September 2017

 UKFFFA plans  the first UK national conference.

If you want to be active in the U.K. fight for freedom  from fluoridation,   contribute to the debate on how we should be organised and help set out the tasks for the  year ahead, as well as bring yourself up-to-date with the latest information, then put aside  Saturday 6th January 2018 and make it to London. Full details of the conference to be organised by UKFFFA and SWIS, will be published in October – or contact Ivor at at any time.

UKFFFA moves forward:

The Association has now set up a bank acknowledging its first officials, with Joy Warren and Ivor Hueting as co-coordinators. The meeting stating the constitutional requirements  includes this statement:

The aims, activities, income sources and structure of UKFFFA are confirmed as follows

1.1Aims The UK Freedom from Fluoride Alliance (UKFFFA) is a not-for-profit association, developed following discussions in 2016 and launched on 6 April, 2017.

The aim of UKFFFA is to provide information on water fluoridation and connect and support individuals and groups opposing fluoridation in the UK, so as to provide a voice for anti-fluoridation campaigners. Founder member organisations are West Midlands against Fluoridation (WMAF) and Safe Water Information Service (SWIS), both of whom provide logistical and financial support. UKFFFA is quite independent of any other national group

1.2 Activities: In conjunction with SWIS, to provide a frequently updated web-site and phone and e-mail based services, currently without any charge or membership fee.

As well as producing and updating information on a web site and in other social media, and responding to on-line and postal communications, UKFFA may organise events and meetings for members and the public, provide representations to national or local authorities, both written and in person, and maintain contact with officials and elected members of national and local government and other bodies, and with on-line and printed media.

UKFFFA currently is able to communicate with over 500 supporters, and with other national and regional organisations.

Research and Reports

Sep 5

1. Proof that fluoridation wastes money

An argument cash-strapped authorities are now legally obliged to listen to..

Leaving aside the question of effectiveness, what is  the real cost of water fluoridation as a means of preventing dental decay, among its claimed target group, young and disadvantaged children? Joy Warren ‘s paper demonstrates that, by any standards of accounting, the programme is a complete waste of money and better oral health could be achieved by redirecting the money spent on more effective means of prevention. The  paper is now on Research Gate and is free to access. By mid September it has already had over 500 ‘reads’.

A Complete Waste of Money! Water Fluoridation Costs for England, 2013-2021 (PDF Download Available)

Official Full-Text Paper (PDF): A Complete Waste of Money! Water Fluoridation Costs for England, 2013-2021

Sep 23

2. Government sponsored research showing the link between fluoride exposure and in-utero damage to the brain

Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico

This is the abstract

Objective: Our aim was to estimate the association of prenatal exposure to fluoride with offspring neurocognitive development

Methods: studied participants from the Early Life Exposures in Mexico to Environmental Toxicants (ELEMENT) project. An ion-selective electrode technique was used to measure fluoride in archived urine samples taken from mothers during pregnancy and from their children when 6–12 y old, adjusted for urinary creatinine and specific gravity, respectively. Child intelligence was measured by the General Cognitive Index (GCI) of the McCarthy Scales of Children’s Abilities at age 4 and full scale intelligence quotient (IQ) from the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI) at age 6–12.

Background: Some evidence suggests that fluoride may be neurotoxic to children. Few of the epidemiologic studies have been longitudinal, had individual measures of fluoride exposure, addressed the impact of prenatal exposures or involved more than 100 participants

Results: We had complete data on 299 mother–child pairs, of whom 287 and 211 had data for the GCI and IQ analyses, respectively. Mean (SD) values for urinary fluoride in all of the mothers (n=299) and children with available urine samples (n=211) were 0.90 (0.35) mg/L and 0.82 (0.38) mg/L, respectively. In multivariate models we found that an increase in maternal urine fluoride of 0.5mg/L (approximately the IQR) predicted 3.15 (95% CI: −5.42, −0.87) and 2.50 (95% CI −4.12, −0.59) lower offspring GCI and IQ scores, respectively

Conclusions: In this study, higher prenatal fluoride exposure, in the general range of exposures reported for other general population samples of pregnant women and nonpregnant adults, was associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at age 4 and 6–12 y.

This is the link to the complete Environmental Health Perspectives study

Here is Paul Connet’s 3 – minute reaction:
 Whitney Webb’s article in Mint News below is an excellent summary of the  case. We are happy to republish it unedited:

One further note: the American Dental Association issues a statement stating that these results did not apply to U.S. water fluoridation which it continues to support as safe and effective. This was because, if I understand the brief explanation given.  is Mexicans are exposed to much more salt.

ADA Untroubled By Yet Another Study Pointing To Fluoride’s Negative Health Impacts Fluoridation was sold to Americans by none other than the father of public relations himself, Edward Bernays — a nephew of Sigmund Freud, who applied his uncle’s ideas on psychological persuasion for the benefit of industry and government propaganda

 For decades, many groups have fought against the inclusion of fluoride in publicly supplied water, arguing that the risks of mass fluoride consumption outweigh the purported benefits. Now, a new study published in Environmental Health Perspectives has added to the scientific literature that suggests that fluoride negatively impacts human intelligence, especially in children and infants.

The study, surprisingly, was widely reported in the U.S. mainstream media despite the fact that its findings contradict the government’s official position regarding the safety of fluoride.

The study examined nearly 300 sets of mothers and children living in Mexico and tested the children’s cognitive development twice over a 12 year period. A drop in scores on intelligence tests was observed for every 0.5 milligram-per-liter increase in fluoride exposure beyond 0.8 milligrams per liter found in maternal urine. While researchers found a potential connection to prenatal fluoride exposure, they found no significant influence of fluoride exposure on brain development once a child was born.

While the study is likely to cause concern for mothers-to-be around the world, the findings of this study will be of particular concern for those living in areas where public water is fluoridated. In Mexico, where the study was conducted, fluoride is not added to public water supplies and fluoride exposure largely occurs via naturally occurring fluoride in the environment, fluoridated salt and supplements. In contrast, three-quarters of the U.S. population is exposed to fluoride through public water, in addition to other sources of fluoride such as fluoridated toothpaste.

However, the American Dental Association (ADA) took issue with the study, stating, its findings “are not applicable to the U.S. The ADA continues to endorse fluoridation of public water as the most effective public health measure to prevent tooth decay.” The ADA declined to state why the study’s findings were not applicable to pregnant women in the United States, given that fluoride consumption in the U.S. is much higher than in Mexico due to public water fluoridation.

Furthermore, contrary to the ADA’s claim, the inclusion of fluoride in drinking water does not actually reduce the incidence of cavities at all — instead causing a form of tooth decay known as dental fluorosis, a widespread phenomenon that the government has admitted is linked to water fluoridation. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that about 41% of U.S. children between the ages of 12 and 15 suffer from dental fluorosis. Excessive fluoride consumption can also cause skeletal fluorosis, which results in extreme joint and skeletal pain.

Other studies have found yet other negative health effects related to fluoride consumption. For instance, a study published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health in 2015 found that people drinking fluoridated water were 30 percent more likely to have high levels of hypothyroidism compared to those living in areas with low, natural levels of fluoride in their water. The study included the largest sample population ever analyzed regarding fluoride consumption.

 From toxic industrial byproduct to toxic cavity-preventing “miracle”

This new study is hardly the first of its kind. In 2013, a Harvard University study found that children living in areas with highly fluoridated water had “significantly lower” IQ scores than children living in low fluoride areas. Furthermore, more than 23 human studies and 100 animal studies have linked fluoride consumption to brain damage. Some of these studies date back to the 1940s when mass public fluoridation was just beginning in the United States.

Back when the push to initiate mass public fluoridation began, influential scientists such as Dr. Dean Burk spoke out against it. Burk, co-founder of the U.S. National Cancer Institute and head of its cytochemistry department for over 30 years, once called fluoridation of the public water supply “public murder” after reviewing several government-funded studies from the 1930s that showed that fluoride consumption led to abrupt increases in the incidence of cancer. However, these government studies were classified and suppressed as a result of pressure from the aluminum and industrial fertilizer industries, which supply the fluoride added to U.S. water supplies.

The production of aluminum as well as industrial fertilizers produces sodium silicofluoride and hydrofluorosilicic acid, byproducts that had long been a headache for industry due to their toxicity. Following World War II, when aluminum production was heightened to meet wartime demand, hundreds of fluoride damage suits were filed around the country against aluminum and chemical companies. Most of the lawsuits were settled out of court, which avoided the establishment of legal precedents. However, in one case in 1955, a federal court found that an Oregon couple had sustained “serious injury to their livers, kidneys and digestive functions” from eating “farm produce contaminated by [fluoride] fumes” released by a nearby Reynolds aluminum plant.

Once fluoridation was approved and became public policy, these industries began to sell their fluoride wastes to the government, which then added them to public water supplies. These waste products, incidentally, are classified as hazardous and toxic until they are added to public water supplies, at which point they then become classified as “preventing” cavities. The first scientist to suggest that fluoride had cavity-reducing properties was Gerald J. Cox, whose work was largely funded by the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa).

Following a deluge of industry-funded “science,” fluoridation was sold to Americans by none other than the father of public relations himself, Edward Bernays. Bernays, a nephew of Sigmund Freud, applied his uncle’s ideas for the benefit of industry and government propaganda. His work led fluoride, previously known for being marketed as a rat poison, to become associated in the American mind with gleaming smiles and brilliant white teeth.

Nearly 70 years after water fluoridation began, the aluminum and chemical industries continue to benefit handsomely, as the practice allows them to sell their waste to the government at a premium for inclusion in public water systems. The governments seem happy to continue the agreement, despite the mounting evidence that fluoride lowers intelligence, increases the risk of cancer, and gravely harms public health.

Republish our stories! MintPress News is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.

Sep 21

This is FF New Zealand’s press release

Fluoride Free New Zealand is calling on the 23 councils (out of the total of 67) that still fluoridate, to urgently implement a moratorium on fluoridation to protect the brains of children being born today in their community.

A major study published on Tuesday in the US Government’s Environmental Health Perspectives has found that children born to mothers exposed to fluoride while pregnant, have significantly lower IQ scores. This is particularly relevant to New Zealand where half of the population is currently subjected to fluoridation.

The study measured fluoride in urine and found the average level of fluoride in urine was 0.9mg/L (mg/L = parts per million). To relate this to water fluoride concentration, a separate study found that pregnant women in an area with 0.4 to 0.8 ppm water fluoride only had slightly lower urine fluoride than the average participants in this study. The Ministry of Health recommends fluoride chemicals be added to the water at 0.85ppm.
Pregnant women in New Zealand in fluoridated areas likely have similar levels of urine fluoride as those in the Mexican study. Urine fluoride reflects total fluoride intake from all sources, not just fluoridated water. The paper also reports that in the USA, which is 70% fluoridated, urine fluoride ranges from about 0.5 to 1.5 mg/L which fully overlaps the range found in the Mexican study.
The child of a mother who was drinking water with 0.85ppm fluoride would be predicted to have 5 lower IQ points than if the mother had drunk water with close to zero fluoride in it. This obviously has huge consequences for New Zealand children.

The Ministry of Health recommended 1ppm until the 1990s when it reduced to a range from 0.7ppm to 1ppm, with a target of 0.85ppm. The US Human and Health Services have directed a maximum of 0.7ppm for fluoridation.

This study was very carefully done by a group of researchers who have produced over 50 papers on the cognitive health of children in relationship to environmental exposures.  It was funded by the US Government’s National Institute of Health and was a multi-million dollar study.  This was the group’s first study of fluoride – their other studies mostly dealing with lead, mercury and other environmental neurotoxicants.

This study controlled for a wide range of potential factors that might have skewed the results and produced a false effect.  It was able to largely rule out confounding effects by these other factors.  The factors ruled out included lead, mercury, socio-economic status, smoking, alcohol use, and health problems during pregnancy.

This study offers confirmation of previous studies in Mexico, China and elsewhere.  Some of those studies had higher fluoride exposures than are commonly found in fluoridating countries, but many did not.  The sole study in a country with artificial water fluoridation was by Dunedin dentist Jonathan Broadbent. That study found no association between water fluoridation and IQ and was trumpeted by fluoridation defenders.  But that study was shown to have almost no difference in TOTAL fluoride  intake between the children with fluoridated water and those with non-fluoridated water, since at least half of the children in the non-fluoridated area were given fluoride supplements. This left only a small proportion of the study children without substantial fluoride exposure. Nor did this study look at maternal fluoride exposure during pregnancy, which could be the most vulnerable time of exposure.

The study authors are cautious in their conclusions, as is common for scientists. But the implications of this study are enormous. There have been 58 other human studies looking at fluoride exposure and harm to the brain – 51 of them have found an association.

New Zealand

Aug 21

This was released just before the general election, which has now ( Sep 22) resulted in another hung parliament, with the two major parties looking for partners, including the Greens with 7 seats, so it seems unlikely that revisiting the fluoridation bill that has met with much public  resistance, is likely.

Second Reading of Mandatory Fluoridation Bill Delayed

FAN NZ ADDS adds: We have succeeded in pushing out the Second Reading of the Mandatory Fluoridation Bill to some time in the future, or maybe even never.

Even more good news today, Associate Health Minister, Peter Dunne, who introduced this Bill into Parliament last year, has resigned. That means the that Bill dies, unless another MP picks it up in the next Parliamentary term.

When this Bill was introduced, Health Minister Jonathan Coleman said the Second Reading would likely be June or July 2017. The third and final Reading would be early 2018 and then the Bill would become law.

However, because of the efforts you all have made in opposing this Bill, the Second Reading never happened. We don’t know exactly why this is, but guess it was because the Select Committee members could not agree, and the MPs saw it as an increasingly unpopular stance – which they weren’t prepared to take in an election year.


Other international news Click here:    and scroll past items dupicating those above.

Other International News


Fluoride Conference included English and Irish contributions

 New legislation contains hidden threat Chapel Hill, Carrboro NC Rally outside Town Hall to protest against the fluoride in Orange County’s water.

Harrison AR ..The water providerworking to get the requirement to add fluoride removed from Arkansas law due to the health concerns and the added cost.

Ocanto Falls, Wis. City council voted 4-2 this month and now fluoride is no longer being added to the water supply.

Potsdam, New Yorkresearching whether to continue fluoridating , that one trustee says “eats windows.”


Moncton New Brunswic  Despite pleas from dentists to restore fluoride at least one city councillor says he’ll vote against it.


A damning critique of the government’s National Health and Medical Research Council’s (NHMRC) 2017 “sham” review of water fluoridation


5,000 people in Jajpur district have been suffering from the toxic effects of fluoride-mixed water for the last 70 years.