Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Letter to the Editor of the Irish Independent Newspaper


Reply to Ms. Colette Browne Irish Independent Newspaper regarding her opinion piece of the 12th March 2014.


I wish to respond to some of the accusations penned by your columnist Ms Colette Browne in her column of the 12th March 2014.

In regard to my report of 2013 which addresses the variations in disease burdens between fluoridated Republic of Ireland and non-fluoridated Northern Ireland, perhaps the two smallest sections of this large report address Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDs) and Down Syndrome.

The data for SIDs is from a published document from the Institute of Public Health using official statistics from the Department of Health in both jurisdictions, along with data from the Central Statistics office and Northern Ireland Statistics, the report covers the period 1989-1998 and was published in 2001. Apart from recent All Ireland studies on Cancer statistics, which also show a much higher incidence of cancer in the Republic, this is the only all Ireland report examining the variation in mortality on the Island of Ireland. In this comprehensive report on page 29 and 33 the official figures for SID’s are provided for both geographic regions and a figure of a 310% increased incidence based on annual standardized rates is provided for the Republic of Ireland in comparison to Northern Ireland. This document has not been updated since.

Ms Browne claims that she has figures to show that the incidence of SID's in Northern Ireland are higher than the Republic of Ireland. I would like to see the evidence to support this claim. If this is so, as Mr Gerry Byrne also claims, it would represent a four fold increase in SID's in the Northern Ireland in recent years, a situation which I would find very difficult to believe without credible published scientific facts to substantiate this claim.

In my report I also provided data from the international Journal of Paediatrics (2008) on SIDs incidence globally. What their data showed was that the highest incidence internationally of SIDs was to be found in fluoridated countries. This again is factual information from peer reviewed published sources.

I also reported that the Brisbane City Council’s review of fluoridation (1997) reported that the communities with the longest history of fluoridation had the highest SIDs rates, while the rates were lowest in non-fluoridated communities. This again is verifiable published information from reputable sources.

The U.S National Academies in their report noted (page 252) that Melatonin was associated with increased risk of SIDs. They also noted (page 264) that the one and only study that had been conducted on fluoride and pineal gland function indicates that fluoride exposure alters melatonin production.

Based on these observations, I suggested that the data suggests an association between infant exposure to fluoride and increased risk of SID's.

For making this cautionary statement I am now being ridiculed.

Finally in regard to my interview on RTE radio, I was contacted 30 minutes before the interview when I was at a meeting and asked to participate without any forewarning or opportunity to prepare and with no knowledge of what questions I would be asked. The literature on fluoridation is vast, I cannot be expected to remember every publication or the name of source material especially for something that was a relative minor part of my report. I have since forwarded the information to the researchers at RTE.

Yours sincerely
Declan Waugh

Sunday, February 16, 2014

PUBLIC HEALTH WARNING ON INFANT FORMULA PREPARED WITH FLUORIDATED TAP WATER.


PUBLIC HEALTH WARNING ON INFANT FORMULA PREPARED WITH FLUORIDATED TAP WATER. 


Infant formula prepared with fluoridated drinking water exceeds the maximum standard for the composition of infant formula as recommended by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition.

The Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) was established in 1963 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) to develop food safety standards. 

In 2004, in revieving the CODEX standard on Infant formula they requested additional advice from an international group of scientific experts in the area of infant nutrition. CCNFSDU asked the Committee on Nutrition of ESPGHAN (The European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition) to initiate a consultation process with the international scientific community to provide a proposal on nutrient levels in infant formulae, based on scientific analysis and taking into account existing scientific reports on the subject.  ESPGHAN in collaboration with its sister societies in the Federation of International Societies on Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, invited highly qualified experts in the area of infant nutrition to form an International Expert Group (IEG) to review the issues raised. 

The final report (JPGN 41:584–599, 2005) was written, circulated to all IEG members, approved and submitted to the CCNFSDU and its EWG in June 2005 [1].

In their report the committee concluded “that the benefit of a high fluoride intake during early infancy is questionable and carries the risk of dental fluorosis. Therefore, maximum levels should be as low as possible and not exceed 0.6mg per 100 kcal.”

The committee established the maximum energy content (kcal per 100 ml) for infant formula at 70kcal.  At this compositional requirement the fluoride content in infant formula must not exceed 0.42mg/L [1].

When any of the dry or powered formulas are mixed with fluoride adjusted water (0.7-1.2mg/L), the fluoride levels to which the infants are exposed approximate to 1.45 mg/L [2,3].  

That is 340% above the maximum recommended limit. 

Public health Authorities globally have been aware of these food safety standards since 2005, yet, in fluoridated countries they continue to disregard the scientific evidence and allow overexposure of sensitive infants to a toxic substance that has recently been identified as a developmental neurotoxin.[4].

References
[1] Medical Position Paper 2005, Global Standard for the Composition of Infant Formula: Recommendations of an ESPGHAN Coordinated International Expert Group. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 41: 584–599 November 2005
[2]Johnson J Jr and Bawden JW, (1987) The Fluoride Content of Infant Formulas Available in 1985, 1987. Pediatr Dent, 9(1): 33-7
[3] McKnight-Hayes MC, Leverrett DH, et al. Fluoride content of Infant Formulas: 1988, Pediatr Dent, 10(3): 189-94
[4] Grandjean P. Landrigan P. J. Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. The Lancet Neurology - 1 March 2014 ( Vol. 13, Issue 3, Pages 330-338 ) DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70278-




Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Foundation of Fluoridation is based on ignorance and lies not science.



When it comes to fluoride and water fluoridation the facts are indisputable, the public are being repeatedly lied to by public health authorities and elected politicians. In the past week in the Republic of Ireland, Minister for Health with Responsibility for Water fluoridation Alex White stated in parliament that the preponderance of scientific evidence has demonstrated that fluoridation of drinking water is safe. This statement is repeated ad nauseam by the Minister and by senior executives in public health authorities in Ireland.  There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. To demonstrate the European Food Safety Authority commissioned the University of Anglia to undertake an evidence based review of fluoride to establish safe dietary exposure levels. This was a comprehensive review examining all published literature over the past 30 years.

Herein you will find the findings of an EVIDENCE report published by the European Food Safety Authority in May 2012 identifying the health outcomes upon which Dietary Reference Values (DFVs) could potentially be based for fluoride.

This is factual scientific data and demonstrates the utterly false and deliberately misleading statements by Public Health Authorities in Ireland, Australia, NZ, Canada and the United States who claim that the overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrates that fluoridation is safe.

This is what the EFSA report found.

In 2012, the University of East Anglia  were contracted by the EFSA to prepare a report on identifying health outcomes upon which Dietary Reference Values (DRVs) could be potentially based for fluoride. The review included examination of scientific studies focused on primary research in humans concerning maintenance of functional competence and the prevention of clinical deficiency and chronic disease upon which DRVs may be based.

Astonishingly, the review concluded that there was a lack of high quality evidence upon which Dietary Reference Values (DRVs) may potentially be based for fluoride. In other words due to a lack of any available quality scientific data or epidemiological studies they do not know what is a safe level or exposure to fluoride.

Bone Health and Fluoride 

In examining data relating to bone health and fluoride no individual studies of fluoridated water met the study inclusion criteria, since total fluoride intake was not quantified.

Tooth Health

For tooth health, eight studies were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria for assessment. The majority of studies were conducted on children not adults. Of the five systematic reviews examined which met the criteria for inclusion all agreed that there was insufficient studies of high quality evidence. Only two systematic reviews were identified that addressed water fluoridation and tooth health. These were classified as of moderate quality but with shortcomings in the quality of studies included in terms of study design and assessment of fluoride exposure.

Biomarkers of Disease

For biomarkers of disease, only one study was identified examining the influence of fluoride on plasma leptin levels. The study was assessed as being at a high risk of bias.

Fluoride Bioavailability and Metabolism

Fluoride bioavailability and metabolism, studies were separated into those focused on fluoride bioavailability and metabolism and those focused on fluoride intake and status relationships. Bioavailability and metabolism studies described here relate to the influence of different fluoride forms or nutrient interactions, which may affect fluoride bioavailability and retention.

The review found just 16 studies which focused on fluoride bioavailability and metabolism of these only two were identified as presenting a low risk of bias with the majority being identified as a high risk of bias. Only three studies addressing fluoride metabolism were conducted over the longer-term (>48 hours). All but one of these were conducted on healthy adult subjects.

In total 16 studies were included, 15 were assessed of as being of high risk of bias. Only one study was assessed as being at a moderate, rather than a high risk of bias. There were just three studies which were conducted over the longer term (>48 hour) and all but one of these studies was conducted in healthy adult subjects.

Established Dietary Exposure using Biomarkers

In the review of published literature on the measurement of biomarkers for establishing dietary exposure six studies were identified all of which were assessed as being at high risk of bias. The majority of these studies were conducted on healty young to middle aged adults.

Six studies were included examining concentration of fluoride in breast milk. The concentration of fluoride was highly variable ranging from 4.56-513 μg/l. Living within an area with fluoridated water was the suggested reason for the differences. Only one study directly recorded total maternal dietary intake, using 24 hour weighing of foods and beverages and analysis of samples for fluoride content. Eight of the studies were assessed as being of high risk of bias with one assessed as being at moderate risk of bias.

The EFSA report concluded that there were relatively few studies of good quality regarding fluoride intake, status and/or health endpoints.

For biokinetic data, there was a lack of well-conducted balance studies and long-term supplementation trials, particularly for children, elderly and pregnant women.

The tooth health, the ESFA report concluded that the data were suggestive of a protective role for fluoride in the reduction of dental caries, but systematic reviews in this area acknowledged a lack of high quality intervention trials measuring total fluoride intake, and data were lacking for adult groups.

Conclusion

Overall, the EFSA report concluded there was a lack of high quality evidence upon which DRVs may potentially be based for fluoride.



Final report CT/EFSA/NDA/03 Lot 3,
University of East Anglia For The European Food Safety
Literature search and review related to specific preparatory work in the establishment of Dietary Reference Values.Preparation of an evidence report identifying health outcomes upon which
Dietary Reference Values could potentially be based for
magnesium, potassium and fluoride

Friday, November 15, 2013

Dr Robert Grimes unscientific opinions are a threat to public health.


Letter sent to Oxford University regarding scientific misconduct and medical negligence

Dr Robert Grimes who self promotes his employment as a researcher in Oxford University stated in the Irish Times (Anti-fluoride lobby can’t get its teeth into the truth, Monday Sept 9th 2013) that the arguments of anti-fluoridation campaigners are detrimental to the public understanding of science and medicine.[i]

Dr Robert Grimes yesterday stated on national radio in Ireland (George Hook, Newstalk Radio, 14th November 2013) that fluoride is an essential micronutrient. This is scientifically incorrect. The European Scientific Committee on Health and Scientific risk stated in their 2010 report on Fluoridation of drinking water that “Fluoride is not an essential element for human growth and development, and for most organisms in the environment.”

This scientific opinion is also supported by the European Food Safety Authority (2005).[ii] Furthermore the EFSA stated (2006) that “There is no convincing evidence that health and development of humans depend on the intake of fluoride” [iii]

Dr. Grimes further stated on Newstalk Radio that the source of fluoride is irrelevant, a fluoride ion is a fluoride ion. This statement is again factually and scientifically incorrect. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has stated that naturally occurring calcium fluoride is 3000 times less soluble in water than chemical compounds used for artificial water fluoridation. [iv] The WHO noted that “Fluoride ions are readily released from soluble fluoride compounds such as sodium fluoride, hydrogen fluoride, and fluorosilicic acid” (EHC, 2002) [v]. These are the compounds used for artificial water fluoridation.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA Journal 2008)[vi] and the United States Agency for Toxic substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR, 2003) [vii] have stated that “soluble forms of fluoride salts have reported absorption efficiencies of between 80–100 %. Conversely, insoluble sources of fluoride such as calcium fluoride, are much less well absorbed.”

The EFSA have stated “the toxicity of fluoride is dependent upon the type or species of the compound ingested, and therefore, the more soluble salts of inorganic fluorides are the most toxic (EHC, 2002; ATSDR, 2003).”  [viii],[ix]

Scientific bodies in the EU[x] and the US[xi] agree that no toxicity data is available on hexafluorosilicic acid.  Hexafluorosilicic acid (also known as hydrofluosilicic acid or hydrofluorosilicic acid) is used as an active substance for water fluoridation throughout Ireland and in a few other countries in the World where water fluoridation is practised.

Hexafluorsilicic acid was placed on a list of prohibited substances by the European Commission and was specifically banned in 2006 for use as a biocidal product due to a lack of toxicological and epidemiological data to demonstrate it was safe for use for consumers or the environment.

Dr. Grimes stated on national radio that with the concentrations in fluoride in artificially fluoridated water even if one drank swimming pools of water would cause no harm. This statement is not only shocking in its scientific ignorance but extremely dangerous for public health and should not be allowed to be broadcast on public radio. These statements were made by a medical researcher employed by Oxford University, I would add that the presenter of the national radio show noted repeatedly the prestigious record of this university and stated that Dr. Grimes was an expert in fluoride.

The US National Academies have reported that fluoride intake of between 0.7-3.5mg per day has been found to affect thyroid function. [xii] That is the equivalent to drinking one litre of water. The maximum upper tolerable level for fluoride is 4mg per day for men and 3mg per day for women over 19 years of age. [xiii] For children aged 4-8 years the upper recommended daily intake is 1mg day, for children 9-13 years 2mg/day and for age 14-18years 3mg/day. [xiv]

The EFSA have stated that the additional daily fluoride intake for consumers living in fluoridated regions compared to individuals in non-fluoridated countries is 3.5 - 4mg per day. [xv] This was calculated based on consumption of fluoridated tap water, and additional fluoride from using fluoridated water to cook with or process foods or beverages in addition to an individual drinking 500ml of tea made with fluoridated water. The EFSA concluded that the daily intake would exceed 6mg fluoride per day without including fluoride from other sources such as toothpaste or medications.

It is a scientific fact that the upper safe tolerable levels of exposure to fluoride are vastly exceeded by  individuals living in the Republic of Ireland.

Chan et al. (2013) published findings in the Journal of Food Research International that a significant proportion of the population in the UK are chronically exposed to fluoride at levels that can lead to detrimental health effects from the consumption of tea alone.[xvi] This finding was based on measurement of fluoride concentration in tea made with non fluoridated deionised water. By making tea with fluoridated water the risks and health effects are increased.  The consumption of tea in Ireland is greater than the UK and consumers make tea with fluoridated water.

In 2010, Dr. Peter Mansfield published a study[xvii] based on epidemiological data from adults living in England, Scotland, which also included data from Republic of Ireland. The findings of this study, independently verified and accepted by the UK Food Safety Authority as accurate were published in a peer reviewed journal. The findings concluded that 73% of the adults tested living in the fluoridated region of Ireland exceeded the safe recommended maximum daily level of exposure to fluoride. The figure for adults living in non-fluoridated areas of England was 25%. 

The public statements by Dr. Grimes in support of mandatory fluoridation are not only scientifically inaccurate but constitute a grave risk to public safety in Ireland. They also discredit the scientific profession and academic institutions that are promoted by reference to his place of employment. The actions of Dr. Grimes and his public statements not only discredit the distinguished and learned institution that is Oxford University, but he has discredit the scientific profession with his ill-informed and scientifically inaccurate public statements.


[i] http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/anti-fluoride-lobby-can-t-get-its-teeth-into-the-truth-1.1520290
[ii] European Food Safety Authority, Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies on a request from the Commission related to the Tolerable Upper Intake Level of Fluoride, EFSA Journal 2005 192,1-54
[iii] European Food Safety Authority, Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies on a request from the Commission related to the Tolerable Upper Intake Level of Fluoride, EFSA Journal 2005 192,1-54, Page 9
[iv] EHC, 2002. Environmental Health Criteria 227. Fluorides. World Health Organization, Geneva.
[v] EHC, 2002. Environmental Health Criteria 227. Fluorides. World Health Organization, Geneva.
[vi] European Food Safety Authority, Scientific Opinion, Calcium fluoride as a source of fluoride added for nutritional purposes to food supplements. The EFSA Journal (2008) 882, 1-15
[vii] ATSDR, 2003. Toxicological profile for fluorides, hydrogen fluoride, and fluorine. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Division of Toxicology/Toxicology Information Branch. September 2003. Atlanta, Georgie.
[viii] EHC, 2002. Environmental Health Criteria 227. Fluorides. World Health Organization, Geneva.
[ix] ATSDR, 2003. Toxicological profile for fluorides, hydrogen fluoride, and fluorine. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Division of Toxicology/Toxicology Information Branch. September 2003. Atlanta, Georgie.
[x] EU Directorate General for Health and Consumers, Critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water, Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks, 2010
[xi] United States, National Research Council of the National Academies, Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006
[xii] United States, National Research Council of the National Academies, Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006, pages 263-264
[xiii] European Food Safety Authority, Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies on a request from the Commission related to the Tolerable Upper Intake Level of Fluoride, EFSA Journal 2005 192,1-54, Page 9
[xiv] European Food Safety Authority, Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies on a request from the Commission related to the Tolerable Upper Intake Level of Fluoride, EFSA Journal 2005 192,1-54, Page 9
[xv] European Food Safety Authority, Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies on a request from the Commission related to the Tolerable Upper Intake Level of Fluoride, EFSA Journal 2005 192,1-54, Page 14
[xvi] Chan et al. Human exposure assessment of fluoride from tea (Camellia sinensis L.): A UK based issue? Food Research International 51 (2013) 564–570
[xvii] Mansfield, Fluoride consumption: The effect of water fluoridation, Fluoride 43(4)223-231 Oct-December 2010,

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

FLUORIDE, FREE RADICALS AND CANCER INCIDENCE IN EUROPEAN REGION


The Republic of Ireland is the only European Country with a Mandatory policy of Artificial Fluoridation of Drinking Water. 

The U.S National Academies, National Research Council Scientific Committee stated in 2006 that Fluoride increases inflammatory responses in humans, causes cellular oxidative stress, increases the production of free radicals in the body and impairs immunity. 

It is an accepted scientific fact that excessive FREE RADICALS cause cellular mutations increasing the risk of developing cancer. 

It is also accepted that inflammation is a risk factor for many cancers. 

Fluoride is also an inhibitor of melatonin, an important free radical scavenger. Reduced melatonin production from fluoride exposure further increases the risk of developing cancer.  

According the World Health Organisation the Republic of Ireland has almost twice the cancer incidence of the European Region.




Monday, November 11, 2013

HOW WATER FLUORIDATION INCREASES THYROID DISORDERS, INCREASING RISK OF DIABETES, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, STROKE AND CANCER.


 



Ireland has a major health problem with thyroid disorders. Iodine deficiency is also a recognised public health problem in Ireland.

According to the UCD School of Medicine dietary intake of iodine by Irish women is significantly less than the level recommended by the World Health Organisation. [1]

The U.S National Academy of Sciences and Medicine noted in their 2006 report on fluoride in Drinking water that:

“In humans, effects on thyroid function were associated with fluoride exposures of 0.05-0.13 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was adequate and 0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was inadequate”

This equates to a total fluoride intake of 0.7 - 3.5mg per day where thyroid function may be impaired. These amounts are greatly exceeded in fluoridated communities and by a significant percentage of the population in Ireland due to consumption of tea made with fluoridated water.

According to data from the World Health Organisation, the US National Academies, the European Food Safety Authority and a recent publication in journal Food Research International, four cups of tea made with fluoridated water can contribute up to 9mg fluoride per day. [3]

Given these findings there is absolutely no doubt that drinking artificially fluoridated water greatly increases the health risks for individuals with thyroid disorders.

According to the U.S. National Research Council Scientific Committee “Secondary hyperparathyroidism in response to calcium deficiency may contribute to a number of diseases, including osteoporosis, hypertension, arteriosclerosis, degenerative neurological diseases, diabetes mellitus, some forms of muscullar dystrophy and colorectal cancer.” [4]


The Prevalence of diabetes in the Republic of Ireland is 60% higher than in non fluoridated Northern Ireland.
The Prevalence of hypertension is 30% higher in RoI compared to NI.
The Prevalence of coronary heart disease is 40% higher in RoI compared to NI.
The HSE has reported that over 725,000 in the RoI suffer from a neurological condition.
Irish female colorectal cancer incidence is 15% higher than the EU average and males 11% higher.[5]

[1] http://www.ucd.ie/news/aug06/080306_iodine.htm

[2] U.S National Research Council of the National Academies of Medicine and Science, Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006, page 263

[3] Laura Chan et al. Human exposure assessment of fluoride from tea (Camellia sinensis L.) Food Research International 51 (2013) 564–570

[4] U.S National Research Council of the National Academies of Medicine and Science, Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006, page 251

[5] Cancer in Ireland 2011: Annual report of the National Cancer Registry

Fluoride and reduced Melatonin, Implications for Public health





The U.S National Academies of Medicine and Science in their 2006 report on Fluoride in Drinking water stated:
“Fluoride is likely to cause decreased melatonin production and to have other effects on normal pineal function, which in turn could contribute to a variety of effects in humans”. The National Academies also documented, that reduction in melatonin in humans can result in early sexual maturity in adolescents, increased physiological effects including anxiety disorders, psychiatric disease, sudden death syndrome and a reduction in the ability of the body to fight cancer; [Note: melatonin is a free radical scavenger which helps fight cancer.] [1]

According to the Journal of Psychiatry Ireland has the highest prevalence of depressive disorders in Europe. [2]

The cancer incidence in Ireland is 85% above the European Region [3]

The incidence of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome in the Republic of Ireland is 300% above that of non fluoridated Northern Ireland. [4]

[1] U.S National Research Council of the National Academies of Medicine and Science, Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006, Pages 252-256
[2] Depressive disorders in Europe: prevalence figures from the ODIN study, The British Journal of Psychiatry (2001) 179: 308-316
[3]WHO European Region, Cancer Prevalence 2010.
[4] Kevin P Balanda and Jane Wilde, Inequalities in Mortality, A Report on All Ireland Mortality, 1989-99, Institute of Public Health, 2001.