Yorktown’s Misguided Decision to End Fluoridation Will Cause Poor Dental Health
Opinion Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the author/producer’s interpretation of facts and data.
By Carl H. Tegtmeier
Yorktown is currently in violation of state Public Health Law 1100a on fluoridation for the discontinuance of Community Water Fluoridation (CWF) and failing to adhere to the law’s requirements.
The town, in order to discontinue CWF, must issue a notice to the public of preliminary determination for comment. It should include justification for discontinuance, alternatives to fluoridation available, a summary of consultations with health professionals and the Department of Health, provide the department at least 90 days written notice of the intent to discontinue and submit a plan for discontinuance to include notice to the public, date of discontinuance and alternatives to CWF. If this were a public health emergency it would be coming from the Westchester County or state Department of Health, not a town supervisor.
The science involved in this issue of CWF is very complicated, detailed and nuanced. The judge in this lawsuit against the EPA and CWF relied heavily on the third draft of the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) “Monograph on the State of the Science Concerning Fluoride Exposure and Neurodevelopment and Cognition: A Systemic Review” released in August. The judge cited the NTP monograph 131 times in his ruling and it is this report that the supervisor based his decision to discontinue the town’s CWF.
This was the third draft of the monograph for a reason. Before the NTP Monograph could be released it had to go under peer review by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine. The National Academies’ committee reported the first two drafts would not survive scientific scrutiny, so for the third draft the committee handpicked its own panel as a peer review, and thereby released the monograph.
You don’t have to be a scientist to know this is not good science. The NTP Monograph was criticized for using unorthodox research methods, flawed analytics, lack of clarity, failure to follow the norms of peer review and lack of transparency. The judge ruled there is unreasonable risk based on evidence of a statistical association of lower IQs in children at high fluoride levels in other countries such as China, India, Iran and Pakistan where fluoride levels in the water range from 2.5 mg/L to 8 mg/L.
We fluoridate the water to 0.7mg/L per the Public Health Service recommendation and the rest of the world follows the recommendation of the World Health Organization at 1.5 mg/L. The public health community does not consider those high concentration studies out of those countries as good studies and is calling for them to be repeated.
In spite of the shortcomings, the monograph states in bold type, “This Monograph and Addendum do not address whether the sole exposure to fluoride added to drinking water at 0.7 mg/L in the U.S. and Canada is associated with a measurable effect on IQ.” The monograph further states that more studies are needed to fully understand the potential for lower fluoride exposure to affect children’s IQ.
In other words, 0.7mg/L does not have an effect on IQ and there are no studies that show this. Hence, the court’s decision exceeds what the NTP concluded.
On the contrary, there are many studies that show safety at 1.5mg/L. Since the NTP failed to obtain peer review approval, and prior to the third monograph former New York State and California Department of Health dental director and one of the foremost authorities on fluoridation, Dr. Jayanth V. Kumar, did NTP’s job for them (in the report “Association between low fluoride exposure and children’s intelligence: a meta-analysis relevant to community water fluoridation.” Public Health 2023; 219:73-84).
This report was properly peer reviewed and its conclusion states, “(This) meta-analysis show that fluoride exposure at the concentration used in the CWF is not associated with lower IQ scores.” Kumar testified at the court case in San Francisco against the EPA.
This science the NTP attempted to use is not new and has been reviewed by 50 different and independent state departments of health and countless county health departments. Not one of them has found cause to discontinue CWF.
Our town’s decision has caused unnecessary fear with fluoridation not only with CWF but with fluoridated toothpaste and fluoridated mouthwash as well. The town, by erroneously discontinuing CWF over IQs and instilling fear in our residents, will condemn our children and grandchildren to a lifetime of more cavities, tooth extractions, root canals, missed days of school and work and needless pain and suffering, not to mention higher dental costs over their lifespan.
At this time, the town should reconsider its current position and follow Public Health Law 1100a Fluoridation and reach out to public health officials whose job it is to ensure our health and well-being. They have seen the science and they do not see any danger in CWF to the people they serve.
Carl H. Tegtmeier, DMD, is a former New York State Dental Association chair of the Council on Dental Health Planning and Hospital Dentistry and immediate past co-chair of the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities Task Force on Special Dentistry. He is also a former trustee of the New York State Dental Foundation.
Examiner Media – Keeping you informed with professionally-reported local news, features, and sports coverage.
