Fluoride/Cancer link is Plausible, studies show

"Fluoride appears to have the potential to initiate or promote cancers, particularly of the bone...," according to the most recent and extensive review of fluoride toxicology by the prestigious National Research Council (NRC). (1)

Fluoride chemicals are added to about 70% of public water supplies ostensibly to reduce tooth decay, not to purify the water.

In 2006, the NRC found the.The Environmental Protection Agency's Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for fluoride is too high to be protective of health (4 mg/L) and must be lowered. EPA scientists have been saying this since 1986; but EPA management caved to political pressure and over-ruled its scientists. EPA is long overdue in revising fluoride's MCLG based on the 2006 NRC Fluoride Report, which was done at EPA's request.

According to Bill Hirzy, PhD, retired EPA scientist, "Since 1986 the [EPA HQ professionals] union has taken exception to EPA’s unscientific approach to dealing with the toxicity of fluoride in order to protect the USPHS [Public Health Service] program of national water fluoridation." (2)

Hirzy writes, "When I last spoke with the Division Director responsible for that risk assessment he told me EPA was waiting for a paper, promised three years ago by its principal first author, that would counter an epidemiology study done under that very author’s direction at Harvard."

Hirzy is talking about a published peer-reviewed study by Bassin (2a) which links fluoridation to osteosarcoma (bone cancer). Chester Douglass, Bassin's Harvard University advisor and, at that time, employee of Colgate (sellers of fluoridated dental products) signed off on Bassin's work. But, Douglass told the NRC panel that no such study existed, according to the Environmental Working Group.(3)

The whole fluoridation program appears to rest upon the shoulders of Chester Douglass whose much anticipated osteosarcoma/fluoridation research has yet to be published even though it was promised years ago, costing tax payers millions of dollars.

But, there's more evidence linking fluoride to osteosarcoma (See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/osteosarcoma.html ) and loads of evidence linking fluoride to adverse health effects - even at low doses added to public (and some bottled) water supplies (See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/ )

At least three members of the NRC fluoride panel believe the MCLG for fluoride should be zero.

Continued with References: http://tinyurl.com/Fluoride-Cancer-Link

Thanks for your comments! It is also important to note how far the science on fluoride effects has developed over the last decades since the start of water supply fluoridation in the U.S. We now know that fluoride acts on the teeth post-eruptively, and that really changes the public health debate on fluoridated water vs. fluoridated dental products.

A lot of people have asked about the specific brands that we had tested because we chose not to share them. Here's our thinking, from EWG Senior Scientist Olga Naidenko:

There are many brands of dog food on the market. Our testing analyzed just a small snapshot of all the different brands, which is why we did not disclose the specific ... Read Morenames of the brands. Additionally, there is a lot of variability in pet foods even from the same manufacturer.

Thus, our conclusion is really not about any specific brand - as many pet owners know, bone meal is, unfortunately, a common filler ingredient, so when we shop for food for our pets - whatever brand we choose - we need to be very careful in reading the labels to be sure that it does not include ingredients of concern, such as bone meal.

EXcess fluorine in Dog food is primarily from unpurified Phosphorus which contains fluorine and lead. The unpurified form of phosphorus is cheap and added as a mineral supplement. I think farm animal feed is regulated with respect to fluorine concentration so bone mean and byproducts of farm animals is probably not the source of the excess fluorine.