One of the most extraordinary derelictions of government oversight on health matters has been the abject failure of the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) to have regulated arguably the most prescribed medication in US history – fluoride. Yes, they have issued warnings on the back of toothpaste packages that the product should not be swallowed, but they have never regulated fluoride as a prescription drug or as a drug prescribed for delivery in the public water supply.
We desperately need the FDA to study the three year review by the National Research Council (NRC, 2006) so that they can make a judgment on whether fluoride is safe to ingest in over the counter drugs, or in the public water supply. The various Clean or Safe Water intiatives being pursued around the country from Arcata, California to Boulder, Colorado aim for just that – and in a much broader sense. These initiatives say that ANY substance added to water for health purposes must be approved by the FDA. Opponents of this sensible measure respond by saying that the FDA does not regulate water chemicals, that's the job of the EPA. True but the FDA does regulate medicine and it certainly should be regulating medicine deliberately added to the water supply of millions.
To this abject failure of the FDA we must now add this week's extraordinary announcement from the FDA that it is OK for bottled water manufacturers to claim that "drinking fluoridated water may reduce the risk of dental cavities/ tooth decay" on their products.
It appears that the FDA has arrived at this conclusion based only on reports from the CDC and other branches of the US PHS, which of course, have endorsed and enthusiastically promoted fluoridation for over 50 years. These are clearly biased sources. Thus again we see a gross dereliction of its duty in this matter. If FDA wanted to give this sale promotion boost to the bottled water manufactuers it should have based its opinion on its own independent review of the primary literature. Why should we accept anything less? Such an independent review would quickly show that the CDC and others have grossly exagerated the benefits of ingested fluoride. If they had even read the CDC's own reviews they would have discovered that the CDC has conceded that the major benefits are TOPICAL not systemic, so why ingest it at all?
And why no discussion of side effects? Those pushing for this deal cite a 1991 review of water fluoridation by the US PHS, but they don't cite the National Research Council review of fluoride's toxicity from March of this year, why not?
According to FAN researcher Chris Neurath, the law firm Covington and Burling, which initiated this request was one of the lead law firms supporting the tobacco industry. Covington and Burling were involved in the "Whitecoat Project" set up to recruit doctors and scientists to pimp for the tobacco industry, often without revealing their connections. Both John Doull and Bernard Wagner, chairs of the NRC (1993) and NRC (2006) fluoride reports, were involved in providing the tobacco industry a veneer of "respectability".
Based on the official FDA statement, the FDA apparently did nothing on the request from Covington and Burling (representing the bottled water manufacturers) which means after 120 days it is approved by default. But it looks like others (or the FDA itself) can still challenge the decision. Unfortunately, the approval is allowed (after 120 days, without challenge) when the requesters have support for their claims from "reputable" sources. Hence the pyramid of delusion (CDC, PHS, NIH etc) was able to strike again.
The full docket (docket number: 2006Q-0418) supporting this action will eventually be available online here.
FAN will be examining this docket very closely when it is released. Once we have done this we will probably be urging our members to besiege the FDA with letters and emails. Meanwhile, in my view, this is another reason why it is important – nay critical – that we get the US Congress involved with the fluoride issue. We need officials from these "reputable" agencies to testify under oath before the pyramid of delusion grows any further.
6) FDA officials as to why they have failed to regulate fluoride for ingestion (either in prescription drugs or the public waer supply) as well as this latest travesty of allowing bottled water manufacturers to claim that ingested fluoride reduces tooth decay.