NDA Journal Fall 2024

NDA Journal 18 Talking Points National Toxicology Program (NTP) Review of Fluoride Exposure, Neurodevelopmental, Cognitive Health Effects 2024 ADA Assessment: • The American Dental Association (ADA) has reviewed the NTP report and continues to support community water fluoridation to help prevent tooth decay. • As a science-based organization, the ADA welcomes reviews and additional research that adds to the body of knowledge on the safety and the effectiveness of water fluoridation. • The ADA agrees with NTP’s conclusion that there is no evidence of a causal relationship or biological mechanism to explain how fluoride affects cognitive development. • What is important to keep in mind is that the threshold level of possible harm (1.5ppm) is more than double the amount of fluoride typically found in fluoridated U.S. public water systems (0.7 ppm). What this Monograph Does Not Explain: • This Monograph and Addendum do not address whether the exposure to fluoride added to drinking water in some countries (i.e., fluoridation, at 0.7 mg/L in the United States and Canada) is associated with a measurable effect on IQ. • This Monograph does not provide a quantitative estimate of the number of IQ points lost for a given increase in fluoride exposure measures. • Another thing to keep in mind is that the review states that it does not weigh the benefits of water fluoridation. Adding a tiny amount of fluoride to drinking water helps prevent tooth decay, save on treatment costs and improve oral health of the community. Review of the Monograph’s Findings: • The report reviews scientific studies related to fluoride in high doses and its potential effect on brain development and function and was unable to provide any new or conclusive evidence about community water fluoridation practices for public health policy consideration. • The latest version of the NTP monograph does not find harm associated with the 0.7 parts fluoride per million parts water (the current recommended levels for optimally fluoridated water levels per the U.S. Public Health Service recommendations.) • The NTP acknowledges the weakness of the evidence when they cannot establish fluoride as the cause of affecting IQ. • A major failing is the omission of the meta-analysis, which undermines the report's robustness. Many of the concerns previously raised by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) panel—such as inconsistent application of risk of bias criteria, inadequate statistical rigor, and selective reporting of non-significant study results— persist in this version. Other Information: • Public health recommendations are based on a collective weight of scientific evidence. Studies prove water fluoridation continues to be effective in reducing tooth decay by more than twenty five percent in children and adults, even in an era with widespread availability of fluoride from other sources, such as fluoride toothpaste. • For nearly 80 years, people in the United States have benefitted from drinking water with fluoride, leading to better dental health. • The U.S. Public Health Services’ recommendation is that the amount of fluoride needed in water to help prevent tooth decay is 0.7 parts per million is supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and many other public health authorities. • The American Dental Association will continue to monitor scientific research regarding the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation. Editor’s Note: Fluoridation controversies are never ending gifts to dentistry, so far. In the Editor’s opinion, there is nothing new with regard to the report linking fluoride to potential cognitive compromise in humans. After all, everything is toxic, even lethal, in the right wrong dose, such as oxygen or water, which both can kill humans. Whereas in the right dose, oxygen and water sustain life as fluoride helps mitigate the ravages, including death, of the most common disease in the modern world, dental decay. The overriding question is whether or not our patients/citizens have given their consent for the Rx in question. The attached 2012 NDAJ 14:4 Editorial “Trust Me, It’s Good For You” addresses the responsibility for dentists to obtain reasonable consent before recommending fluoridation. In 2012, citizens who had not approved fluoridation in Clark County had it poured down their throats anyway, in part secondary to support of the forced fluoridation by some politically placed dentists. The same philosophy regarding consent holds for the Editor no matter what the Rx is, including the recent now proven unsafe and ineffective experimental Covid formulations. 0 Featured Article

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Nzc3ODM=