By Richard Hudon | FluorideFreeCanada.ca

Most fluoridation messaging from some government and medical agencies, businesses, and all the dental bureaucracies starts with: “Fluoride is a natural mineral.” Then they pull a bait-and-switch. These groups are commonly characterized as fluoridation proponents.

Question: Which fluoride? Sodium fluoride, magnesium fluoride, or any other compound of the fluorine atom?

Do proponents not know that the fluoride being used is a raw hydrofluorosilicic acid, a chemical liquid produced from the wet-scrubber liquor of the phosphate fertilizer industries that is riddled with heavy metals and toxic chemicals?

Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) for the fluoridation chemical obtained from suppliers by members of Fluoride Free Canada (FFC) clearly indicate this fact.

Proponents claim that the amount dripped into tap water is so small that it cannot have adverse health effects when confronted with these facts. And, if the amount is so small, how can it prevent tooth decay?

Also, are lead, arsenic, cadmium, aluminum, radioactive elements, and other toxic substances in that toxic hydrofluorosilicic acid, as well as those present due to phosphate extraction and processing, not harmful to us?

Proponents often argue that the fluoridation chemical, at current exposure levels, has no significant adverse systemic health effects, while simultaneously acknowledging that it produces a biological effect on teeth.

Fluorine is the most electronegative element in chemistry and readily forms compounds with almost all other elements. Is it not, therefore, reasonable to conclude that fluoride exposure will also influence other aspects of human biochemistry beyond dental tissues?

Fluoridation cessation advocates maintain that these broader biochemical and toxicological questions deserve open scientific debate and continued investigation, yet proponents often limit or avoid meaningful public debate with them.

Proponents never specify which fluoride, then pull the old familiar bait-and-switch, and begin discussing their favourite perceived benefits of drinking fluoridated tap water for treating and preventing tooth decay: it’s all smoke and mirrors.

Proponents claim that, by “adjusting” the level of fluoride in tap water, thousands of children will not suffer critical tooth decay problems. Yet, even in fluoridated communities, tooth decay remains more prevalent than in non-fluoridated communities.

Countries that do not fluoridate actually have better dental health than those that do fluoridate.

Only 10 countries provide their population with fluoridated water on a population-wide basis, with the U.S. being the greatest contributor, although that has started to change for the better.

Most residents of non-fluoridated countries have better dental health than most North Americans.

In the European Union, only two countries fluoridate their water supply: they account for less than 3% of the population of continental Europe. The other 97% have better dental health than most people in North America.

Proponents discount socio-economic factors: the wealthy, who have access to better health and dental care (aka oral health), have less tooth decay.

Proponents claim that those in lower socio-economic settings benefit most from fluoridation because of limited access to health care. Why? Because they cannot afford dental care, and also have poor nutrition and inadequate overall lifestyles. Are they fluoride-deficient?

Proponents do not discuss the overriding factors of diet, nutrition, and the many preventive lifestyle habits that can reduce tooth decay.

Proponents never discuss the role of sugar consumption as a key factor in tooth decay, yet it is the strongest one.

It’s always fluoride, fluoride, fluoride, claimed to be the panacea it is not. Yet they never provide legitimate proof of their claims.

How much tap water do we drink? Less than 1% of tap water is used for drinking. The rest is used for washing ourselves, dishes, floors, and windows, flushing toilets, watering lawns, and more, in addition to heavy tap water use in restaurants, hotels, and other commercial and industrial settings. Do these other uses have teeth that need fluoride treatment?

What a waste of tax dollars since 99% goes down the drain!

Proponents advance decisions in favour of fluoridation through emotional appeals about children suffering from extreme tooth decay and propose fluoridation as the ideal solution for treating and preventing tooth decay outside their medical practice.

They also influence decisions in favour of fluoridation by stating biased financial fallacies about the economics of fluoridation versus dental treatments.

They lobby politicians and decision-makers with pseudo-scientific statements, promising to provide research they never deliver because there is none.

So, are they lying by omission?

If fluoridation really works as claimed, then tooth decay should have been eliminated by now, over 70 years after it was implemented as a solution.

Proponents claim that over 90 organizations support fluoridation as a tooth decay remedy without ever producing any evidence to that effect.

I should know. I have requested that evidence via FOI (Freedom of Information) requests under MFIPPA—the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The result is inevitably a bureaucratic reply: “…no records responsive to your request,” or similar statements—in other words, they have no such evidence. Sometimes that answer is received only after appealing to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) in Ontario.

Do you know that Health Canada neither regulates nor approves fluoridation, yet nonetheless recommends that decision-makers implement it?

Health Canada does not assign a DIN (Drug Identification Number) or NPN (Natural Product Number) to the fluoride chemical used in fluoridation, despite claims of its therapeutic purpose—tooth decay treatment and prevention—which is a therapeutic use: fluoride chemicals are therefore drugs, by the claims being made about it being safe and effective for the prevention and treatment of tooth decay: a drug claim!

An FOI requesting proof that Health Canada regulates and approves of fluoridation has yielded the same response as organizational support for fluoridation.

A major problem with fluoridation is that fluoridated water causes fluorine to attack the natural tooth chemistry of hydroxyapatite, changing it to fluorapatite. Did nature make a mistake?

One more thing: fluorapatite is more brittle than hydroxyapatite, making teeth more subject to cracking and breaking.

Do we see more money for dentistry?

Another thing: proponents claim that acid produced by some mouth bacteria is responsible for tooth decay, yet here we are introducing more acid to combat tooth decay by ostensibly killing those nasty bacteria, which release toxins when killed. Isn’t that an untenable dichotomy?

The real cause of tooth decay is eating too much sugar and processed foods sweetened with sugar in all its forms (glucose-fructose, aka, high-fructose corn syrup, hydrolyzed starch, malt, juice concentrate, honey, molasses, maltodextrin, etc.), not to mention eating nutrient-poor “junk” food and fast food.

Lobbying, marketing, and emotional appeals trump logic and science in this continued dystopian push to fluoridate tap water that is anything but safe and effective.

There is now sufficient evidence showing the neurotoxic and other adverse health effects of ingesting fluoridated water.

1. Morteza Bashash et al.—2017, 2018;
2. Rivka Green et al.—2019;
3. Christine Till et al.—2020;
4. Riddell/Till et al.—2019;
5. NTP (National Toxicology Program) report—2024.

Sadly, these and others from South America, India, and China are maligned and ignored by proponents, revealing their invincible ignorance.

Systematic reviews of fluoridation, such as the following, have all determined that fluoridation has little to no impact on reducing tooth decay, refuting claims of 25% reductions in tooth decay in fluoridated populations.

1. The 2015 Cochrane review,
2. The CATFISH 2022 review,
3. The 2000 York Review,
4. New Zealand’s 2024 Evidence Review, and
5. The U.S. National Toxicology Program’s 2024 monograph on neurotoxicity

Recent toxicological research by world-renowned toxicologists on the neurotoxic effects of fluoride in utero and early childhood has positively implicated fluoridation in lowering children’s IQ.

Yet proponents accuse these researchers of bias and of conducting faulty research.

The question, then, is whether Canadians should accept:

• a 1% possible improvement in tooth decay and adverse health effects over a lifetime, or
• fluoride-free water that has no adverse fluoride health effects.

If you wish to help Fluoride Free Canada end this unethical practice, please visit fluoridefreecanada.ca or contact us at info@fluoridefreecanada.ca.