The American Dental Association and the Centres for Disease Control warn not to use fluoridated water for infant milk formula.

The American Dental Association released a recommendation in November 2006 that infant formula NOT be made with fluoridated water. The ADA states:

After this, the US Public Health Service's Centre for Disease Control also issued an advisory for parents not to use fluoridated water for making up infant formula. See http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm

Why is this important?

This is extremely important because:

• These two organizations have been the world’s staunchest supporters of fluoridation and are now warning that it is not safe for babies
• Evidence has now proved categorically that fluoride exposure during the first year of life increases the risk of dental fluorosis far more than at any other age.
• It is internationally accepted that dental fluorosis is the first outward sign of fluoride poisoning.
• Fluoride is now being linked to lowered IQ and attention deficit disorder
• The risk of dental fluorosis is as much to the permanent teeth as it is to the "baby teeth";.
• Fluorosis weakens the teeth and causes decay.
• Fluorosis can require ongoing expensive dental treatment - that you have to pay for
• Fluorosis has psychological effects causing self-consciousness resulting in reduced social interaction and employment success.

What does this mean for parents in New Zealand?

Tap water in New Zealand that is fluoridated (see Is My Town Fluoridated?) should not be used to make up infant formula for babies bottles.  Fluoride cannot be boiled out so parents who are living in fluoridated areas need to either find a nearby unfluoridated water supply, where they can fill up bottles to take home, or buy bottled water that can be used to make up infant formula. 

What does the New Zealand Ministry of Health say?

The NZ Ministry of Health is trying to deny the application of the US Authorities’ warning on the following grounds:

1. That the maximum level of fluoride allowed in infant formula was set with fluoridation in mind. 
2. That the warning does not apply to New Zealand as the maximum contaminant level (MCL) in the US is higher than fluoridated water in New Zealand. 
3. That, because they believe fluoride is good for teeth, people should not be told of the adverse health effects as it may put them off fluoridated water.  
4. That they believe the warning is only based on “the theoretical possibility that an infant fed exclusively on infant formula reconstituted with fluoride water can exceed the recommended upper levels of intake…”  [1] 
5. That “whether an infant exceeds the upper limit….will also be determined by a range of other factors including the period the child is breast fed, the body size and total volume of formula consumed, and other food and drinks consumed”  [1].  

Why the New Zealand Ministry of Health is Wrong

1. Information obtained under the Official Information Act demonstrates that this is not true: the level was set on zero-fluoride water. Moreover, not only does the MoH not provide evidence that the levels in infant formula allowed in the USA are any different from NZ (in fact the US levels are lower than NZ), but this is irrelevant since the overdosing of fluoride is caused by the fluoridated water alone, without considering the fluoride level in the formula. In fact the Ministry had not even looked at this information before making its false statement to the public! Click here for further analysis
2. The MCL in the US is 4ppm as some areas such as Colarado have naturally high levels of fluoride. However, the warning from both the ADA and the CDC state that water with fluoride of 0.7 mg/lt and above should not be used for infant formula New Zealand water is fluoridated at 0.85 mg/lt. Obviously, this is above the amount recommended by the US authorities so the warning does apply to New Zealand. To state otherwise is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.
3. To not want to tell parents of this risk because they believe the risk is worth it, is an extremely arrogant view.  For all other medications doctors are required to inform their patients of all known side effects.
4. By saying that the US authorities warning is only a "theory” implies that they do not necessarily agree. This is rather strange considering the NZ MOH has for the past fifty years based their entire belief of fluoridation on the theories promoted by these very same authorities.  Regardless of whether it is a theory, the fact of the matter is that at least 30% of children in fluoridated areas have some form of dental fluorosis.  To ignore, and even attempt to dispute, the recent findings that the biggest risk factor for dental fluorosis is babies being bottle fed fluoridated water, gives the impression that the MOH are more concerned with protecting their own position rather than protecting the babies of New Zealand. See dental fluorosis calculations  to see the levels of fluoride being consumed by babies and the known levels that cause dental fluorosis.  Babies being bottle fed fluoridated water at 6 months old are actually likely to develop fluorosis, as is borne out by the levels of fluorosis in children.
5. To say that a baby may be injesting fluoride from other sources and their size etc would have to be taken into account sounds as if they are challenging people to prove it.  It's as if they won't change their stance until fluoridation is proven beyond all reasonable doubt to cause harm.  This is meant to be the other way around - the MOH need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it is safe.  It's also another strange statement for the MOH to be making when people have been telling them for the past fifty years that this is one of the reasons why adding a medication to a public water supply, when there is no way of controlling how much every person is consuming, is totally ridiculous.

1. letter from Dr Robin Whyman, MOH 27/06/2007