|
|
|
BENEFITS ALTERNATIVES
OVERDOSE DISEASES PUBLIC COST |
PUBLIC POLICY Question
39. ADA's
Fluoridation Facts Short Answer ADA's
Fluoridation Facts Long Answer The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Pan American Health Organization have endorsed the practice of water fluoridation since 1964. In 1994, an expert committee of WHO published a report which reaffirmed its support of fluoridation as being safe and effective in the prevention of tooth decay, and stated that "provided a community has a piped water supply, water fluoridation is the most effective method of reaching the whole population, so that all social classes benefit without the need for active participation on the part of individuals."82 In many parts of the world, fluoridation is not feasible or a high priority, usually due to the lack of a central water supply, the existence of more life threatening health needs and the lack of sufficient funds for start-up and maintenance costs. Political actions contrary to the recommendations of health authorities should not be interpreted as a negative response to water fluoridation. For example, although fluoridation is not carried out in Sweden and the Netherlands, both countries support WHO's recommendations regarding fluoridation as a preventive health measure, in addition to the use of fluoride toothpastes, mouthrinses and dietary fluoride supplements.82, 227 Repeat
of Question 39. Opposition's Response Twenty-five countries in Europe, with bodies of health professionals, scientists and public health agencies of their own, reject fluoridation, some with outright bans. (See 39-1: "Most Major Developed Countries do not Fluoridate Their Water Supplies," from Chemical and Engineering News, Vol. 66, Aug. 1, 1988, pp. 26-42). 98% of Europe is now fluoridation free. The two holdouts are represented by England, 10% fluoridated, and Ireland, 73% fluoridated. The second largest political party of the most fluoridated population in the world, Ireland's Fine Gael, reported the week of January 15, 2001, that they have established as a major platform the eradication of all artificial fluoridation in the country due to "serious health concerns," even directing that the amount of natural fluoride in the water be reevaluated. "Most of the world has rejected fluoridation. Only America where it originated, and countries under strong American influence persist in the practice. Denmark banned fluoridation when its National Agency for Environmental Protection, after consulting the widest possible range of scientific sources, pointed out that the long-term effects of low fluoride intakes on certain groups in the population (for example, persons with reduced kidney function), were insufficiently known. Sweden also rejected fluoridation on the recommendation of a special Fluoride Commission, which included among its reasons that: 'The combined and long-term environmental effects of fluoride are insufficiently known.' Holland banned fluoridation after a group of medical practitioners presented evidence that it caused reversible neuromuscular and gastrointestinal harm to some individuals in the population." (See 39-2: Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 41,1 - Autumn 1997, by John Colquhoun, M. D., past Principal Dental Officer of New Zealand's largest city, Aukland). Statements on fluoridation by governmental officials from several countries: To access the full, photocopied letters from which these statements came (except for France's & Luxembourg's), visit www.fluoridation.com/c-country.htm. France Luxembourgh Japan Belgium Denmark Norway Sweden Germany Finland Austria The full text of these statements can be accessed at: www.fluoridealert.org. Despite the fact that these countries have decided against fluoridation, they have experienced the same significant declines in dental cavities as the United States has (which is around 70% fluoridated). See the World Health Organization chart below. Table 1 : Declines in tooth decay in different countries. Based upon Decayed, Missing & Filled teeth (DMFTs) for 12-year-olds (WHO data).
Table 2: Current DMFT Status
Data from: World Health Organization (WHO) Oral Health Country/Area Profile Programme Department of Noncommunicable Diseases Surveillance/Oral Health WHO Collaborating Centre, Malm University, Sweden www.whocollab.od.mah.se/euro.html |
Jump to
the Opposition's |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner. This
site and accompanying book is published by First
Edition This
information provided on this site was compiled by This
site and accompanying book was edited by Site Builder: Michelle@Jabbocat Consulting |
|