The Fluoride Action Network responds to ADA’s attempt to downgrade findings of the National Toxicology Program’s review of fluoride brain studies
— Paul Connett
NH, UNITED STATES, February 22, 2022 /EINPresswire.com/ — Today the director of the non-profit Fluoride Action Network, Paul Connett, PhD, responded to an effort by the American Dental Association to get the National Toxicology Program (NTP) to downgrade its findings in its 5-year review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity.
In his letter to Dr Roy Woychik, he urges him to ignore the ADA’s effort to get the NTP “to forego the conclusion that fluoride is a neurotoxicant at any exposure level.” Connett writes:
“It is important that the NTP keep in mind the biases that the ADA brings to the issue of fluoride safety. The ADA is a trade organization that prioritizes political advocacy for water fluoridation over and above objective assessments of the program’s safety and effectiveness… The ADA’s letter to the NTP is consistent with ADA’s checkered history of lobbying against government actions that could result in more protective public health policies on fluoride… Given the political nature of the ADA, we write to encourage the NTP to give the ADA’s recent letter the minimal weight it deserves.”
Connett corrects one glaring piece misinformation in the way that the ADA characterized the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) peer review of the NTP report. He writes:
“The ADA claims that ‘NASEM noted that NTP failed to provide adequate scientific evidence for its conclusion.’ This is incorrect. The NASEM called on the NTP to explain its methodology and findings with greater clarity and transparency (a procedural matter), which is distinct from NASEM stating that the underlying science does not support fluoride being a neurotoxicant (a substantive matter). Importantly, the NASEM committee explicitly stated they did not independently evaluate the underlying scientific evidence and they were not charged with reaching a conclusion as to the hazard rating the NTP should give to fluoride.”
Connett compares this to a previous instance where the ADA had urged the EPA to forego classifying fluoride as a contaminant in water. Connett writes:
“In both instances, the ADA’s motive is the same: to eliminate hindrances to the political promotion of fluoridation. That motive should be of no concern to the NTP. For the NTP, the only concern should be the science. We write, therefore, to simply encourage the NTP to follow the science, not the political dictates of trade organizations. If the science justifies the conclusion that fluoride is a neurotoxicant at low levels of exposure (which is indicated by a recent benchmark dose analysis of the ELEMENT/MIREC cohort), the NTP’s report should not hesitate in saying so.”
In a bulletin released earlier today FAN gives more details on the poor track record of the ADA with respect to science on this issue as well as more details on the NTP draft review from 2021. With respect to both, we underline just how removed from reality the ADA is when they claim that fluoride is a not a neurotoxicant at any exposure level. In reality, of the over 150 human studies on fluoride and cognition, the NTP reviewed, it identified 29 high quality IQ studies of which 27 found a lowering of IQ associated with fluoride exposure and only two that did not. Moreover, 18 were performed at fluoride water levels at, or less than, 1.5 ppm and of these 13 were conducted at 0.7 ppm or equivalent exposures. Currently the USA recommends fluoridation at 0.7 ppm. 1.5 ppm is relevant because you need a margin of safety to protect all children drinking water at 0.7 ppm.
According to Connett, “We believe it is critically important to the health of our nation that the NTP uphold its scientific integrity in this matter and not bend to any special interests -whether it be from ADA, the CDC or the NIDCR- to change or modify its findings.”