In 1997 the US Food and Drug Administration required toothpaste to carry the warning: "Use only a pea-sized amount and supervise child's brushing and rinsing [to minimize swallowing]." It warns parents to keep toothpaste "out of the reach of children under 6 years of age," adding that if the child swallows more than a pea-sized amount, "contact a Poison Control Center immediately."

The following are documented examples of the Ministry of Health and District Health Boards falsely citing research and reports as supporting their position, when they do not support it, and often refute it. For the millions of dollars paid to these organisations, we believe the NZ taxpayer deserves better than to be lied to in support of a political, yet unscientific, position.

The MoH relies on the following reports as demonstrating the safety of fluoridation:

1. PHC 1994. This study only examined hip fracture, cancer, and dental fluorosis. It principally relied on other reports, and conducted no systematic review of research. It scanned the main medical databases for studies, yet acknowledged that these were unlikely to carry such research.
2. The York Review 2000. This Review in fact found no proof of safety, as confirmed by Dr Trevor Sheldon, Chairman of the Review Board, in 2001 and twice again since. Moreover, its terms of reference prevented it from examining clinical evidence of adverse health effects, so it was impossible for this review to prove harm. Dr Sheldon’s official statement as laid before the House of Lords states unequivocally that pro-fluoridation bodies such as the UK Government, and the British Medical and Dental Associations, have deliberately lied about the Report’s findings.
3. The ESR Review 2000. Although its terms of reference were to examine all studies since 1994, it decided to fail to meet these, and examined only epidemiological studies, not clinical studies, looked only at dental fluorosis, cancer, and hip fracture, searched only the same medical databases the PHC had identified in 1994 as unlikely to list the studies in question, and examined only 14 studies, ignoring the most groundbreaking studies.

In claiming that fluoridation helps adults as well as children the MoH cites the following (OIA 13 December 2000):

1. Burt, Ismail and Eckland, 1986, "Root caries in an optimally fluoridated and a high-fluoride community" Journal of Dental Research, Vol 65, 1154-1158. This research compared communities with 0.7 ppm with communities with dangerously high fluoride: 3.5 ppm: it did not look at low fluoride communities. As we know from Arends’ study in 1989, and others since, 1.5- 2ppm or higher is enough for topical benefit. So this study falls into the same error as the original proponents 50 years earlier. It is scientifically invalid to simply extrapolate a straight line back to low fluoride levels with this knowledge: the study proves nothing.
2. Hunt Eldridge and Beck, Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 1989. The report states "information on other sources of fluoride, such as fluoride toothpastes and mouthrinses, was not collected. Thus it is possible that the differences in caries incidence were due to other sources of fluoride." This study further acknowledged that the number of subjects was too small and the results were not statistically significant, except one. That conclusion was that adults received no benefit from 30 years of continuous fluoridation. (Specifically the fluoridated and non-fluoridated subjects had the same levels of decay at the beginning of the study {after 40 years of high fluoride exposure in some instances}). With more than 30 years exposure, it concluded that there was on average ½ a cavity less in the fluoridated communities. It does not explain any mechanism by which such a strange phenomenon could occur. Further, in 1989 it was still believed that fluoride’s effect was systemic. We now know that it works topically, by remineralising enamel as it begins to form caries lesions, reversing the condition and preventing development of permanent decay. This is dependent upon the concentration of fluoride at the tooth surface at the time of decay onset. How 30 years of systemic intake could affect this has not been demonstrated. It was only during 1989 that it was shown that 1ppm was insufficient to produce this effect. In fact the study itself states that its results "indicates that the topical effect of currently consumed fluoridated water was not sufficient by itself to significantly reduce caries." The biggest question is "why would anyone take a known poison so that after 30 or 40 years they may have a 50/50 chance of saving one filling?!"
3. W.M. Thompson 1997: publication for the National Advisory Committee on
   Health and Disability entitled "Preventive Dental Strategies for Older Populations" (OIA 27 March 2003) Thompson simply quotes the first study: Burt, Ismail and Eckland, 1986.

In support of its claim that fluoridation does not cause cancer, the MoH cites Kinlen and Doll, 1977 (OIA 13 Dec 2000). Kinlen admitted under oath in court in 1978 that the study was based on false data, and the correct data showed an increase in cancer.

In support of its claim that silicofluorides dissociate completely into free fluoride ions, the Auckland DHB (which undoubtedly relies on the Ministry) cites Crosby, Journal of Applied Chemistry, 1969. In fact this study makes no such claim, and one of the two analytical methods showed only an 87% dissociation; the other showed 95%. Also, the study was conducted on water solutions (distilled and tap water) but not on the acidic conditions of the stomach, which would be expected to push the dissociation equilibrium of a weak electrolyte such as silicofluoride towards the undissociated form. It also quotes Stumm and Morgan 1996, and Holden, 1970, without citing page numbers. Only one author cites scientific research, and no reference to this question has been found in that work.

The MoH claims that about 40 countries fluoridate their water, but when asked for details they admit they have no information. They rely, in fact, on a web site http://www.crha-health.ab.ca/pophlth/hp/fluoride/hpcountr.htm. (Auckland DHB OIA response 6 August 2002). That site does not identify what percentage of the populations are allegedly fluoridated. It lists Switzerland as a "fluoridated" country. In fact only the town of Basel was ever fluoridated, on an experimental basis. Basel discontinued fluoridation in 2003 citing no evidence of benefit after 41 years. It cites Israel, yet Israel, under US pressure, only passed a law enabling fluoridation in 2002. The Supreme Court stood down this Act as unconstitutional in 2003. As an aside, it also lists such countries as Guatemala. In deciding whether to rely on the scientific expertise available to the governments of Germany, France, and Scandinavia, for example, or that of Guatemala, my money wouldn’t be on Guatemala!