As we head towards the parliamentary consideration of new legislation on fluoridation in New Zealand the anti-fluoride groups are building a campaign to oppose the transfer of responsibilities from local councils to District Health Boards.
So, their Facebook pages are promoting myths that fluoridation is dangerous to health – and we expect this to intensify as parliament moves into its Health Committee hearings on the bill.
Also expect that the local anti-fluoridation groups, and their backers, will bring out tame “experts” to make presentations to the parliamentary Health Committee and to public meetings.
Has Connett lost his effectiveness in New Zealand campaigns?
Maybe (once again) Paul Connett or Bill Hirzy who are paid propagandists from the US Fluoride Action Network. An activist group financed by the US “natural”/alternative health industry. But perhaps these two are “old hat.” Connett has been making regular visits to Australia and New Zealand during the Southern Hemisphere summers for some time now and the locals have got a bit tired of him. Bill Hirzy accompanied him on last years summer vacation and really didn’t contribute much to the campaign. Thames overwhelmingly supported fluoridation in their referendum last year (see Thames voters decisively support fluoridation) – despite the highly publicised opposition by Connett and Hirzy).
A possible new anti-fluoride “expert?”
Perhaps local activists recognise this because they are floating ideas of bringing out a new “expert” – Dr A. K. Susheela. She might also have more credibility than either Hirzy or Connett – because, unlike them, she has actually published scientific papers on fluoride. In fact, she is the executive director of India’s Fluorosis Research and Rural Development Foundation – a small non-government organisation based in Delhi. The purpose of the foundation is to encourage awareness of fluorosis in both medical and local Indian communities to curb the spread of this crippling skeletal disease in India.
Susheela has also been doing the circuit of anti-fluoride campaign meetings in North America (see, for example, ‘Fluoride is a deadly poison’ Peel’s water fluoridation committee has heard). As the poster above indicates, she is being promoted as an expert on fluoride toxicity and fluorosis. But please note – this does not make her an expert on community water fluoridation. All her work has concentrated on areas of endemic fluorosis – where dietary intake of fluoride is much higher than in fluoridated areas of New Zealand.
In a 1999 article for UNICEF (Susheela, A. K., Mudgal, A. (1999). Fluoride in water : An overview. UNICEF WATERfront, (13), 11–13.) she admitted:
“According to 1984 guidelines published by the World Health Organization (WHO), fluoride is an effective agent for preventing dental caries if taken in ‘optimal’ amounts.”
She went on to described the WHO recommendations for fluoride in drinking water:
“Water is a major source of fluoride intake. The 1984 WHO guidelines suggested that in areas with a warm climate, the optimal fluoride concentration in drinking water should remain below 1 mg/litre (1ppm or part per million), while in cooler climates it could go up to 1.2 mg/litre. The differentiation derives from the fact that we perspire more in hot weather and consequently drink more water. The guideline value (permissible upper limit) for fluoride in drinking water was set at 1.5 mg/litre, considered a threshold where the benefit of resistance to tooth decay did not yet shade into a significant risk of dental fluorosis.”
For comparison, the target fluoride concentration for community fluoridation in New Zealand is about 0.7 – 1.0 mg/litre. The natural levels of fluoride in New Zealand’s drinking water are even lower. There is no significant risk of skeletal or dental fluorosis of concern due to CWF, or natural levels of fluoride, in New Zealand.
Dr Susheela has no expertise in the area of community water fluoridation – or areas of the world where drinking water fluoride levels are similarly very low. Perhaps this is why she made the mistake of including Australia and New Zealand among countries where fluorosis is endemic in the above article which included the map below.
Fluoride Freee NZ disingenuously used this mistake to claim that New Zealand suffered from endemic fluorosis – and cited UNICEF in support. I would hope that Dr Susheeela, if she does come to New Zealand to campaign against the upcoming fluoridation bill, publicly admits and apologises for this mistake.
We are used to anti-fluoride campaigners misrepresenting the scientific research on the efficacy and possible health effects of community water fluoridation. But we should also be wary of their claims derived from research in areas of endemic fluorosis where dietary intake of fluoride is much higher than in New Zealand. This includes studies on possible IQ effects and skeletal fluorosis.
The research may be respectable – but the findings are just not relevant to countries like New Zealand where the drinking water fluoride concentrations (in fluoridated and unfluoridated areas) is much lower.