Canadian Government Report

Fluoride Controversy

Canadian Government Questions Value of Fluoridation

Press Release – New York, April 23, 2001/PRNewswire/

Fluoridation probably does more damage than good, says a Canadian government report. The best solution is to cease fluoridation, the author suggest. (*See page 42 of report, excerpted below)

Dr. David Locker, a University of Toronto dentistry professor, reports “No Canadian studies provide evidence that water fluoridation is effective in reducing (tooth) decay in contemporary child populations.” Locker is author of the 2001 “Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation,” prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Health and Health Canada.

DENTAL FLUOROSIS: White spotted, yellow or brown permanently stained and sometimes pitted teeth with chalky spots and brittle enamel caused by excessive fluoride intake which poisons the layer of cells which form the tooth enamel.

“Current studies support the view that dental fluorosis has increased in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (at)… rates of 20-75% in the former and 12-45% in the latter,” Locker reports. Current fluoridation studies which claim that fluoride does not cause dental fluorosis are flawed, reports Locker. These studies looked only at the incidence of fluorosis caused by topical fluoride applications, it is ingested fluoride that causes fluorosis. The expensive cosmetic dentistry needed to hide the effects of fluorosis are not usually covered by insurance.

Sodium fluoride and silicofluorides are added to 62% of U.S. and 40% of Canadian water supplies to mimic the natural calciump-fluoride community water sources like that of the Southwest U.S.A. where researchers, in the early 1900’s, unraveled the epidemic of embarassingly brown stained teeth, that were curiously decay resistant. Fluoride, the villain that stained teeth, was the assumed cavity fighting superhero.

So, in the late 1940’s, officials started adding artificial fluoride to many U.S. drinking waters to improve America’s dental health. A 1981 survey hinted they were already on the wrong track. This National Institute’s of Health Survey reported that cavities were still lowest in the Southwest region. Over thirty years of artificial fluoridation across the U.S. should have leveled off decay rates. But it didn’t then and it hasn’t since.

“We believe that calcium and other, now, well-known bone and teeth building minerals in the water and soils, was responsible for lower decay rates — not the fluoride,” says lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. “Fluoridation is a huge dangerous mistake,” says Beeber. “Silicofluorides were never tested for safety in humans or animals, either alone or together with other water additives,” says Beeber. “Astonishingly, the silicofluorides are the fertilizer industry’s waste product and contain trace amounts of contaminants such as arsenic, mercury, lead and more.”

Other findings from the Canadian government report are:

  • “Efforts are required to reduce (fluoride) intake among the most vulnerable age groups, children aged 7 months to 4 years…”
  • “… data on the effect of health and well-being of the relatively small decrease in caries rates in children and adolescents currently achieved by water fluoridation is non-existent.”
  • “Water fluoridation, infant formulas, fluoride supplements and fluoride toothpaste are risk factors of dental fluorosis… The simplest way of reducing the prevalence of fluorosis in child populations is to cease to fluoridate community water supplies.”



Paul Connett, Ph.D., Professor of Chemistry, St. Lawrence University, Canton, N.Y.,; or Paul Beeber, President of N.Y.S. Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation,


New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation



*Excerpts from page 42.

This is what it says: “Clearly, the simplest way of reducing the prevalence of fluorosis in child populations is to cease to fluoridate community water supplies. Whether or not this is an acceptable option depends on the balance of benefits and risks with respect to dental caries and fluorosis. This balance is difficult to assess when the discussion takes place at the level of disease. The ultimate concern here should be to maximize quality of life outcomes. However, data on the effects on health and well-being of the relatively small decreases in caries rates in children and adolescents currently achieved by water fluoridation is non-existent. Similarly, data on the negative health consequences of current levels of fluorosis in child and adolescent populations is scant. Such data are urgently needed in order to facilitate decisions about the benefits and risks for dental health of changing exposures to various sources of fluoride. Without such data the ‘value’ to individuals and communities of decreases in the prevalence and severity of dental decay and increases in the prevalence and severity of fluorosis cannot be determined.”