|
In The Spotlight:
Paul Connett
His group questions the benefits of fluoride
in drinking water.
By Amy Lasek, Associate Editor
From the April 2006 edition of Water Technology
magazine.
For a free introductory subscription,
click here.
Summary: The American Dental Association
(ADA) and other organizations support the addition of fluoride
to municipal water sources and bottled water, backing their
opinion with years of clinical research saying it helps reduce
tooth decay. But the addition of fluoride has come under public
scrutiny as controversial studies have linked fluoride to
brain lesions, Alzheimer's disease and even cancer. Paul
Connett, Ph.D., professor of chemistry at St. Lawrence University
in Canton, NY, is executive director of the Fluoride Action
Network (FAN), a group that strongly questions the merits
of drinking water fluoridation. He spoke with Water Technology®
in mid-March about FAN and its views.
Water Technology®: Tell us about
the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and those involved in the
organization?
Dr. Paul Connett: FAN was formed
in May 2000, with a membership that includes scientists, doctors,
and dentists concerned about the health effects of rising
fluoride exposure. Some members have published their own research
on fluoride while others have conducted extensive reviews
of the scientific literature. With continued input from these
scientists, FAN provides a comprehensive and updated database
concerning fluoride toxicity on our Web site: www.fluorideaction.net.
WT: Reputable organizations claim that
appropriate levels of fluoride are safe. Numerous studies
have been published in peer-reviewed journals backing that
opinion. Where do you feel these organizations have gone wrong?
PC: When the US Public Health Service endorsed fluoridation
in 1950, before any studies or trials had been completed,
many "reputable" organizations jumped on the bandwagon.
Very few conducted their own studies or independent reviews
on the matter.
Most organizations played follow-the-leader,
a leader who turned out to be a big financial funder for them.
What the public is most often treated to are not the original
studies but government reviews in which the most recent health
studies are ignored.
WT: Fluoride may have negative affects
if too much is consumed. But do you believe there are any
benefits if people consume a controlled amount of the naturally-occurring
substance?
PC: While it may be possible to control the concentration
of fluoride added to public drinking water or bottled water,
the dose that people get cannot be controlled. You cannot
control how much water people drink or the amount of fluoride
they get from other sources like dental products, pesticide
residues or food and beverages prepared with fluoridated water.
The level added to water is 1 part per million
(ppm). This is over 100 times the level found in mother's
milk. Moreover, a Ph.D. thesis from Harvard University indicated
a significant relationship between young boys' exposure to
fluoridated water and an increased risk of osteosarcoma, a
rare but frequently fatal bone cancer.
This study, concealed from the public by
a Harvard professor and Colgate consultant, has now been accepted
for publication in a peer-reviewed medical journal.
WT: What's your view of bottled water
manufacturers offering at least a few products that would
give consumers who want fluoride in their bottled water the
choice of having it?
PC: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
concedes that the major benefits of fluoride are topical,
not systemic. If people want fluoride, it makes far more sense
to apply it directly to the surface of the tooth in the form
of toothpaste. Swallowing fluoride makes as much sense as
swallowing sun block to protect the skin against ultraviolet
rays.
WT: The ADA says nearly two-thirds of
the US population receives fluoridated drinking water. Why
are so many cities opting to follow the recommendations of
these organizations if there are negative health benefits?
PC: Recent evidence indicates that when communities are
fully informed on the issue, about 50 percent of them reject
fluoridation. Communities that have been fluoridated for years
are now considering removing fluoride from their water because
of growing concerns.
The counter-offensive is to go for statewide
mandatory programs. That means proponents [of fluoride] only
have to reach a handful of legislators who are often too busy
to read up on this issue rather than persuade each town one
at a time.
WT: Should consumers be made aware when
fluoride is added to bottled water, as labels are supposed
to tell them about other additives or substances in the water?
PC: Absolutely. The FDA does require the concentration
of any added fluoride to be identified. As it currently stands,
it is virtually impossible for consumers in the US to monitor
and control their total fluoride intake due to the absence
of fluoride labeling on most processed beverages and foods.
WT: Do you have contact with water treatment
dealers/installers whose customers may be asking them to remove
fluoride from, or add it to, their home water supplies?
PC: FAN's major contact is with citizens who ask about
systems that remove fluoride from their water. We currently
recommend reverse osmosis, distillation and bottled water,
[the latter] if they can ascertain from the supplier its fluoride
content.
|
