Are fluoride products used, like chlorine, to make drinking water safe, or is fluoride only put into drinking water for a specific health purpose, such as to prevent cavities?
It is common knowledge that the fluoride products put into drinking water are NOT used to make drinking water safe, as in the use of chlorine. They are used with a specific health purpose: to prevent or treat cavities in humans.
The Supreme Court of Canada (in Metropolitan Toronto v. Forest Hill Village,  S.C.R. 569) ruled that fluoridation is “compulsory preventive medication” used for a “special health purpose.”
The Canada Food and Drugs Act defines a drug as “any substance...for use in: the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of a disease.”
Are fluoride products used in drinking water “regulated” by Health Canada to insure that they are safe and effective, as claimed, and to insure that they follow all of the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act?
Health Canada states that fluoride products used in artificial water fluoridation are unregulated medical treatment to prevent dental disease in petition 299 to the Auditor General of Canada: Health Canada does not regulate hexafluorosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride products, that are the actual products used in water fluoridation, and which are allegedly used as a medical treatment, that is, to prevent dental disease.
There is therefore a “A Failure of Logic” in this measure or policy called water fluoridation. Swallowing controlled doses of government approved and “regulated” fluoride products are NOT RECOMMENDED by Health Canada: "Health Canada does not recommend the use of fluoride supplements in the form of drops or tablets" yet uncontrolled doses of “unregulated” fluoride ARE RECOMMENDED in the case of water fluoridation.
Available from: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/iyh-vsv/environ/fluor_e.html
Is anyone permitted to make specific health claims (e.g., this product prevents cavities) for any product in Canada ?
The Canadian Food and Drugs Act is very clear: only drug and natural health products regulated by Health Canada may make specific health claims. Such health claims by other products is illegal.
Which government agency is responsible for the safety of fluoridation products?
We have asked Health Canada, provincial governments, and dental organizations, who is responsible for fluoridation products. They all claim that they are NOT responsible for the safety of these fluoride products used in drinking water. They all state that municipalities are legally responsible for the safety of these products because municipalities:
- decide to use artificial water fluoridation,
- choose and buy the products put into drinking water,
- actually put the products into drinking water.
So, who Claims Responsibility for Safety?
1. NOT the Chemical Manufacturer (National Sanitation Foundation)
The NSF International does not evaluate safety of the chemicals added to water for the purpose of the treatment or mitigation of disease in humans, and does not evaluate the product added to water but only the impurities within the product.
2. NOT HealthCanada
Although all drugs and health products must be regulated under the Food and Drugs Act, Health
Canada has not yet regulated these fluoride products. Although these products and materials are not currently regulated at the national level, Health Canada recognizes the importance that they be "effective and safe" http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/water-eau/drink-potab/mater/index-eng.php
3. NOT the Ontario Ministry of the Environment
The MOE has no jurisdiction over the manufacture or sale of drinking water treatment chemicals.
Mirek Tybinkowski, M.Eng., P.Eng, Water & Wastewater Specialist, Safe Drinking Water Branch, has confirmed this fact in a letter dated June 11, 2007.
4. NOT Dental Trade Organizations
Dissemination of information relating to the practice of dentistry does not create a duty of care to
protect the public from potential injury. ADA court testimony: in the Superior Court of the State of California, Case #718228, Demurrer, Oct. 22, 1992,
“... We deny that we have any liability (in relation to water fluoridation) as alleged and note that the fluoridation of public water drinking supplies is a matter for the local council.” Australian Dental Association's CEO, Robert Boyd-Boland.
5. NOT the Public Health Service
“We conclude that the cited regulations do not individually or collectively impose an implied
mandatory duty on the County to direct Pinch to notify consumers when water contamination occurs.” Guzman vs. Monterey County, http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S157793.PDF
Are municipal governments responsible for the safety of these products and their citizens?
- Municipal governments make the decision to add these products to drinking water.
- Municipal governments buy the products.
- Municipal governments add the products to drinking water.
1. Is this another example of the federal and provincial government agencies downloading all responsibility to the municipal government?
2. Is it fair that organizations promoting artificial water fluoridation accept no responsibility and yet place all of the responsibility on municipal governments?
Municipalities could request that the federal government regulate these fluoridation products, relieving them of this onerous responsibility. Municipalities may also say “NO” to this policy on the basis of the Precautionary Principle: If in doubt, leave it out.
Is it legal to promote the use of an unregulated, unapproved fluoride product accompanied with specific health claims in Canada ?
Only drugs and natural health products may make specific health claims, according to the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act. All drugs and natural health products must have a site and product license to ensure that both the manufacturer and the product satisfy all requirements of the Canada Food and Drugs Act.
This regulatory system under the Food and Drugs Act is regarded as the single most important
element of the federal/provincial/territorial safety net system. according to the National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities (NAPRA), which is designed to help protect Canadians from unsubstantiated claims of safety and efficacy. See:
Currently, fluorosilicates are defined as mineral nutrients in the Food and Drugs Act. Yet, fluorosilicates are not in compliance with the Food and Drugs Act as a mineral nutrients for 2 reasons:
1. they do not have a site license to ensure that the manufacturer is following Good Manufacturing Practices ( GMP ),
2. they make specific health claims which are not permissible under the Food and Drugs Act
Is it ethical to promote the use of an unregulated, unapproved fluoride product which deprives citizens of informed consent, and without health monitoring by a trained professional medical practitioner for adverse side effects?
Federal and provincial legislation, as well as ethical guidelines for all health professionals is very clear. Informed consent must be provided to all those given a product for specific health purposes to ensure that the recipient of the medication receives
- information regarding risks and benefits
- choice to refuse or accept drug
- assessment by a trained medical professional and assessment of side effects.
Artificial water fluoridation is unethical because it violates the above 3 principles.
Fluoride is in the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat. Can you control how much water/fluoride is swallowed in a day, by the citizens of this community, from all these sources?
You And Anyone Else Cannot Control the Daily Intake of Fluoride
Has the Medical Officer of Health done any health monitoring for fluorosis diseases of bones or soft tissues in this community?
Should the use of a drug be decided by our neighbours in a referendum? a municipal council? or by a trained medical professional?
The decision to take a fluoride product used for specific health purposes should only be made by a patient and his/her trained medical professional, not by my neighbours or by a city council who are not qualified to determine my health needs or follow up with assessments to determine whether there have been adverse health effects.
Michelle Giddings (Head of Drinking Water Section at Health Canada, 2000) has said: “Referenda are frequently conducted in a heated acrimonious atmosphere, one not considered conducive to reasoned debate.” affidavit, Exhibit 1, page 9, Millership vs B.C.
What Canadian legislation specifically permits the addition of hazardous waste into drinking water?
Hydrofluorosilicic or hexafluorosilicic acid, H 2 SiF 6, is a Hazardous Waste because it contains too
much fluoride (150 mg/L), too much arsenic (5 mg/L), and other toxic chemicals, which are proposed for “virtual elimination
” as defined under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and because it is also defined as a class 8 corrosive substance under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations. Here is the relevant legislation:
(a) the Hazardous Products Act 2010 [R.S., 1985, c. H-3];
(b) the Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1999, c. 33 [CEPA Section 7, Division 8: Control of Movement of Hazardous Waste];
(c) the Export and Import of Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Recyclable Material Regulations
(d) the Interprovincial Movement of Hazardous Waste Regulations (IMHWR);
(e) Fluorosilicates are classified as UN 1778 in Schedule 1 of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations;
(f) the US Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49 (49CFR),US Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure, SW846, Test Method 1311;
(g) the Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations[SOR/2001-269];
(h) the Controlled Products Regulations [SOR/88-66] 
(i) Québec: Règlement sur les matières dangereuses c. Q-2, r.32;
(j) Ontario : Workplace Hazardous Material Information System(WHMIS) [R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 860, s. 25]. In Ontario, the Ministry of Labour is responsible for the administration and enforcement of both the federal and provincial WHMIS legislation. Until 2005, Ontario was the only jurisdiction in North America that accepted untreated hazardous waste).
Fluorosilicates are a waste by-product of the phosphate fertilizer mining industry. They are a contaminant banned by the EPA. Air pollution law requires these industries to remove fluoride from the smoke stack emissions because they are extremely dangerous. They are scrubbed from the smoke stacks with wet scrubbers, and then stored in gypsum ponds until they can be sold to municipalities like ours for over $1,500 per ton. Otherwise, these companies would have to pay about $8,000-$10,000 per ton to dispose of it safely, in accordance with the Hazardous Waste Act 2010 of Canada and similar regulations in the U.S.
Is artificial water fluoridation a good use of taxpayers' money?
If you assume that the recent research is correct, and that fluoride works directly on the surface of the teeth, not by swallowing, this policy is a complete, total waste of taxpayer's money. Associated costs include not just the cost of fluoridation products, but the chemicals needed to neutralize this acid, the man hours used for training and administration, the capital costs of the equipment and maintenance, and health costs for fluorosis disease of bones, teeth, and soft tissues.
If you assume that the recent research is not correct, and that fluoride needs to be swallowed, it is still incredibly wasteful because less than 1% of fluoride is actually swallowed. The rest goes literally “down the toilet” and “down the drain” and into our lakes and rivers. Less than 1% of Fluoridated Water is [actually] Swallowed
The American Water Works Association www.awwa.org: We drink very little of our drinking water. Generally speaking, less than 1% of the treated water produced by water utilities is actually consumed or ingested by the residents of the city. The rest goes on lawns, in washing machines, down toilets and drains (sinks, showers, bathtubs, etc.), street sweeping, and in commercial and industrial processes as well as for putting out fires.
Is it true that there is a growing wave of cities in Canada stopping artificial water fluoridation?
39 communities across Canada have opted for cessation of fluoridation since 1990; the most recent ones to turn off the flow of hydrofluorosilicic acid or similar contaminant are:
- Cranberry Portage (MB) January 2009,
- Thunder Bay (ON) July 2009,
- Fort Saint John (BC) July 2009,
- Verchères (QC) unanimously voted to end fluoridation on Monday, February 7, 2011,
- Calgary (AB) voted 10 to 3 to turn Fluoride off on Tuesday, February 8, 2011,
- Waterloo (ON) turned it off in November 2010,
- Flin Flon (MB) June 2011, and
- Meadow Lake (SK) June 2011.
The full list is available at http://ffo-olf.org/ffo-olf.html#end
Is the MAC (Maximum Allowable Contaminant) guideline for fluoride recommended by Health Canada, a legal requirement?
The conclusion of the Walkerton Inquiry, led by Justice Dennis O'Connor, states: “matters as
important as safe drinking water and public health should have been covered by regulations which, unlike guidelines, are legally binding,”
In Ontario, there is no legal requirement to remediate drinking water or warn citizens about the water which exceeds the MAC. According to the Technical Support Document for Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines:
“Where supplies contain naturally occurring fluoride at levels higher than the MAC of 1.5 mg/L
but less than 2.4 mg/L the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care recommends an approach
through local boards of health to raise public and professional awareness to control excessive
exposure to fluoride from other sources.”
Many communities in southwestern Ontario have fluoride levels which exceed the MAC and no government agency is required to remediate the water, or warn citizens that the water may be harmful to their health, or the health of their babies. The only recommendation in Ontario is to inform citizens NOT to use the topical fluorides, which may be the only helpful resource useful in the prevention of cavities, according to the recent research.
Is the MAC (Maximum Allowable Contaminant) defined as the level which is safe for all individuals, for a lifetime of use?
“Fluoride is one of the natural contaminants found in public drinking water supplies.” A Maximum Acceptable Contaminant level standard has never been defined as a standard which
protects all citizens, for a lifetime of ingestion, from adverse health effects. It is a concentration of a contaminant that industry has deemed reasonable. Give them this website information: http://www.agswater.com/mclg.html
These guidelines, which are not legally binding, which do not represent a "safe" level for all citizens, for a lifetime of use, are NOT WORTH THE PAPER THEY ARE WRITTEN ON.
Is the MAC guideline created by Health Canada a guideline for determining the fluoride levels for artificial water fluoridation?
This guideline refers only to fluoride found “naturally” in drinking water. Fluoridation products are in fact “man-made” - not “natural.” Natural fluorides are associated with high levels of calcium which afford some protection against fluoride toxicity.
There is no legal requirement for municipalities to fluoridate at any recommended level in Ontario. This legal requirement was removed from the Ontario SDWA (Safe Drinking Water Act), 2002, on June 5, 2006, Amendments to Ontario Reg.170/03.
Drinking Water Guidelines for Artificial Water Fluoridation
Why then are we being forced to drink tap water that contains a toxic waste product willfully placed there by our municipality when there are no valid, provable benefits to doing so?
Because some medical bureaucrats continue against all logic and against all current, available contrary evidence to insist that unregulated fluoride substances (fluorosilicates, not food grade, not pharmaceutical grade, nor medical grade, not laboratory grade fluoride) are a healthy, safe and effective way of delivering dental health to some underprivileged segment of the population.
- Available from: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/H-3/
- Available from: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-15.31/page-6.html#anchorbo-ga:l_7-gb:l_8
- Available from: http://www.ec.gc.ca/ceparegistry/documents/regs/g2-13911_r1.pdf
- Available from: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-2002-301/latest/sor-2002-301.html
- Available from: http://www.ec.gc.ca/lcpe-cepa/default.asp?lang=En&n=24374285-1&offset=8&toc=show#h
- Available from: http://www.ehso.com/cssepa/TCLPfaqs.htm
- Available from: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showtdm/cr/SOR-2001-269
- Available from: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/sor-88-66/index.html
- Available from: http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=3&file=/Q_2/Q2R32.htm
- Available from: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_900860_e.htm
- Available from: http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/hs/pubs/whmis/whmis_9.php
- Available from: http://www.cielap.org/pdf/hwfactsheet.pdf
- Available from: http://www.ontario.ca/drinkingwater/stel01_046947.pdf
- National Research Council [U.S.A.] 2006 Review: Fluoride in Drinking Water, p13.
What about people with chemical sensitivities? Are they being reimbursed for the added expense of having to purchase alternate means of acquiring non fluorinated water?
What about people who have lost all of their teeth, or babies who do not yet have teeth? Are they getting any anti-caries benefit from ingesting fluoridated water that presumes to protect them from tooth decay?