Summary: The American Dental Association (ADA) and other organizations support the addition of fluoride to municipal water sources and bottled water, backing their opinion with years of clinical research saying it helps reduce tooth decay. But the addition of fluoride has come under public scrutiny as controversial studies have linked fluoride to brain lesions, Alzheimer s disease and even cancer. Paul Connett, Ph.D., professor of chemistry at St. Lawrence University in Canton, NY, is executive director of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), a group that strongly questions the merits of drinking water fluoridation. He spoke with Water Technology^® in mid-March about FAN and its views.

Water Technology^®: Tell us about the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and those involved in the organization?
Dr. Paul Connett: FAN was formed in May 2000, with a membership that includes scientists, doctors, and dentists concerned about the health effects of rising fluoride exposure. Some members have published their own research on fluoride while others have conducted extensive reviews of the scientific literature. With continued input from these scientists, FAN provides a comprehensive and updated database concerning fluoride toxicity on our Web site: www.fluorideaction.net.

WT: Reputable organizations claim that appropriate levels of fluoride are safe. Numerous studies have been published in peer-reviewed journals backing that opinion. Where do you feel these organizations have gone wrong?
PC: When the US Public Health Service endorsed fluoridation in 1950, before any studies or trials had been completed, many "reputable" organizations jumped on the bandwagon. Very few conducted their own studies or independent reviews on the matter.

Most organizations played follow-the-leader, a leader who turned out to be a big financial funder for them. What the public is most often treated to are not the original studies but government reviews in which the most recent health studies are ignored.

WT: Fluoride may have negative affects if too much is consumed. But do you believe there are any benefits if people consume a controlled amount of the naturally-occurring substance?
PC: While it may be possible to control the concentration of fluoride added to public drinking water or bottled water, the dose that people get cannot be controlled. You cannot control how much water people drink or the amount of fluoride they get from other sources like dental products, pesticide residues or food and beverages prepared with fluoridated water.

The level added to water is 1 part per million (ppm). This is over 100 times the level found in mother's milk. Moreover, a Ph.D. thesis from Harvard University indicated a significant relationship between young boys' exposure to fluoridated water and an increased risk of osteosarcoma, a rare but frequently fatal bone cancer.

This study, concealed from the public by a Harvard professor and Colgate consultant, has now been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed medical journal.

WT: What s your view of bottled water manufacturers offering at least a few products that would give consumers who want fluoride in their bottled water the choice of having it?
PC: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concedes that the major benefits of fluoride are topical, not systemic. If people want fluoride, it makes far more sense to apply it directly to the surface of the tooth in the form of toothpaste. Swallowing fluoride makes as much sense as swallowing sun block to protect the skin against ultraviolet rays.

WT: The ADA says nearly two-thirds of the US population receives fluoridated drinking water. Why are so many cities opting to follow the recommendations of these organizations if there are negative health benefits?
PC: Recent evidence indicates that when communities are fully informed on the issue, about 50 percent of them reject fluoridation. Communities that have been fluoridated for years are now considering removing fluoride from their water because of growing concerns.

The counter-offensive is to go for statewide mandatory programs. That means proponents [of fluoride] only have to reach a handful of legislators  who are often too busy to read up on this issue  rather than persuade each town one at a time.

WT: Should consumers be made aware when fluoride is added to bottled water, as labels are supposed to tell them about other additives or substances in the water?
PC: Absolutely. The FDA does require the concentration of any added fluoride to be identified. As it currently stands, it is virtually impossible for consumers in the US to monitor and control their total fluoride intake due to the absence of fluoride labeling on most processed beverages and foods.

WT: Do you have contact with water treatment dealers/installers whose customers may be asking them to remove fluoride from, or add it to, their home water supplies?
PC: FAN's major contact is with citizens who ask about systems that remove fluoride from their water. We currently recommend reverse osmosis, distillation and bottled water, [the latter] if they can ascertain from the supplier its fluoride content.