User:JoJaCr/sandbox/Fluoride exposure of pregnant women: effects on children's IQs

Fluoride exposure of pregnant women: effects on children’s IQs

A study published on Sept. 19, 2017, in Environmental Health Perspectives addressed the exposure of pregnant women to fluoride and its impact on their children’s intelligence.¹

The study found that higher prenatal fluoride exposure was associated with lower scores on intelligence tests in the children at ages 4 and 6-12 years.²

In short, higher fluoride levels in pregnant women correlated with lower IQ in their offspring.

A later addition to the study from the same team found the intelligence effects were detectable in the first three years of life.³

By the authors’ own admission, further study is required to validate their conclusions regarding potential adverse effects of fluoride.⁴ Nonetheless, it has again brought the spotlight to the debate on fluoridation, the addition of fluoride to public water supplies as a preventative treatment for tooth decay. The study has generated considerable comment from both the pro- and anti-fluoridation sides.

The study and resulting discussion are of further interest in the context of pending litigation in U.S. federal court on fluoride toxicity and its risk to humans. Several plaintiffs seek to have the U.S. government ban fluoridation of public drinking water supplies, based on its toxicity.⁵ Rulings on preliminary motions have cleared the way for an eight-day trial in federal court in Northern California. in August 2019.⁶

Fluoride toxicity and water fluoridation

“Fluoride” designates a compound of fluorine⁷ and typically a salt of hydrofluoric acid, such as sodium fluoride.⁸ Like many other compounds found in nature and everyday products, it is considered toxic in certain dosages. The question is what dosages may be beneficial or hazardous. Widespread public debate has occurred over this question since endorsement by the U.S. Public Health Service of fluoridation in 1950.⁹

Attention to “Bashash study”

Many other studies have examined the toxicity of fluoride,¹⁰ but the so-called “Bashash study” in Environmental Health Perspectives drew immediate attention from those on either side of the fluoridation debate.

The American Dental Association, long a champion of fluoridation as a “safe and effective” public health measure,¹¹ was quick to comment on the Bashash study, noting both strengths and weaknesses, and calling for additional research on “prenatal fluoride exposure and cognitive outcomes”.¹² The ADA reaffirmed its “recommendation that pregnant women drink fluoridated water”.

The Fluoride Action Network, a leader in the anti-fluoridation movement, was quick to exploit the implications of the new study. FAN posted a picture of a pregnant woman on its web page carousel with the heading, “The Most Important Fluoride-IQ Study to Date.”¹³ In an accompanying video, FAN Executive Director Paul Connett states, “This should spell the end to fluoridation worldwide.”¹⁴

Further from the political fray, journalistic sources weighed in with reports offering various assessments.

Newsweek called the study “a very well conducted study” that “raises serious concerns about fluoride supplementation in water”.¹⁵

The Canadian English language television network, CTV, ran a straightforward report, including an interview with Dr. Howard Hu of the University of Toronto, lead investigator in the study.¹⁶ Dr. Hu noted both the implications of the results and the limitations of the study. “We emphasize that this is just one study,” Dr. Hu said. “It’s a rigorous study but it’s just one study.”

The National Post and Montreal Gazette, both Canadian publications of the Post Media Network, ran the same lengthy article on the study, quoting both sides in the fluoridation safety issue and again highlighting comments from Dr. Hu.¹⁷

The Canadian government endorses fluoridation.¹⁸ As in the U.S., the issue is contentious in Canada, and despite government support, the percentage of the Canadian population receiving fluoridated water has declined in recent years, according to government statistics.¹⁹ Public Health Ontario, part of the provincial government,²⁰ provided a detailed review of the study, noting both strengths and limitations.²¹

U.S. Government funded the study

The study was funded by the U.S. Government, also a strong supporter of fluoridation of public water supplies.²² The study was supported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health; the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Institute of Public Health/Ministry of Health of Mexico.²³

The study was published in Environmental Health Perspectives, an online publisher of research and news with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Institutes of Health, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.²⁴

The Bashash study avoids any policy recommendations, other than further study of the areas concerned.⁴

References

1. https://www.ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp655/ Quote from "Objective" statement of the study, p. 097017-1. Retrieved 8/22/18.

2. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp655/ From “Conclusions” of the study at the start of the report, p. 097017-1. Retrieved 8/22/18.

3. https://oem.bmj.com/content/75/Suppl_1/A10.1 “Conclusions” section. Retrieved 8/22/18.

4. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp655/ From “Conclusion” section at end of the study, p. 097017-11. Retrieved 8/22/18.

5. https://www.reuters.com/article/epa-water/u-s-judge-says-groups-can-sue-epa-over-drinking-water-fluoridation-idUSL1N1OL2HX. Retrieved 8/22/18.

6 Case docket obtainable through PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records, login required].Civil Docket for Case #: 3:17-cv-02162-EMC, U.S District Court, California Northern District (San Francisco). Retrieved 8/21/18.

7. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fluoride. Retrieved 8/21/18.

8. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fluoride. Retrieved 8/21/18.

9. The Case Against Fluoride, by Connett, Beck, and Micklem (Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, Vt., 2010), Chapter 4, page 23.

10. The Case Against Fluoride, Appendix 1, p. 275: “Fluoride and the Brain”.

11. https://www.ada.org/en/public-programs/advocating-for-the-public/fluoride-and-fluoridation. Retrieved 8/21/18.

12. https://www.ada.org/~/media/ADA/Public%20Programs/Files/2017_NFAC_Comments_on_Bashash_Study_11-27-2017.pdf?la=en. Retrieved 8/21/18.

13. www.fluoridealert.org. Retrieved 8/21/18.

14. http://fluoridealert.org/articles/fluoride-exposure-in-utero-linked-to-lower-iq-in-kids-new-study-says/. Retrieved 8/21/18.

15. https://www.newsweek.com/childrens-iq-could-be-lowered-drinking-tap-water-while-pregnant-667660. Retrieved 8/21/18.

16. https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/higher-levels-of-fluoride-in-urine-linked-to-lower-iq-scores-in-children-1.3595337. Retrieved 8/21/18.

17. https://nationalpost.com/health/researchers-urge-caution-over-study-linking-fluoride-exposure-in-pregnancy-to-lower-iqs-in-children. Retrieved 8/21/18.

18. https://www.canada.ca/en/services/health/publications/healthy-living/community-water-fluoridation-across-canada-2017.html#tb1. Retrieved 8/21/18.

19. https://www.canada.ca/en/services/health/publications/healthy-living/community-water-fluoridation-across-canada-2017.html#tb1. Retrieved 8/21/18.

20. https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/About/Pages/Our-History.aspx. Retrieved 8/21/18.

21. [https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/eRepository/Fluoride_IQ_Mexico_Article_Review_2017.pdf]. Retrieved 8/22/18.

22. https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/index.html. Retrieved 8/21/18.

23. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp655/ “Acknowledgments” section of the study. Retrieved 8/21/18.

24. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/journal-information/. Retrieved 8/21/18.

AUTHOR DISCLOSURE: I am "close to" this subject in the sense that I am active in my town of Rutland, Vt., in attempting to end fluoridation. I am also active with the Fluoride Action Network in the national/international effort to end fluoridation.

External links

• www.example.com