Second Opinion: Fluoridation Concerns

Some of the science that has accumulated over the past 55 years borders on junk because the methods used are inadequate or suspect and the rest of the research on water fluoridation is only moderately acceptable and remains inconclusive. In fact, a British government-ordered review of the published literature conducted recently by a committee of scientists at York University essentially concludes that it’s time to go back to the drawing board and do good science on this issue.

Of course, there is a lot of denial going on in the aftermath of this report. The pro-fluoridation forces have somehow managed to shamelessly interpret the report as being on their side. It’s really not on anyone’s side.

Those fighting fluoridation have attacked the report as narrow and have accused it of omitting huge volumes of data - both animal and laboratory - that would have nailed the issue down in favor of stopping fluoridation. Well, yes, the report has serious limitations because of its scope, but there will be no nailing down of anything until much more solid science is done.

What is amazing, however, is that public health policy in this country has allowed water fluoridation to continue in the absence of solid scientific evidence that its benefit is greater than its risk.

When you commit to putting a powerful chemical into the water supply, you’d better have the best of evidence that it is both safe and effective. The required level of evidence is just not there.

Page
  • 1
  • |
  • 2
Join the Discussion
You are using an outdated version of Internet Explorer. Please click here to upgrade your browser in order to comment.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
You Might Also Like...