A monthly report on the use of fluoridated water in food and beverages
The Non-Fluoridated Consumer
Vol. 2 No. 3 Belchertown, MA July 2007
A retooling
In February and March of this year we published the first two issues of The Non-Fluoridated Consumer as an attempt to organize citizens of Massachusetts to push the Legislature to end water fluoridation. Before long it became apparent that this approach would be a very steep climb. While we still feel that a state-based political solution is possible, we don’t have the time or money to follow that course at this time. The newsletter has been retooled to be mostly informative in terms of the use of fluoridated water in food and beverages and the prevalence of fluoridated water use in cities and towns around the country. We hope to place a stigma on the use of fluoridated water in food and beverage production so that consumers may be able to pressure for non-fluoridated products as has been done for products that are made without MSG, aspartame, sodium nitrite and recombinant bovine growth hormone. We invite readers to submit information on the fluoridation status of foods and beverages produced in their towns so we can develop a comprehensive list of non-fluoridated products to aid consumers who do not want to ingest this chemical.
Petition to US Congress: RE-EXAMINING FLUORIDATION
We, the undersigned, join with members of eleven EPA unions in their call for an immediate Congressional act placing a national moratorium on water fluoridation pending a full Congressional investigation into this public policy, which affects – directly and indirectly – every resident of the United States. Recent, significant developments and trends have permanently changed the water fluoridation issue. Some of these changes are: 1. A 1998-2000 investigation into fluoridation in the US House Committee on Science which exposed the gross inadequacy of testing, approval and regulation of fluoridation chemicals1; General acceptance of new research showing that fluoride's cavity-preventing effect on teeth is primarily topical, not systemic2; Dramatic increases in the prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis -- a clear and visible sign of fluoride toxicity in children -resulting from excessive fluoride intake from multiple sources3; A growing body of peer-reviewed science linking fluoride intake with a number of adverse health effects, including hip fracture, endocrine disruption, central nervous system disorders4; and, more recently, bone cancer in young males. National publicity regarding an apparent cover-up of the fluoride-bone cancer link by Dr. Chester Douglass, of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine, is especially disturbing. Douglass is currently under investigation for possible ethics violations.5
2.
POWA petition signatures near 11,000
Nearly 11,000 people across the USA have signed the on-line petition posted by the Protect Our Water Alliance (POWA) that calls on the US Congress to place a moratorium on the practice of water fluoridation. The Alliance, a joint effort of Second Look and the Fluoride Action Network, cites concerns that people are being overdosed with fluoride and that current regulations do not protect people who are especially sensitive to fluoride. The petition specifically points to the scandal at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine in which the federally-funded researcher, Dr. Chester Douglas, apparently suppressed evidence that boys reared on fluoridated water experience a five-fold increased risk of bone cancer. To sign the petition (printed to the right), and to see the references cited, go to http://www.powalliance.org/petition/index.html 3.
4.
For the latest news on water fluoridation visit the Fluoride Action Network at: www.fluoridealert.org
Further, well-documented sources6 have raised serious allegations related to the decisions and methods used to institute, implement, and promote water fluoridation as a U.S. public health policy. These allegations bring to light strong possibilities that this massive and longstanding public policy came about under
2
questionable circumstances while breaching scientific integrity. Other concerns, based on congressional documentation and a significant body of international, peer-reviewed science (cited above), focus on: power. This should not come as a surprise. It is what they are indoctrinated to do. Professionals go through four, six, eight, perhaps ten years of training to become doctors, lawyers, teachers, researchers, professors, etc. During this time they develop antennas that are very sensitive to anything that might damage their career prospects. They may be entirely ignorant of the facts behind water fluoridation, but they know instinctively that going along with it will enhance their careers and speaking out against it will harm them. For a full explanation of this phenomenon see Jeff Schmidt’s excellent book, Disciplined Minds: A Critical Look at Salaried Professionals and the SoulBattering System that Shapes Their Lives. Of course there are exceptions. Not all professionals follow this pattern. Many of the leaders in the struggle to end water fluoridation are professionals. They have freed themselves from the indoctrination, but the vast majority of professionals have not. If this phenomenon is real – that the most highly educated people in society are the ones who are least likely to oppose this government mandate, there are important implications for our efforts to end water fluoridation. Towns such as Burlington, Amherst and Longmeadow are lost causes, and we should expend no more effort to win referenda there. These towns will only stop fluoridating when they are told to stop fluoridating by their state or federal health departments. In towns that have a large population of nonprofessionals, we should focus our efforts on them, and ignore the wards and precincts that have high concentrations of professionals. This pattern (nonprofessionals voting with us and professionals voting against us) was seen in last year’s big victory in Bellingham, WA. It is behind our success in Worcester, Springfield and Chicopee, MA.
•
• •
•
The cumulative doses of fluoride from many sources, including dental treatments and products, fluoride-based pesticides, processed foods and beverages, pharmaceuticals, and industrial emissions; Those individuals with compromised health or hypersensitivity to fluoridated water; The industrial waste products used as fluoridating agents (primarily silicofluorides), which are contaminated with known carcinogens and neurotoxins and have not been tested or approved by EPA or FDA for safety or effectiveness; and Fluoridation's environmental effects, known and unknown.
We urge Congress to fully investigate basic safety and environmental questions that fluoridation proponents, including government agencies, have avoided answering for many years.7 This refusal to openly discuss the risks and benefits of water fluoridation violates scientific principles and basic American ideals of fairness and integrity. Urgent, legitimate questions about fluoride's health effects, including the use of silicofluorides, now need to be answered under subpoena in a Congressional hearing. Opinion
The loss in Longmeadow
Towns loaded with professionals are lost causes
Despite numerous recent blows to the cause of water fluoridation and despite heroic efforts by organizers in Longmeadow, MA, the people of that town voted on June 12 to continue adding fluoride to their water. Knowing only the demographics of the town I had predicted beforehand that our side would lose. It is for the same reason that last year’s referendum in Burlington, VT lost. It is for the same reason that I could not even get the Amherst, MA newspaper to publish a letter pointing out that the American Dental Association had conceded that water fluoridation harms infants. It is due to the fact that these towns are home to numerous professional people, and professionals are the sector of the population that is most likely to adhere to the government’s line on matters at home. They may oppose the war in Iraq and condemn government inaction on global warming, but in the area of authority, on the question of who will tell whom what to do, professionals will support those in
Our list of foods and beverages
The main purpose of this newsletter is to inform readers of the use of fluoridated water in the foods and beverages we consumer. In each issue we will publish five, cumulative, up-dated lists: 1) Accepted as nonfluoridated – a list of food products that were made with non-fluoridated water, as documented to us by the producer; 2) No response – assumed to be nonfluoridated, not accepted – a list of products that are thought to be made with non-fluoridated water, but for which the producer has not documented fluoridation status; 3) Known to be fluoridated, not accepted – a list of foods and beverages that are known to be fluoridated, as documented to us by the producer; 4) No response – assumed to be fluoridated, not accepted – a list of food products that are assumed to be made with fluoridated water based on the producer’s locality; 5) Contacted, not accepted – a list of producers who have been contacted by us, but have not yet responded. Our early efforts in this area suggest that most producers do not respond, or are unwilling to supply
3
the necessary information needed to make a determination. We would appreciate information from readers that may help us clarify the fluoridation status of foods and beverages sold in the USA. Please contact us at nfc@ecsnews.com, or by mail at: The Non-Fluoridated Consumer, East Coast Science News, P.O. Box 797, Belchertown, MA 01007. How we collect our data. Each manufacturer receives a postal letter which includes the following text: “… We are contacting you to ask if fluoridated water is used in the production of your _____. Could you please answer the following two questions: what is the street address(es) of the plants where your products are made? If you do not want to provide the street addresses, we would be grateful if we could at least learn in what cities or towns the products are made. do you use tap water in making the products, and is that water fluoridated? the shoreline are heavily fluoridated while the rural eastern and western sides of the state are nonfluoridated. The university towns of Hartford, Mansfield (Storrs), Windham (Willimantic), Hartford, New Haven, Middletown, Fairfield, Bridgeport and Stamford are all fluoridated. Travelers along the state highways from Amherst, MA to Storrs, CT may find some consolation that the town of Willington and its famous Willington Pizza are not fluoridated. Here is the complete list of cities and towns that are receiving fluoridated water in Connecticut along with the population subject to this discredited chemical intervention. Information is provided by the State of Conneticut Department of Public Health as of 2001. Ansonia (20,500), Beacon Falls (228), Berlin (17,280), Bethany (10), Bloomfield (18,700), Bozrah (390), Branford (22,930), Bridgeport (154,331), Bristol (51,495), Burlington (45), Cheshire (18,068), Clinton (8,775), Cromwell (9,000), Danbury (38,000), Darien (19,922), Derby (11,500), East Hartford (52,270), East Haven (24,540), East Lyme (10,795), East Windsor (3,255), Easton (2,991), Ellington (784), Enfield (22,152), Also Fairfield (61,610), Farmington (2,580), Glastonbury (15,440), Greenwich (56,000), Groton (37,665), Guilford (6,244), Hamden (48,000), Hartford (135,350), Lebanon (20), Madison (9,408), Manchester (46,900), Mansfield (24,300), Meriden (56,000), Middlebury (150), Middletown (38,500), Milford (50,260), Monroe (4,311), Montville (1,000), Naugatuck (19,218), New Britain (89,000), New Canaan (8,073), New Haven (123,770), Newington (29,700), New London (29,000), North Branford (3,520), North Haven (22,590), Norwalk (40,000), Norwich (45,185), Also Old Saybrook (13,181), Orange (8,430), Oxford (211), Plainville (17,175), Rocky Hill (14,600), Shelton (22,680), Southington (31,465), South Windsor (10,266), Stamford (65,138), Stonington (5,341), Stratford (53, 015), Suffield (5,425), Tolland (161), Torrington (22,160), Trumbull (35,835), Vernon (14,277),Wallingford (37,100), Waterbury (103,615), Waterford (18,000), Watertown (12,000), Westbrook (5,996), West Hartford (61,300), West Haven (52,080), Weston (192), Westport (28,108), Wethersfield (25,900), Wilton (755), Windham (15,400), Windsor (25,500), Windsor Locks (12,499), Winsted (8,500), Woodbridge (950).
-
Accepted as non-fluoridated
Beers Berkshire Brewing Co. Deerfield, MA
No response – assumed to be fluoridated. Bell Carter Foods (Lindsay Olives), Lafayette, CA; Campbell Soups, Camden, NJ; Ray’s Bagels, Sharon, MA; Westsoy soy milk, Boulder, CO Contacted, not accepted. Anheuser-Busch Companies, St. Louis, MO; Healthy Soy, Inc. (tofu), Waltham, MA; Hoffman’s Chocolates, Stuart, FL; Miller Brewing Co., Milwaukee, WI; Molson Coors Brewing Co., Denver, CO; Table Talk Pies, Inc., Worcester, MA Next month – New Bedford’s bakeries Readers in Massachusetts may know that the city of New Bedford, once a shining light for it’s defeat of water fluoridation through a special Legislative petition, has again started fluoridating its water. We’ll report on what bakeries in New Bedford, including the large commercial ones like Hostess Cakes and Nissen Bread have to say to consumers who don’t want to ingest fluoride.
Focus on: Connecticut
The state of Connecticut was one of the first to mandate that cities and towns fluoridate their water, passing a law in 1965 requiring water suppliers that serve 20,000 or more customers to add fluoride to the water. As seen in the map published as a supplement to this issue (made with the indispensable assistance of Celeste Asikainen), the Conneticut River valley and
The Non-Fluoridated Consumer is published monthly by East Coast Science News,. M.F. Dolan, editor ; Deborah Munz, circulation manager . Subscription information: by email only - $12.00 per year. Send checks payable to “The Non-Fluoridated Consumer” and all postal correspondence to The NonFluoridated Consumer, East Coast Science News, P.O. Box 797, Belchertown, MA 01007. http://ecsnews.com