Battle Over Fluoride Warning Intensifies in New Hampshire

In 2006 the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Dental Association (ADA) finally admitted what dental researchers had been saying for many years. If powdered infant formula is prepared with fluoridated water infants are put at...

March 29, 2012 | Source: Natural News | by Doug Cragoe

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA’s Food Safety Resource Center page, Appetite For a Change page, and our New Hampshire page.
In 2006 the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Dental Association (ADA) finally admitted what dental researchers had been saying for many years. If powdered infant formula is prepared with fluoridated water infants are put at increased risk of a developmental disturbance called fluorosis. This causes disfigured teeth with white spots, streaks, and occasionally brown stains that can affect a child’s appearance and self esteem. Fluorosis can be expensive to fix, and no government program or dental insurance will pay for it. Fluorosis has been increasing in the U.S. to the point where half of American teenagers are affected to some degree. So to reduce this risk the CDC and ADA both recommended that parents consider the use of non-fluoridated water for infant formula preparation. Now legislators in New Hampshire are trying to inform parents about this risk, but are running into opposition from ADA-connected dentists.

Keeping quiet about the risk to infants After the CDC and ADA published their web pages about the risk they made no further effort to inform parents or pediatricians. They feared too much publicity about this might bring negative attention to fluoridation. They were right. Opponents of fluoridation spread the word about infants at risk and it became one of the key reasons many cities stopped fluoridation after 2006.

Despite efforts to downplay the risk, legislators in New Hampshire thought parents should be informed. A bill to require printed warnings on water bills was introduced. In committee hearings dentists said things like this would “scare people” and “make them think fluoride is dangerous.” Despite such statements, on March 15 the bill passed the assembly by a vote of 253 to 23. Now the bill moves on to the state senate.