the oral/intestinal tract (systemic), while "Individualfluoridierung" (individual fluoridation) means local applications via toothpaste, mouthrinse, gel, etc. Another associated term encountered in the document is the word "flächendeckend" which means area-covering, i.e. both water fluoridation and salt fluoridation cover large population areas, thus are described as "area-covering". This is a very important aspect if we are to discuss "forced medication", but more on this later.
The fact is: what water fluoridation is being specifically compared to here is SALT fluoridation - another form of systemic fluoride intake by the masses and which is in place in virtually all of Switzerland, the first country to sell fluoridated salt in 1955, and where 85% of the population uses fluoridated salt. This aspect is clearly described in the GSK report [Point 4, Page 5].
It is hard to understand how this could have been misinterpreted as FAN’s own postings of newsarticles report on the fluoride-salt “ersatz” (4). It is further very hard to understand how an organization campaigning against systemic fluoride intake can show such ignorance.
Newspaper articles had been circulating on the Internet on this issue since March 20th, specifying the GSK position and its “political” motive - a day after the report was handed to the Great Council (i.e. Tagesblatt Bern, March 20, 2003).
[3] FAN:
"In 1999, the GSK had asked public dental clinics to investigate whether Basel had a lower rate of tooth decay than 'areas or cities with similar population structures, such as Zurich or St. Gall'. Four years later, these investigations had yet to be conducted, or if they were, the results were never presented."
COMMENT: The GSK did not ask such thing and should never be quoted as such, really. What the GSK DID ask for were studies which investigated if fluoride in water was any better than fluoride in salt, both being examples of "base- fluoridation" (Feb, 1999). Zurich and St. Gallen are BOTH fluoridated salt areas with "similar population structures", and were therefore proposed. (There are 11 unique ethnic communities). Zurich has used fluoridated salt since 1955.
NOTE: Numerous cantons in Switzerland fluoridate all salt destined for human consumption, thus fluoride is taken in from all processed foods, bakery products, in restaurants, cafeterias, canteens, etc. - in short, any food item with salt. In those areas, the daily intake of bread alone may already provide more than 1.2 mg per day of fluoride - per person (5). Such measures certainly are “forced mass-medication”, and worse than any water fluoridation, as now all foods made with such salt contain much more fluoride.
[4] FAN:
Adding to these doubts were recent findings showing that tooth decay had risen in Basel's children since 1996, coupled with an absence of any evidence showing Basel to have a lower rate of tooth decay than other Swiss cities (most of which have very low rates of tooth decay).
COMMENT:
This is also an incorrect and misleading statement. Again the impression is created that “other Swiss cities” are “un-fluoridated”, which is entirely untrue, as discussed above. It is further untrue that most other Swiss cities have very low rates of tooth decay.
The GSK reports on the position statement given by the Director of Public Dental Clinics, who said that caries had become clearly worse between 1996 and 2001 in Basel. Especially for seven-year-olds caries occurrence had actually doubled. The GSK report states this with special emphasis ("Verdopplung!"). However, a similar situation exists in Zurich, and a similar increase is seen in this age group. From the year 1992 to 2000, caries prevalence in 7-year-olds increased by 64% in Zurich (6). (Please note that nowhere in Switzerland can there be any “fluoride deficiency”. There are extensive school-brushing programs with fluoride toothpaste, almost all people use fluoride toothpastes (w/ organic fluoride compounds), fluoridated salt is used by 85 % of the population - yet there is such an alarming increase in caries?
[5] FAN:
According to extensive data collected by the World Health Organization and various national/regional surveys, unfluoridated countries in western Europe have experienced - without exception - the same general decline in tooth decay over the past 30 to 50 years, as that experienced in the US. As a result, children today in unfluoridated countries such as Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, and Sweden have as low - or even lower - levels of tooth decay as US children.
This is sheer nonsense and it boggles the mind how anyone can speak of “unfluoridated countries” here, or even attempt to compare caries rates without any apparent knowledge on fluoride exposure and intake in these countries.
If the Netherlands are “unfluoridated” - how come Dutch public health officials in 1988 calculated total daily fluoride intake to be up to 6.0 mg of fluoride? Food was estimated to be the source of 80-85% of fluoride intake; intake from drinking-water was 0.03-0.68 mg/day and from toothpaste 0.2-0.3 mg (7). “For children, total intake via food and water is decreased because of lower consumption. Intake of food and water relative to body weight is higher, however, and is further increased by the swallowing of toothpaste or fluoride tablets (up to 3.5 mg of fluoride per day)” (8).
NOTE: For comparison - in 1991 the US PHS estimated daily fluoride intake of adults in “optimally” fluoridated areas of the US to be up to 6.6 mg/day (9).
In Germany, fluoridated salt has within a few years grabbed the major share of the market, driven by a PR campaign initiated by salt producers (13). Dentists have been lobbying to have regulations lifted to allow bakeries and large kitchens to use fluoridated salt. Test case has been the kitchen at the University of Heidelberg which has used fluoridated salt in its foods since 1999.
FAN has a special page alerting to “other sources of fluoride intake” (10). However, fluoridated salt is not mentioned at all.
THE GSK's THREE REASONS
1) No reason for Basel to be the "lone island" in Switzerland. As around Basel other methods of caries prophylaxis are in existence, and no unique benefit of fluoridated water could be identified, the GSK felt this "lone island" approach of water fluoridation was not justified. The GSK rejected the idea to “half the fluoridation” (fluoridate at 0.5 ppm), as had been proposed by Peter H. Miehl, the Director of the Public Dental Clinics. [It is noted in the report that fluoridated salt is available in Basel as well, posing another problem commonly described in the literature as “overlap”. Earlier there had been a sort of "gentleman's agreement" with distributors "sacrificing" sales, but now fluoridated salt was once again widely available.]
2) The second reason was that fluoridated water has a "Streuverlust" (scatterloss), meaning it is being scattered, not used for drinking or cooking, but ends up being wasted. The report states: "with fluoridated food salt, as is used in the rest of Switzerland for base-fluoridation, this scatter-loss and with it the unnecessary burden on the environment would be considerably less."
3) Here it is stated that the "island solution" as well as "scatterloss" could only be justified if there were no other alternative and comparable means to base-fluoridate available. It is here where it is stated that no study exists which can show that fluoridated water is better than other means of base-fluoridation - meaning fluoridated salt - NOT "other uses of fluoride" or “less intrusive measures”, as stated by FAN. It is here that the report also addresses the question of "personal freedom" and "forced medication" imposed upon by water fluoridation. This has been a political item since 1990 when a Basel couple sued because fluoride-free water was not available and the case made it to Supreme Court (Bundesgericht)[see Point 2, page 4 ].
SO - the GSK recommended to stop water fluoridation, and to use fluoridated salt instead. Has the government stopped “fluoridation”? No, it will chose another medium to fluoridate the people. The GSK report further states that the transition from fluoridated water to fluoridated salt should be accompanied by a one-time info-campaign, and that this could be done when water bills were being sent out by the IWB (Industrial Works Basel).
Please also note that elsewhere in the report [Point 6, page 7] it is stated that the IWB cannot sell its water to other cantons or countries because of the fluoride content. The GSK claims that it has not concerned itself with this aspect of the "Politikum of TWA" (fluoridated drinking water). One can see this point also stressed in the submission by Ziegelbecker from the day before the report was made (11).
The report further states that no longer fluoridating the water of Basel will save 200,000 francs a year. Fluoridated salt has no costs what-so-ever to the state.
NOTE:This fact is very advantageous for dental public health officials everywhere who, long aware of the political implications in water fluoridation, now quietly go about starting massive fluoridated salt programs. More on this below.
Fluoridated salt is no more expensive than other salt, and is actually sold under a slight subsidy, making its selling price just a bit lower than other salt (Yewe-Dyer, 2002). The "poor" family - which really doesn’t exist in Switzerland where 99% of the population is literate and the average income is above US $28,000 a year - will go for fluoride salt, the cheaper salt. Marketing is aggressive and has been very successful, aided greatly by salt producers - as in many other countries. Now even common recipes call specifically for fluoridated salt (12).
98% fluoridation- free?
Often encountered on FAN’s website is the statement that 98% of Europe is “unfluoridated”. Anyone who knows about the global drive to fluoridate salt supplies knows how wrong such a statement really is. “Fuzzy Math”? Perhaps one day soon FAN will wake up and take its mandate to “minimize fluoride exposure” seriously and actually pay a bit of attention to the remaining 98% NOT affected by water fluoridation programs, but other means of “base-fluoridation” and “mass-medication” programs?
While it was estimated in the 1990s that worldwide 230 million people received artificially fluoridated water (13), the number of people now affected by fluoridated salt programs greatly exceeds those affected by water fluoridation. 350 million people were added in 1996 alone when the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) launched a massive salt fluoridation program in Bolivia, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and Venezuela (14).
The project was part of a multi-year plan launched by PAHO in 1994 to “fluoridate the entire Region of the Americas”. The project was funded - once again - by a multi-year deal grant from Kellogg’s (15).
Since then many other countries have been added and many more are currently in the process. In Jamaica, Costa Rica and Columbia all salt destined for human consumption is fluoridated (“universal” salt fluoridation).
Forced Medication?
Just like in water fluoridation - where it was presumed that people would drink 4 glasses of water every day and thus take in the “optimal” intake of 1 mg of fluoride/per day - salt was fluoridated at 250 ppm. Here it was presumed that “individual application” (meaning use of the salt shaker at the table - the “sprinkling over food”) would contribute 1 to 4 g of the daily total salt intake, thus a person would take in 1 mg of fluoride a day at 4 grams a day - the “optimal” dose of fluoride intake to “protect against caries”.
How dentists ever convinced public health policy makers that the same salt (also called “cooking salt”) wasn’t also used for all cooking, including breadmaking, soups, etc. is anyone’s guess.
Fluoridated salt - which also has plenty of contaminants (16) - has one quality much worse than fluoridated water: an individual's preferred level of salt may be raised or lowered by progressively raising or lowering the actual level over a period of time. In other words, the amount of salt you use today might not be enough for you a month from now when you will be adding a little bit more! Salt consumption has shot through the roof, and worldwide efforts are underway to reduce overall salt intake to 5 g/day. In Costa Rica - just as one example - all salt is fluoridated at 250 ppm and people consume on average 10 g of salt per day, ensuring a daily fluoride intake of 2.5 mg/day from this source alone.
“Fluoride-free by 2003”?
Not this way.
Bob Johannsen, Rainer Neuhaus & Andreas Schuld
Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children (PFPC)Vancouver, BC, Canada
PFPC Website: http://www.bruha.com/pfpc
E-mail: pfpccanada@shaw.ca
To read FAN’s updated article see: http://www.fluoridealert.org/basel.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)