Sexing-up the case for fluoride:
The dentists’ dodgy dossier
How MPs and the
public have been misled in order to win support for an attack on human rights
and medical ethics
Green Party press
office briefing
7 September 2003
Contact Spencer
Fitz-Gibbon
020 7561 0282
Introduction
I1 MPs
are about to vote on legislation that could open the floodgates to widespread
fluoridation of the water supply – potentially of the whole country. And they
have been misled by a systematic propaganda campaign by government and
pro-fluoridation bodies including a sexed-up briefing sent to all MPs by the
British Dental Association and its allies. The propaganda effort has included
the following:
a.
The main pro-fluoridation
bodies – the British Dental Association, the British Medical Association, the National
Alliance for Equity in Dental Health and the British Fluoridation Society –
have all issued misleading statements about the findings of the government’s
review (according to the chair of the government’s review).
b.
Ministers have misled
parliament about the findings of the government’s review on water fluoridation.
c.
Ministers have wilfully
ignored the European Convention on Human Rights and Medicine, the European
Charter of Fundamental Rights, the EU Pharmaceuticals Directive and the Poisons
Act 1972 in arguing for mass-medication with an unregistered, unlicensed toxic
waste product that was given a British Standard number without ever having been
safety-tested for human consumption.
d.
Water companies and
pro-fluoridation bodies have been spreading the misleading information that it
is politicians or health authorities who have the right to medicate people,
when human rights agreements explicitly recognise the individual’s right.
e.
Public bodies have suppressed
important information that challenges their assertion that fluoridation is
“safe and effective”.
I2 The
Green Party asserts that the government’s scientific advisors and the
pro-fluoridation bodies have behaved in a manner that is neither scientific nor
professional in their misrepresentation of the issue. Indeed, the chair of the
government’s own review of water fluoridation, Professor Trevor Sheldon MSc DSc
FMedSci, has accused the BDA and its
allies of misleading the public about the issue. He has said: "It is
particularly worrying … that statements
which mislead the public about the review's findings have been made in
press releases and briefings by the British Dental Association, British Medical
Association, the National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health and the British
Fluoridation Society". [ 1 ]
1. The dentists’ dodgy dossier
1.1 A
briefing has been sent to all MPs by the British Dental Association, British
Medical Association, Faculty of Public Health Medicine and the British
Fluoridation Society. [ 2 ] This briefing is
part of what the BDA has described as “a strong campaign, spearheaded by the
British Dental Association, to win the hearts and minds of politicians and the
public alike” [ 3 ]
1.2 The
Green Party sees this briefing as a “dodgy dossier” because it is intentionally
misleading. It has “sexed-up” the case for fluoridation by exaggerated claims
intended to distract attention from conflicting medical and dental evidence and
from the fact that the individual’s right to choose whether or not to be
medicated is enshrined in legally-binding European Conventions.
2.1 The dodgy
dossier says: “All major reviews of the evidence, including the York and MRC
reviews, found no evidence to support claims that it causes cancer, bone
disease, kidney disease or birth defects.” The
British Fluoridation Society says of the York Review's findings: “the report is
unequivocal: water fluoridation is EFFECTIVE and SAFE. [ 4 ] But Professor
Sheldon, chair of the York Review, has said: “The review did not show water
fluoridation to be safe.”
2.2 The
British Dental Association has repeatedly said “Water
fluoridation is safe.” [ 5 ] But the chair of the York Review, Professor
Sheldon, in contradicting this, has explained: “The quality of the research was
too poor to establish with confidence whether or not there are potentially
important adverse effects in addition to the high levels of fluorosis." He
added: “Until high quality studies are undertaken providing more definite
evidence, there will continue to be legitimate scientific controversy over the
likely effects and costs of water fluoridation. [ 6 ] Yet the pro-fluoridation
lobby continually states unequivocally that fluoridation is safe, as though
this was an established and universally acknowledged fact instead of the
subject of heated controversy. [ 7 ]
2.3 The dodgy
dossier describes dental fluorosis as “a cosmetic defect of the enamel ranging
from mild speckling to more noticeable marking.” And the British Fluoridation
Society has said of the York Review’s findings: “The review recognises dental fluorosis as a cosmetic issue, not a health
problem”. But the chair of the York Review has said: “The review found water fluoridation to be significantly
associated with high levels of dental fluorosis which was not characterised as ‘just
a cosmetic issue’.” Dental fluorosis is, of course, the first symptom
of fluoride poisoning.
3.1 The dodgy
dossier says: “The York review in 2000 confirmed that fluoride helps to reduce
tooth decay”. What it omits to say is that the York Review said fluoridation
would only reduce tooth decay by 0.4 of a tooth per child on average, or that
mass studies in other countries have found no appreciable difference between
fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. Indeed, when Basel-Stadt became the last
Swiss canton to cease fluoridation in 2003 after 31 years, one of the reasons
given was that fluoridation was ineffective.
3.2 New
Labour health minister Yvette Cooper has told parliament: "The report of
the [York] review will help ensure that local decisions are based on an
authoritative, readily accessible summary of research into the safety and efficacy
of water fluoridation." [ 8 ] She did not point out that this “evidence”
included “little evidence” that fluoridation would reduce dental health
inequalities, and that fluoridation would reduce tooth decay by less than half
a tooth per child. The British Dental Association has said: “Water fluoridation
is a simple measure that dramatically
improves dental health by reducing tooth decay.” [ 9 ] This was clearly not the
finding of the York Review.
3.3 The dodgy
dossier calls fluoridation “the most effective public health measure” for
reducing tooth decay. The Green Party calls this spin. Most European countries
have managed to reduce levels of tooth decay in recent years, in almost all
cases without fluoridation. [ 10 ] Dentists in America have reported that: “Current evidence strongly suggests that fluorides work
primarily by topical means through direct action on the teeth and dental
plaque. Thus ingestion of fluoride is not essential for caries prevention.” [ 11 ] The chair of the York Review has
said that “The review could come to no conclusion as to the cost-effectiveness
of water fluoridation”.
4.1 The dodgy
dossier says: “Water fluoridation is the most effective public health measure …
for tackling oral health inequalities.” The
British Fluoridation Society has said of the York Review: “Importantly, the
review also confirms that water fluoridation reduces inequalities in dental
health.” [ 12 ] But
the chair of the government’s review of water fluoridation has said: “There was little evidence to show that water fluoridation
has reduced social inequalities in dental health.”
5.1 The dodgy
dossier says “Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral which can protect teeth
in a number of ways.” In fact the main fluoridation chemical is hexafluorosilic
acid (H2SiF6).
The chemical added to drinking water, far from being “naturally occurring”, is
derived from the pollution scrubber liquor used to clean the factory chimneys of
the phosphate fertiliser industry. [ 13 ]
5.2 An editorial
in the pro-fluoridation British Dental
Journal said of the York Review that “they found no difference between
naturally and artificially fluoridated water." [ 14 ] But the chair of the
York Review has said: “The review could come to no conclusion as to the
cost-effectiveness of water fluoridation or whether there are different effects
between natural or artificial fluoridation.”
6.1 The dodgy
dossier says “The chemicals used for water fluoridation are specifically
manufactured to very high quality standards, and must meet Department of
Environment purity specifications.” But these chemicals have never been
safety-tested for human consumption. [ 15 ] And fluorosilicates are Part II
poisons under the Poisons Act 1972. It is illegal to prescribe them. [ 16 ] Water
fluoridation breaches the EU Pharmaceuticals Directive, which says that all
medicinal substances must be registered as such, and must be subjected to full
clinical testing for safety. Fluorosilicates have not been so registered nor
tested for safety. [ 17 ]
7.1 The dodgy
dossier says “Drinking fluoride-free water is not a basic human right but a
question of individual preference.” But the European Convention on Human Rights
and Biomedicine distinctly states that individuals have the right not to be
medicated without their consent. [ 18 ] And
the European Charter of Fundamental Rights says the same. [ 19 ]
7.2 The
water industry has colluded with government in return for indemnity against any
civil or criminal liability. The water companies have reinforced the erroneous
view that it’s politicians or communities that have the right to decide who to
medicate, rather than individuals themselves: “We just want it recognised that
it’s a decision for health authorities to take after consultation with consumer
bodies.” [ 20 ]
7.3 The
BDA has also been spreading the propaganda that it’s up to “local communities”
to decide who should be medicated. [ 21 ]
8.1 The pro-fluoridation bodies
appear to have ignored conflicting evidence as though it simply didn’t exist;
misrepresented the findings of the government’s review; and attempted to
convince MPs and the public that decisions whether or not to medicate are rightly
the province of majorities - when in fact legally-binding international human
rights conventions recognise the right of the individual to decide.
Notes
1. Our emphasis. Letter of 3
January 2001. Source: http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk . All subsequent
quotes from Professor Sheldon are from the same source. The review in question was
carried out by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York University
and reported in October 2000.
2. Briefing
for MPs on water fluoridation, http://www.bda-dentistry.org.uk/advice/docs/mpsbriefing.pdf
.
3. See “Peers
focus on fluoride”, BDA press release 7 July 2003,
http://www.bda-dentistry.org.uk/
.
4. See http://www.derweb.co.uk/bfs/york_qa.html
.
5. See eg “BDA publishes league
table of children's dental health”, BDA press release Friday 5 September 2003, http://www.bda-dentistry.org.uk/ .
6. Source: http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk
.
7. For examples of scientific
concern about the health impacts of fluoridation see Truth Decay: Challenging New Labour’s propaganda on water fluoridation
at www.greenparty.org.uk/reports
.
8. Hansard, 30 October 2000,
Column: 243W. See http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/misinterpret.htm
.
9. “Lords' fluoridation vote
will give children better start in life, say dentists”, BDA press release 10 July 2003, http://www.bda-dentistry.org.uk/ , our
emphasis.
10. See Truth
Decay: Challenging New Labour’s propaganda on water fluoridation, Green
Party August 2003, ttp://www.greenparty.org.uk/reports/2003/TruthDecay2.pdf , Table
2.
11. Report, Warren and Levy in Dental Clinics of North America, April
2003.
12. See http://www.derweb.co.uk/bfs/york_qa.html
.
13. The spin on the British Fluoridation Society
website reads: “Apatite is the raw material
used in the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers. Fluorine for the manufacture
of fluorides for water fluoridation is recovered from this process. The
manufacturing process of fluorosilicic acid for water fluoridation involves
recovery of the product from a vapour phase, which ensures a high degree of
purity. The product is therefore manufactured in tandem with the production of
phosphoric acid, and can be described as a co-product. It would be equally
valid to describe phosphate fertilizers as co-products of the manufacture of
fluorosilicic acid, since each are valuable products.” See http://www.liv.ac.uk/bfs/chemsmanufac.htm
. This seeks to disguise the fact that, were it not for water fluoridation, the
H2SiF6 would need to be disposed of as a hazardous toxic
waste. Calling it a “recovered product” is like calling the toxic residues from
waste incineration a “recovered product”.
14. M Grace, “Facts on
fluoridation”, British Dental Journal October 28 2000; 189: 405, http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/bdj/journal/v189/n8/full/4800783a.html
.
15. The National Pure Water Association in the UK
has repeatedly challenged the UK government to produce the safety testing data.
The government has never been able to, because the tests have never been
carried out. See http://npwa.freeserve.co.uk .
16. See Water
fluoridation contravenes UK law, EU directives and the European Convention on
Human Rights and Biomedicine, Green Party press office briefing July 2003, http://www.greenparty.org.uk/reports/2003/F%20illegality.htm
.
17. Codified Pharmaceuticals
Directive 2001/83/EEC. The intent to medicate renders any substance presented
as having any beneficial effect on a medical condition a medicinal substance under
Article 1 of this Directive, irrespective of its efficacy. Manufacturing these chemicals under BS EN
12174/5 does not authorise their use as medicinal substances.
18. Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human being with regard
to the Application of Biology and Medicine, Council of Europe, 1997, Article
5 - General rule: "An intervention
in the health field may only be carried out after the person concerned has
given free and informed consent to it. This person shall beforehand be given
appropriate information as to the purpose and nature of the intervention as
well as on its consequences and risks. The person concerned may freely withdraw
consent at any time."
19. Under Article 35 of the
Charter, the right to health care includes the right to refuse health care, for
whatever reason. It establishes the individual's right to receive particular
drugs or treatments - or to prevent them from having such treatment
administered against their wishes.
20. Water industry sources to PA
News: http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1874915
.
21. Dr John Renshaw, Chairman
of the BDA's Executive Board: "By supporting this amendment to the Water
Bill, MPs will be giving local communities the chance to choose fluoridated
water and help safeguard the future of their children's dental health." “BDA
publishes league table of children's dental health”, BDA press release Friday 5 September 2003, http://www.bda-dentistry.org.uk/
. In direct contradiction of the Europen Convention on Human Rights and
Biomedicine, the BDA chief has said: “Water fluoridation does not infringe
civil liberties. Civil liberties are a question of weighing personal
preferences, like opting to drink fluoride-free water, against the common good,
like the decrease in tooth decay as a result of fluoridation” (ibid). He has
also said that “Dentists have campaigned long and hard to give local
communities the right to decide on water fluoridation” (“Lords' fluoridation
vote will give children better start in life, say dentists”, BDA press release 10 July 2003). Professor Liz Kay, scientific adviser to the
BDA, has said: "The BDA strongly supports this amendment which puts the
decision over whether or not to fluoridate water into the hands of local people
rather than water companies” (“Peers focus on fluoride”, BDA press release 7 July 2003, http://www.bda-dentistry.org.uk/). But local
communities do not have that right.