Misguided Medication

Federally sponsored research now indicates it's dangerous to many people, but fluoridation still gets the nod from WA officials

by Doug Collins

Since the 1950s, some 50 Washington water systems--many in urban areas--have opted to fluoridate their water. Seattle, Tacoma, and Renton fluoridate, as well as some smaller cities such as Aberdeen. The latest city to fluoridate is Port Angeles, which just started adding the treatment--a byproduct of the chemical fertilizer industry--to its water this year. On the other hand, Bellingham, Spokane, Goldendale, Kennewick, Sequim, Sumner, and Milton have all rejected fluoridation in recent years.

The largest fluoridating community in Washington is Seattle, where residents mandated fluoridation by public vote in 1968, after two earlier "no" votes on the subject. Opponents called it forced medication of water. Supporters included public health officials, dentists, and a group called Mothers for Fluoridation, who were apparently inspired by the boom-era ethos of better living through chemistry, and the promise of dental health for their kids.

Unfortunately, it hasn't really worked that way. In an international analysis, the World Health Organization has found the same decrease in dental decay in non-fluoridated areas as in areas that switched to fluoridation. And an increasing number of studies--including a recent National Research Council study as well as a recently published research article in a Harvard cancer journal--point to alarming health concerns associated with the typical level of fluoride that many Americans are ingesting, health concerns that include--surprisingly--dental problems caused by excessive fluoride, and even a lowering of average IQ. (See related articles this issue.)

Fluoridated bottled waters are now being marketed to kids. But recent studies indicate that many kids may already be exposed to potentially harmful levels of fluoride. (image from internet)

Despite the recent revelations on fluoride's darker side, there appears to be no regulatory action yet by state or local officials in Washington.

State health policy has long been relatively neutral on fluoridation. "We have no requirements that a water system fluoridates," says Richard Pedlar, a public information officer in the Washington State Department of Health, "but if a community fluoridates, it must do it in the range of 0.8 to 1.3 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of water." Pedlar notes that a few water systems in Eastern Washington have at least that amount of naturally occurring fluoride, and would probably not have the option of artificially fluoridating.

The typical amount of fluoridation added to many water systems over the past decades could be harmful to various subsets of the population, especially babies, young boys, people with iodine deficiencies or kidney problems, and of course people who drink a lot of tap water, according to the recent studies.

Any moves to further regulate fluoride would have to come from the state's Board of Health, says Pedlar, but individual communities can always decide to reverse their fluoridation.

"We follow the law" says Andy Ryan, a spokesperson for Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) referring to Seattle's 1968 fluoride referendum. "We fluoridate within the highest standard of the law." According to the water quality lab at SPU, the target "dose" for fluoride is 1 mg/L with minor variations.

Ryan says that local water utilities such as Seattle "take our directions from state and county public health agencies. They stay current on fluoridation." Ryan himself was familiar with some of the recent negative news on fluoridation, but Pedlar, in the state office, had not yet heard of either of the recent high-profile studies.

Change might be coming from above. The National Research Council is federally chartered to provide advice to Congress. Its recent study on fluoridation is potentially damning, but only if members of Congress become interested in pursuing the topic.

The compound used to fluoridate water is typically hydrofluorosilicic acid, which is an industrial byproduct recovered from smokestack scrubbers at phosphate fertilizer factories. It cannot be removed by common water filters that many people use in their homes.

A recent report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found that 45% of formula-fed infants in Seattle are being overexposed to the chemical, using the current safety levels published by the national Institute of Medicine. In Boston, 66% of formula-fed infants are suffering the same overexposure. (www.ewg.org/issues/fluoride/20060322/index.php)

The EWG report calls for a lowering of the allowable amount of fluoride in water, citing "serious concerns about bone fractures and dental fluorosis, a discoloration and weakening of the enamel of the teeth that... is associated with other adverse health impacts."

The Washington State Dental Association has been the major funder of many pro-fluoridation initiatives in this state. The organization spent some $119,000 in its failed bid to convince Bellingham voters to choose fluoridation last year. (Bellingham Herald, Dec 10, 2005).

Critics of water fluoridation point to a variety of evidence that the beneficial dental effects of fluoride are mainly topical, not systemic. In other words, fluoride toothpaste can help fight cavities, but actual ingestion of fluoride is perhaps not helpful at all. The federal Centers for Disease Control has come to a similar conclusion. (www.fluorideaction.org/health/teeth/caries/topical-systemic.html)

The Sierra Club has long called for a moratorium on fluoridation of drinking water. But change in fluoridation policy will not likely occur until concerned water-drinkers lobby both their local governments to turn the fluoridation spigots off, and their federal congresspeople and senators to act on the National Research Council findings.*