Ryall warns against "highly organised campaigns of misinformation" on fluoridated water

Health minister Tony Ryall has told TV One’s Q+A programme that he is warning communities to beware of highly organised anti-fluoride groups who are misinforming people about the effects of fluoride added to drinking water.

The minister told political editor Corin Dann that Hamilton was a case in point. There, the council voted in June to end fluoridation although the issue may go to referendum in this year’s local body elections.

“There are a number of referenda that are going to happen around the country over the run-up to the local body election period,” Mr Ryall says.

“I think communities need to be aware there will be highly organised campaigns of misinformation. There will be people who come from out of town and tell all sorts of shock-horror stories around fluoridation. Communities need to know that that’s part of the strategy that these groups run,” Ryall added.

“One of the things I’ve done is I’ve asked the authorities to look at how they can better convey both the health benefits and the social benefits of fluoridation in such a way that people can appreciate those benefits and be aware of them.”

He added that people “should look to their local district health boards, their local dentists and the evidence which shows that fluoridation in NZ is safe and does benefit families”.

Earlier Q+A spoke to two dentists - one pro-fluroidation, one anti (see RAW DATA below).

RAW DATA: Q+A

SUSAN WOOD INTERVIEWS LAWRIE BRETT AND DR JONATHAN BROADBENT

SUSAN WOOD

Dentists Lawrie Brett of the Fluoride Action Network and Dr Jonathan Broadbent, a senior lecturer in preventative and restorative dentistry at Otago University, a very good morning to you both. If I can start with you, Mr Brett, the minister there [Tony Ryall] said it was a ‘highly organised campaign of misinformation.’ He’s referring to your organisation on that.

LAWRIE BRETT - Fluoride Action Network

                        Yes, well, I disagree entirely with that statement.

SUSAN           Well, you’re highly organised. That bit’s fair, isn’t it?

LAWRIE         Yes, yes. Well, it’s a matter of having to be, of course. But misinformation - I think that’s a bit beyond the pale, actually. I think there’s a mountain of information to support our argument that fluoride is ineffective and dangerous.

SUSAN           All right. Well, let’s get to the dangerous side of it. What evidence do you have that it is a risk to people’s health?

LAWRIE         Uh, well, research carried out over the last 50 years in regards to toxic effects on organs in the body. We have a brain effect, we have a pineal gland effect, thyroid, absorption of iodine disruption, arthritic changes, calcifications of the major blood vessels. The list goes on and on and on. Actually, probably the most significant thing is that if you are giving fluorine in the water than you make up a baby’s bottle with, the low weight of the baby means that the amount of fluorine that is being ingested is a toxic dose.

SUSAN           Dr Broadbent, do you accept any of these risks that we have just heard? Do you think there any science to back that this is the case?

DR JONATHAN BROADBENT - Otago University

                        No, the science doesn’t back those ideas at all, and if you consider the systematic reviews, the Ministry of Health position on this topic, you’ll find that fluoridation is perfectly safe. It’s in our water naturally anyway. All we do is adjust the levels.

SUSAN           So you’re not accepting for babies, for example, there’s any risk for them with their bottles?

JONATHAN   No, there are now guidelines on the use of fluoride. It says it’s absolutely fine for use with babies. If parents are concerned, they can use un-fluoridated water perfectly easily. That’s fine.

SUSAN           And how old is the science? How long have you been studying the safety of fluoridated water?

JONATHAN   Oh, the safety of fluoridated water, we’ve studied it for decades and decades, and all the science still points the same way - that it’s safe and that it’s effective. The anti-fluoridationists would have you believe that it causes all variety of different conditions when it doesn’t cause those conditions. So as senior lecturer in preventativedentistry, I strongly believe that the best filling that you can place is natural tooth. You know, if we can prevent tooth decay, we should be preventing tooth decay, and here we have a strategy - water fluoridation - that is effective at the population level. Everyone benefits. And so by delivering something like that, we can benefit the entire population and reduce inequalities.

SUSAN           There is science that shows lower tooth decay in areas where the water is fluoridated. You don’t buy that?

LAWRIE         No, I don’t buy it.

SUSAN           There are studies. I’ve read them, a lot of them.

LAWRIE         Yeah, well, the latest figures for unfluoridated Canterbury areas show they have better teeth than fluoridated Otago and Southland. Timaru stopped fluoridating in 1983, and their expected epidemic of decay has not happened. The decay actually went down. There are two things about this too. Safety is mentioned here by Dr Broadbent. The promoters of fluorine in water have never carried out a single safety test on that material. Never. Not one. And this is internationally. Secondly-

SUSAN           Well, I just need to get Dr Broadbent to respond to that. There’s never been a safety test on fluoride in water?

JONATHAN   Plenty of safety tests and many, many studies that have looked at fluoridation of the water. For example, there have been studies that have looked at the chemistry of artificially fluoridated water being very similar to natural fluoridated water. There are studies that have shown that, for example, the York Review, which found that there were no toxic effects. It’s a very safe public health measure.

SUSAN           Let’s get on to the poorest hit, because that is one of the arguments, certainly, that children whose parents probably aren’t buying the fluoridated toothpaste and doing all those things are the hardest hit if you take the fluoride out of the water.

LAWRIE         Dr Broadbent mentions the York Review. The York Review states clearly that there is no evidence for particular benefit to the low socio-economic group. This is emotional propaganda on the promoter’s part. In fact, the risk of damage from the fluorine is greater in the lower socio-economic group because the poison works more effectively if the person taking it is undernourished or unwell. And that’s what the lower socio-economic groups are represented as.

SUSAN           Dr Broadbent, do you think there’s any greater risk for lower socio-economic groups?

JONATHAN   No, there’s no greater risk. Fluoride’s not a poison. And if you consider, for example, NZ research conducted more recently than the York Review, there are, for example, studies by Thompson and studies by Lee found that in fluoridated areas of NZ, the difference between rich and poor is smaller than the difference in unfluoridated areas. For example, then consider that one of the biggest inequalities that we have, if you consider the results of our national Oral Health Survey conducted in 2009, is big inequalities between areas that are fluoridated and areas that are unfluoridated. People from unfluoridated areas are disadvantaged.

SUSAN           Mr Brett, if fluoride is a poison, why are they putting it in our toothpaste?

LAWRIE         Good question. Not only are they putting it in the toothpaste, they’re recommending to children that rather than rinsing your mouth out after you’ve brushed your teeth, you just spit it out and swallow the residue. And at 1000 parts per million, that is a toxic dose for a young person. The other thing-

SUSAN           But these are commercial enterprises who, if something were to go wrong, they would face really huge financial penalties. And it’s in all of the toothpaste brands.

LAWRIE         Well, this is what has happened in America. There are lawsuits happening. One thing I think where we do have common ground on both sides of this argument is that since the later 1990s, we know now that the model of fluorine being ingested and absorbed into your teeth to strengthen them, that model has failed. It’s wrong. It doesn’t work that way. There is no benefit from ingesting fluorine.

SUSAN           In the water, you’re saying? So you need to topically apply it?

LAWRIE         Yeah.

SUSAN           Well, I’ll get Dr Broadbent to respond to that. No benefit in ingesting it in the water?

JONATHAN   In the water, it’s a fantastic public health measure because it reaches everybody, and it does reduce a burden of disease, and it does reduce inequalities. Um, it does have a topical effect, yes, uh, from drinking it, and you’ll also find that there’s fluoride in saliva as well following that. Um, I think here we have a situation in NZ, if you consider what happened in Hamilton, the most concerning thing, really, is that here we have the Hamilton City councillors that are taking the advice of the Fluoride Action Network, an organisation that’s listed on Quackwatch, and they had something like 1000 submissions from this organisation, which were pretty much just copy/paste jobs, and they’re taking that advice over the advice of our own Ministry of Health. In NZ, our Ministry of Health is mandated to care for the health of our population, and our city councils, according to the Health Act 1956, they have the responsibility to improve the health of their populations where they can, and part of that, under Section 25, is by providing water supply. And fluoride’s in the water supply anyway. It’s everywhere. There’s 200 to 300 parts per-

SUSAN           So naturally occurring?

JONATHAN   Oh, yes, yes. And so all we’re doing with fluoride- The main source of fluoride is from fluorapatite, a natural rock from which fluoride is produced and added to the water, and it’s very effective at reducing inequalities and improving health.

SUSAN           Right, now I will ask you both the same question to finish with. Mr Brett, how can you look at the science, the same sort of science that Dr Broadbent is looking at and come up with such a different conclusion?

LAWRIE         The evidence of modern research is that it doesn’t work. The large-scale studies that are reviewed by the same York Review show a difference of about one surface of one tooth over a lifetime. The other thing too, if I may, to say that it’s not poisonous is outrageous. The scrubbed remnants from the fertiliser works’ chimneys is the fluoride source. That’s a category-eight poison. And you could argue- And it’s illegal to dispose of it in water and soil. You could argue that the, like in the case of the Auckland situation, they’re putting 1000 tons of that stuff a year into the Waitemata and Manukau Harbours. That’s arguably illegal. I don’t know which is worse - that or the fact that Auckland’s ratepayers are paying to drink 10 tons of it a year themselves.

SUSAN           Dr Broadbent, I will ask you the same question I just asked Mr Brett. How can you look at the same science, the same studies, and come up with such a different conclusion?

JONATHAN   Well, I’m a senior lecturer at the University of Otago. We’re encouraged to think critically, and I write scientific papers. I review scientific papers. I review for 20 different journals. And I know how to read a paper, a scientific paper, and I think that Mr Brett here is perhaps a little out of touch with the science. He’s a member of two different organisations that are listed on Quackwatch. You’ve got to be careful when believing information that’s presented from people like Mr Brett. The science is sound. The anti-fluoride groups will disregard information that doesn’t suit them, and it’s been going on for 60 years. The anti-fluoride groups are following many of the same arguments that they have in the past. They’ll say that fluoride has a toxic effect when it doesn’t. You know, fluoridated toothpaste, fluoridated water, it’s perfectly safe, and it’s very effective.

SUSAN           Thank you both for your time this morning, Mr Brett and Dr Jonathan Broadbent.