Bottled water companies win fluoride battle

By | July 23, 2009

Bottled water companies win fluoride battle

Bottled water containing fluoride is expected to hit shelves within six months in a move that has irked anti-fluoride crusaders.

Australia’s food safety authority decided to allow the voluntary addition of fluoride into packaged water today after lengthy appeals by the Australasian Bottled Water Institute.

Bottled water companies argued that lifting restrictions would increase consumer choice.

It is understood several will now move to include the chemical, which boosts dental health, in their products. The first bottles will hit shelves in less than six months.

Meanwhile, fluoride is expected to be added to the Bellingen shire water supply shortly.

General Manager, Mike Colreavy said testing and commissioning of fluoridation equipment was delayed by flood. “It is now expected to be completed in July.”

“It relies on the availability of specialist staff from Department of Water and Energy being available for final approval before it will be switched on,” Mr Colreavy told the Courier-Sun.

Anti-fluoride advocate Keith Oakley denounced the move to add fluoride to bottled water, saying it would make it harder for him and his colleagues to access water.

He said the move would also backfire.

“If they want to put fluoride in there, then that’s their problem. But bottled water sales will go down,” he said.

“It’s a bit disappointing but at the very least it should be labelled so I can still buy non-fluoridated water.”

Mr Oakley is a resident of Geelong where the most recent fluoride battle took place last month. He said the options available to opponents of fluoridation were getting smaller.

Since the introduction of fluoride into tap water last month, he has been buying bottled water and is trying to install a rainwater tank at home.

via Bottled water companies win fluoride battle – Local News – News – General – Bellingen Courier Sun.

Checking “Visit Australia” off my list.

I started out neutral. I wrote to people cited in studies. I talked to many dentists. I read everything I could find on the subject in a major University health science library. My personal conclusion: thumbs down for fluoride.

Some believe that fluoride is a neurotoxic, poison, industrial waste that is a byproduct of, among other things, atom bomb production. It was once used as rat poison.  I’ve communicated with scientists over the years and there is no evidence that ingested fluoride does anything good for teeth.  Topical fluoride does help minerals stick to teeth, in the right amount… however, getting too much damages teeth (fluorosis). There is no way to know what total daily dose an individual is getting from various sources. Therefore, putting it in our water is a criminal and insane act of forced medication.

It is my experience that fluoride is not needed for healthy teeth. When I used it, I had several cavities each year. Then I stopped using it and quit eating refined sugar, I  healed (remineralized) multiple cavities in my teeth. I’ve remained cavity free and fluoride free for many years.

Read my article:

I’ve avoided it for years due to claims of weakened bones ( 30 ), a lowered IQ ( 31 ), cancer ( 32 ), thyroid dysfunction ( 33 ), anemia ( 34 ), liver disease ( 35 ), heart disease ( 36 ), Down’s syndrome ( 37 ), and others. Many hold that fluoride is a politically protected poisonous industrial waste. I’ve also read startling reports that fluoride is a byproduct of atomic bomb production. ( 38 ) Documents obtained by researchers seem to support the claim that it was sold to the public as beneficial to teeth with bogus studies in order to protect early military interests. Believe this part or not, but my personal experience is that I healed five cavities without fluoride. No matter where you stand on the fluoride debate, it seems most reasonable to focus on the cause of cavities, the microscopic tooth eating beastliest themselves. …

If you personally want to ingest fluoride, go for it … but don’t force it on me.

6 thoughts on “Bottled water companies win fluoride battle

  1. Intrachresodist

    You won’t visit Australia because there’s flouride in the water? That’s ridiculous.

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flouridation

    The flouride reduces the incidence of cavities in children by 18-40% which is a benefit over and above that obtained by toothpaste containing flouride. You don’t brush your teeth with flouridated toothpaste either?

    For more reading material, see http://www.skepdic.com/news/newsletter56.html

    And http://amr2you.blogspot.com/2005/06/countless-studies-have-cleared.html

    See http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/summary.pdf

    Conclusions: “The evidence of a benefit of a reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental flourosis. The research evidence is of insufficient quality to allow confident statements about other potential harms or whether there is an impact on social inequalities”.

    Basically, railing against water flouridation in 2009 is an unscientific, superstitious position to take. There is clear evidence of benefit and no clear evidence of harm. The vocal opponents of flouridation have a lot of talk but no high quality scientific research to back up their position.

    1. Rosco1776

      Hey Intrachresodist, shouldn’t I have the choice to be drugged or not? Where is it the governments job to tell us which drugs to take and fluoride is a drug. There are more drug commercials on tv now then ever before so tell me who’s in charge of MY body? Recommend it to us and give it to us as an add on if you want but I don’t want it forced on me!! I buy non fluoride toothpaste and drink as much non fluoride water as I can and I still haven’t had a cavity in decades.
      Our food today is so sterile from being “processed” that most of our ailments come from the lack of vitamins. Can you even pronounce half the ingredients in the food anymore, but that’s another subject.

      http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2006/02/15/fluoride_destroys_tooth_enamel_chemistry_prof.htm

  2. Intrachresodist

    For the record, I have no relationship with either pro-fluoridation or anti-fluoridation groups, and no interest in the outcome of the debate except to the extent that it will affect the water I drink.

    My own opinion is that I think it’s better that the fluoride should be in the water than not in it. I trust the scientific studies which say it’s beneficial to teeth. However I believe that having good dental practices is going to have much more benefit to any individual’s teeth than whether there’s fluoride in the water. For example: you drink a lot of soft drink and don’t brush afterward => you get cavities. You drink a lot of fruit juice and don’t brush afterward => you get cavities. The fruit juice contains a lot of sugar which the bacteria in your mouth use as food and it eats away at your dental enamel; that’s bad.

    I’m interested in evidence both for and against fluoridation. When it’s proven beyond reasonable doubt, I’ll accept whatever is the conclusion.

    I’m against prejudice, superstitious nonsense and refusal to seek out or accept contradictory evidence. Anti-fluoridation lobbyists look to me like examples of all those things.

  3. Intrachresodist

    Looks like my first comment is awaiting moderation, probably because it contains HTML links.

    I link to the York study and finish with:

    Conclusions: “The evidence of a benefit of a reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental flourosis. The research evidence is of insufficient quality to allow confident statements about other potential harms or whether there is an impact on social inequalities”.

    Basically, railing against water flouridation in 2009 is an unscientific, superstitious position to take. There is clear evidence of benefit and no clear evidence of harm. The vocal opponents of flouridation have a lot of talk but no high quality scientific research to back up their position.

    My 2nd comment, which was much longer, has disappeared into the ether. Hopefully Xeno can find it and post it, otherwise I may have to split it up and try again.

  4. Ann

    Hey, Ailfawka, a lot of the sources at the site you referred to are government funded, e.g EPA. And, it also includes foreign gov’t supported research. What we can’t trust is business funded research. In every industry, whether pharmaceutical, cosmetic, alcohol, chemical or whatever, its research supports its products. … Hmmm … I wonder why? Not because their products are, say, lead-free, or doesn’t induce cancer or liver cirrhosis or whatever, but because money talks and people, which includes researchers, listen and obey.

Leave a Reply