> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.foodconsumer.org/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Paul Connett explains why he continues to fight fluoridation
- URL: https://www.foodconsumer.org/fluoridation_1226121008/
- Published: 2012-12-26T10:47:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-22T15:59:34.000Z
- Description: Paul Connett's bulletin reports that San Jose's water district will add fluoride, blames California's 1995 mandatory fluoridation law for that loss and earlier ones in San Diego and the Metropolitan district, and urges readers to block similar mandates in other states.
- Author: Food Consumer
- Tags: Chemical, Food Safety, #vivvo-import

DECEMBER 26, 2012

**DECEMBER BULLETIN #22**

Dear Reader:

Before we get to my commentary and our updates here is some BAD NEWS:

[San Jose water district adding fluoride to water](http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=8grijFb2V%2FTkyJYsRM9B6qZ9pGFAdF%2Bl&ref=foodconsumer.org)

While many communities in the rest of the country - and even the world -are stopping fluoridation, California seems to be trapped in a time-warp. Largely because of the mandatory fluoridation bill that passed in California 1995, the fluoridation promoters seem to be able to march into the remaining large unfluoridated cities and force through fluoridation with little resistance from decision makers - once the proponents have secured a source of private funding (in actual fact, the funding used in some cases has not been private at all, but money which has originated from tobacco taxes). This happened a few years ago with the Metropolitan water district in Southern California, where 18 million people were fluoridated after only a brief public hearing, and then two years ago in San Diego (even though the citizens have voted twice not to be fluoridated and even a local law was introduced to that end) and now San Jose. Sadly, in terms of sheer numbers of people affected these losses dwarf the number of people who have been liberated from fluoridation elsewhere in the last few years. Until this mandatory bill is voted out we are going to have to continue watch these sad losses in California. The message for the rest of us is to do everything possible to prevent any further states introducing mandatory fluoridation bills - and do what we can to overturn the ones already in existence. They are the kiss of death for local democracy.

Before we get to my account of why I continue to fight fluoridation, here is an update on the petition to stop fluoridation and an update on our annual fundraiser.

**The** [**avaaz.org**](http://avaaz.org/?ref=foodconsumer.org) **petition to stop fluoridation**

The number of signers on this important petition has slowed down dramatically. As of Dec 25, only **2,684** people had signed. We need many more than that to make an impact.

**You can read the short petition and sign on quickly and easily** [**by clicking here.**](http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=eyNhPio4T%2FjhNKKzVtUofqZ9pGFAdF%2Bl&ref=foodconsumer.org)

Please do everything you can think of to get as many of your friends and colleagues to sign this important petition. It is a simple way of making visible the worldwide coalition of people opposed to fluoridation. The petition will continue to tick away indefinitely but we need to get the numbers ticking faster.

**Fundraiser update**

The mail on Christmas eve was quite dramatic. We received over $4000 in the mail, bringing our current total to **$52,663** from **284**donors. Thus we are over half way to our financial goal of $**100,000**but only a quarter of the way to our goal of **1000** donors, by midnight Dec 31\. Thank you all for joining the team to end fluoridation worldwide with your financial support.

If you would like to add your tax-deductible donation you can either use the donation feature on our website ([details](http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=XSqw5MHqkMyMyuwUVii5ZKZ9pGFAdF%2Bl&ref=foodconsumer.org)) or send a check made out to FAN to 104 Walnut Street, Binghamton, NY 13905\. Remember every donation of $10 or more will receive a free copy of our DVD *Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation.*

***A list of premiums can be found after the following article.***

**Why I continue to fight in this sometimes very depressing battle**

*By Paul Connett, PhD*

**My other issue**

While fluoridation dominates my activities in North America today, elsewhere I am more involved in promoting a Zero Waste strategy as an alternative to building polluting landfills and incinerators and as a stepping-stone to sustainability. Next year should see the publication of a book on this subject for which I am the lead author and editor. I very much enjoy my involvement with the waste issue. I feel we are making some very important progress on the zero waste strategy as stepping stone to sustainability and the feedback I get is very positive. The feedback fighting fluoridation is far less positive (although I get many kind comments from our supporters). As you all know opponents of fluoridation are constantly being unfairly attacked by those who have very little knowledge of the issue.

**My unexpected involvement in fluoridation**

John Lennon wrote in one of his songs (Beautiful Boy), "Life is what happens when you are busy making other plans." This sums up my life very well. Just when I thought I had found a balance between my teaching responsibilities at St. Lawrence University and my pro bono work on waste (an issue that over the last 27 years has taken me to 49 states in the U.S., seven provinces in Canada and 55 other countries) my wife asked me to get involved with fighting water fluoridation. That little diversion has lasted 16 years and culminated in 2010 in the publication of the book I co-authored with James Beck and Spedding Micklem *The Case Against Fluoride* (Chelsea Green, Oct 2010).

**Trying to raise the level of debate**

When we published our book I thought it would raise the level of the debate. Sadly it has not. The promoters have not produced a single scientific response to our text after two years, and yet still have the gall to call opponents of fluoridation fearmongers and pseudo-scientists. If we were either we would be very easy to defeat in public debate, but we are the ones who offer to debate and almost invariably proponents of fluoridation refuse. We know why. They have so much money to spend on PR that they can simply afford to ignore the book as well as every research paper that finds harm. This last year we have seen how PEW’s spin artists can simply spin harm into gold. In the same way both the ADA and the CDC’s Oral Health Division have largely ignored the groundbreaking and most comprehensive review of fluoride’s toxicity ever published, the [National Research Council report of 2006](http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=8zyIdE%2FbcIYluVYaNHXl7qZ9pGFAdF%2Bl&ref=foodconsumer.org).This report – and the treatment of the report - not only inspired us to write our book but it also inspired FAN to launch the Professionals’ statement calling for end to fluoridation worldwide, now signed by [over 4000 professionals.](http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Lz676F%2F4BQXUhxKYyfiKQaZ9pGFAdF%2Bl&ref=foodconsumer.org)

**Proponents use very little science**

But there is nothing new about proponents ignoring or denying the science on this issue. The promoters have ignored the demands of normal scientific debate for over 60 years. Instead, they don their white coats and chant over and over again that fluoridation is “safe and effective.” The number of times they use this phrase dwarfs by a large margin the number of references they provide to the scientific literature to substantiate their claims. In fact they say this phrase so many times at public meetings I sometimes think that they get a commission for each time they issue the words! A key question to ask any promoter: point me to the studies that have convinced you that we can safely ignore the 36 studies that have found an [association between lowered IQ ](http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=cpjVSrN8iVpswjjutb%2FlpaZ9pGFAdF%2Bl&ref=foodconsumer.org)and fairly modest exposure to fluoride?

Backing up the mantra

This mantra is backed up with two key strategies: 1) they insist that "authority" is on their side by using a long list of endorsements by professional bodies and government agencies and 2) they claim that opponents know nothing about "real science."

Even though neither strategy is science-based (most of the endorsing organizations have not done any research on the matter and are simply following their leader or their funder) both have worked well for fluoridation promoters over the years, for several reasons, which I will examine.

1) Journalists, by and large, do a very superficial job on this complex issue. Instead of taking the time and effort to get to grips with the details of some of the key issues, they find it both simpler and *safer* to defer to governmental and professional spokespersons. They do this even when the spokespersons are poorly informed on the basic science and are merely parroting what they have been told by others. Two notable exceptions to this superficial treatment were seen in 2012: an[excellent TV news special](http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=DHky%2BmllEkeHpJrRoWVKo6Z9pGFAdF%2Bl&ref=foodconsumer.org) out of Raleigh, NC and [a piece by Andrew Denney ](http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=q1a%2BJfQ7k4WLNBDtAxNNPqZ9pGFAdF%2Bl&ref=foodconsumer.org)in the *Columbia Tribune* (Missouri), Dec 16, 2012.

2) There is no judge and jury. Sadly judgment is left to newspaper editors who are often given only one side of the argument behind closed doors by a posse of white coats. The stridency of these editorials is breathtaking when they are accompanied by such little understanding of the science underpinning the arguments of those opposed to fluoridation. Those who could help by taking a more objective view of the science, like doctors and academic scientists, have shied away from the issue. It has become a taboo subject for them. However, this last year we have seen several more scientists getting involved around the world, with several writing key review articles questioning the safety, legality and ethics of the practice. We have discussed some of these in a previous bulletin.

3) When the issue gets very hot, governmental agencies usually hand-pick a pro-fluoridation panel to review the issue. The typical result is a rubber stamp for the government’s pro-fluoridation policy. Recent examples are the Fluoridation Forum in Ireland (2002); the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC, 2007) and Health Canada (2011). The NRC (2006) review was a notable exception, largely because the panel selected was balanced. But again, just like the use of endorsements, these dummy reviews give the illusion of “authority” to one side of the argument, which ironically has less science on its side!

**Creating a vacuum in rational public discourse**

The end result of 1) 2) and 3) above is that a vacuum has been created in rational public discourse on fluoridation. When approached otherwise intelligent TV producers of serious talk shows will not touch the issue. Figures like Rachel Maddow on the cable news and opinion network MSNBC will simply roll their eyes at the mention of the word fluoridation and sneer at any one who has the temerity to question the practice. She probably feels that she is safe doing this because her researchers have told her that “authorities” say this practice is OK and only crackpots oppose it. I have written to Ms Maddow twice on this issue, after she has made derogatory comments about opponents of fluoridation, and told her about our book. I offered to be on her program to present the other side. I got no reply to either communication. I can’t tell you how depressed this made me feel.

**Wild theories sometimes fill the vacuum**

Unfortunately, the end result of this vacuum in rational public discourse is to invite wilder theories to fill that vacuum as people try to find explanations for what appears to be a reckless and *irrational*government practice. After all there is very little solid scientific evidence that swallowing fluoride reduces tooth decay – even promoters admit that it works *topically* not *systemically* \- and there is growing evidence that it could be causing harm (for example the [36 studies that suggest it could be lowering IQ ](http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=vIl7acqGzlrbc9acboD9C6Z9pGFAdF%2Bl&ref=foodconsumer.org)) So why put it in the water of over 200 million Americans every day and why force it on people who don’t want it, when topical treatments are universally available in the form of fluoridated toothpaste? That is a hard thing to explain rationally. So it invites wild theories. Then when these are aired these further fuel the unwarranted prejudice that *all* fluoridation opponents are crazies. Thus it was very upsetting for me personally to find two excellent film makers produce a film of fine content (in which I actually appear) but who completely flush their and our efforts down the drain by calling it “The Great Culling.” Some people might believe that fluoridation is part of some sinister plan to dramatically reduce the world’s population, but I don’t, and nor do most others opposed to fluoridation on scientific and ethical grounds.

**The explanations for this irrational practice are more benign**

The “evil” we are up against is far more benign and human. It ranges from those who refuse to read the literature with an open mind because they genuinely believe that this practice is “safe and effective.” This includes most dentists and doctors who support fluoridation because that was all they were taught at dental or medical school, as well as those whose careers or research funding requires that they promote this practice rather than question its scientific underpinnings. But the greater problem, in my view, comes with those in leadership positions in public health bureaucracies who fear the loss of credibility in the public eye, if they admit that they wrong about this practice.

**The fear of losing credibility and the public’s trust**

Losing credibility is very frightening for those who are involved in public health. As far as public health measures are concerned the public’s trust is absolutely critical. I believe this is why many proponents of fluoridation are so keen to link those opposed to fluoridation with those opposed to vaccination, even though the vast majority of fluoridation opponents do not link these two issues. The creation of this straw dummy is most revealing. The proponents give the impression that they believe if they lose the former (fluoridation) it will threaten the latter (vaccination). If public health people truly believe this connection you can see why it generates such zealous and irrational defense of fluoridation and the vitriol that is lavished on opponents.

So while it is difficult to understand why government health agencies in Australia, Canada, Ireland, Israel, the UK and the US, are spending so much time and money on public relations outfits to protect and promote a practice which *at best* saves one permanent tooth surface in a child’s mouth (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990) it is far easier to understand this extraordinary effort if these high level health bureaucrats think they are protecting *by proxy* what they consider to be a hugely important health policy as well as a multi-billion dollar industry. Maybe this is just another case of accepting a little bit of evil, to justify a greater good, in their eyes. But whatever the reason, these public health bureaucrats have got themselves into the awkward position of putting more effort into protecting this practice than the health of the citizens they are paid to protect.

**The issue of compulsion**

There is, of course, one link between some of those who oppose fluoridation and some of those who oppose vaccination and that is the issue of compulsion. For many opponents of fluoridation the key issue is the violation of the individual’s right to informed consent to medication. Groups like the National Vaccination Information Center are not against all vaccination, but they are certainly against compulsory vaccination.

**Alienation** 

Every day I am confronted by the fact that the world doesn't really function on a rational level on these and many other issues. As a scientist concerned about health this is a painful realization. Who would have thought that there are health professionals out there who would lend their names to a practice that may be harming people, and may be reducing the intellectual potential of the whole population and may even be killing a few young men with osteosarcoma -without examining the issue carefully for themselves? Who would have thought that there are public health officers who confidently tell decision makers and the public that fluoridation is "safe and effective" simply because their employer (e.g. Health Canada; CDC; UK Ministry of Health; Federal and state health authorities in Australia, Israel and New Zealand) tells them to do so.

**I do not enjoy this**

This issue depresses me because I value scientific integrity and every day I see scientific integrity dragged through the mud by fluoridation promoters. I do not enjoy watching the feeble art of PR – of spin artists - attempting to negate genuine scientific findings. I do not enjoy hearing leading proponents telling the public that I am the leader of “misinformation” on this subject, especially when they are too gutless to actually debate me in public, to justify such absurd accusations. Nor do I enjoy being told that the only reason I am doing this is to sell our book, when making money has never been – and never will be - a driving force in my life. I am of course very interested in people*reading* our book, especially those who claim that opponents of fluoridation are pseudo-scientists.

**Losing respect**

I respect the right of proponents to their point of view. I am more than willing to debate that point of view given the opportunity, whether that occurs on radio, on TV, on the internet or in a formal public debate. However I find it very difficult – and very distasteful - to debate people who I don’t respect. I don’t respect those who don’t actually believe the nonsense they spout because they have a different agenda – like those who troll the blogs on the internet accusing every opponent of wearing a tin foil hat or worse. They make me physically sick with their ill-informed abuse. Here I smell the machinations of the American Council of Science and Health (ACSH), an industry funded front group that has never found a chemical it didn’t like! The ACSH has perfected the art of selling confusion. Here may be the hidden puppeteer behind the continued promotion and defense of fluoridation. It is here we might find the ultimate reason for the “irrational” continuance of this practice; namely the fear of liabilities that certain very large economic interests might experience should fluoridation fall.

**The ACSH and the fear of industrial liabilities**

The ACSH uses people like Michael Easley and Stephen Barrett to attack opponents in the most vitriolic terms imaginable. It is an open question which industries or interests ACSH is serving when it attacks any public figure who questions fluoridation, like NYC councilor Peter Vallone, Jr. It might be the same industries that were worried about liabilities of fluoride pollution impacting both agriculture and their own workers back in the 1940s and 50s when fluoridation was launched and so well documented by Chris Bryson in [*The Fluoride Deception* ](http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=o9%2Bc3%2B%2BPfEN3mtSftCzEXKZ9pGFAdF%2Bl&ref=foodconsumer.org)*.*It may be the sugar lobby that has always wanted to find a way to reduce tooth decay without seeing a reduction in sugar consumption (see Chapter 26, *The Case Against Fluoride*). What would they do if the “magic bullet” of fluoridation was taken away and they were left naked? It maybe the liabilities dental product manufacturers would face if fluoridation fell, because they use fluoride in so many products. One way or another, there is a lot of money here to finance lobbying efforts we know very little about. We do know that the ADA, with an annual budge of about $100 million, is able to support a team of about 20 staff supporting lobbying efforts in Washington, DC.

So while I would much prefer to fight this issue on a rational scientific level, which given an equally rational audience I think we could win easily, I find myself spending far too much time having to grapple with the PR spin, lobbying efforts, obfuscation, poorly informed but influential editorial commentary and even personal abuse of promoters who clearly have different agendas than either the truth or the health of citizens living in fluoridated countries.

**Why keep going?**

Several times this year I have had the strong urge to walk away from this battle. I keep going for several reasons. Firstly, I am working with some really wonderful people around the world – both citizens and scientists - who continue to stand up for the truth on this issue. Secondly, I realize that other people in history have fought even harder battles with far more pain and sacrifice and have finally won against the odds. I remember reading a statement from the South African author Alan Paton (*Cry the Beloved Country*) during the apartheid era, "The only way to endure man's inhumanity to man is to make one's own life an example of man's humanity to man." Those few words have inspired me ever since to fight this and other injustice issues.

I write this in the shadow of a massacre of very young children in Sandy Hook School in Newtown, Connecticut. This hideous act appalled every citizen who heard about it, but it also triggered an incredible response in kindness and caring from people far and wide. In a few days we saw the worst and best that our human natures can produce. Not just in the compassionate words of our leaders, but in the many wonderfully kind things that ordinary people did. It was as if everyone was saying “these were my children.”

In a less dramatic way it is the same with the fluoridation battle. This reckless practice supported by governments in the handful of countries that fluoridate is despicable to watch but it has also inspired a wonderful coalition of selfless and dedicated people - with few resources at their disposal - to fight back against this abuse of governmental power. They too are saying, “these are my children.” I feel privileged to have worked with this coalition in many communities and countries. I will continue to do so.

**This battle is not easy**

I remember telling my wife on the first day of my involvement (July 6, 1996), "This is going to be easy. When the village trustees hear what I have read this afternoon there is no way they are going to continue to fluoridate our water." I was wrong. It took us another seven and half years to get fluoride out of our water. This isn't easy at all.

I would like to insert here a comment made by our campaign director Stuart Cooper after he read a draft of this bulletin:

*Something I think we can learn from other groups that have fought passionately for a change in public policy that is based on sound science and ethics, is that if you keep the campaign ongoing and growing, then it's only a matter of time before you win. Think about medical marijuana, lead and MBTE in gasoline, BPA in infant products, thimerasol in vaccines and smoke-free campaigns, etc. Changing public opinion takes time--sometimes an entire generation--but with continued determination the outcome is usually positive. I feel like fluoridation is on that same track*. 

**Bracing for the long haul**

Even with the many successes that have been achieved since the successful vote against fluoridation in Waterloo, Ontario on Oct 25, 2010 (over 75 communities have stopped fluoridation since then) we still have to brace ourselves for the long haul. Even while we are supporting [a petition to get Kathleen Sebelius ](http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=i7e3SwXUG3lIUU9UIeq%2FtqZ9pGFAdF%2Bl&ref=foodconsumer.org), Director of the Department of Health Human Services, to help end this practice at the center of power, we have no illusions. **We still have to win this battle one open mind and one community at a time**. There are no short cuts. It takes a lot of work, a lot of time, and a lot of money. FAN has shown we are willing to put in the time and the work, but we can’t do it without your financial support.

This is why I hope that you will consider making a tax-deductible donation towards our efforts (donation and premium details below). Your donation will help ensure FAN remains sustainable and able to combat the pro-fluoride lobby. This is why we are engaged in the formidable task of raising $100,000 from 1000 donors by midnight December 31.

Meanwhile, a huge thank you to all of you who have donated so far and for all the other things you are doing in your community to end fluoridation.

Paul Connett

Director of FAN

If you would like to add your tax-deductible donation you can either use the donation feature on our website ([details](http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Kn0Vv7e%2FMD9LbGDk7dbx4KZ9pGFAdF%2Bl&ref=foodconsumer.org)) or send a check made out to FAN to 104 Walnut Street, Binghamton, NY 13905\. Remember every donation of $10 or more will receive a free copy of our DVD *Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation.*

**Premiums**

**A visual image of each premium can be accessed on** [**the FAN webpage** ](http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=qSsm03AQK6HgR6odZwixbNQG1atXMn7V&ref=foodconsumer.org)**. Please note the size of your donation ($21, 41, 51 etc) is a code for us to know which premium you want.**

- For a donation of $21 you can receive a FAN bumper sticker.
- For a donation of $41 you can receive the FAN coffee mug.
- For a donation of $45 you can receive your choice of one of the other books on fluoride (see updated list below)
- For a donation of $51 you can receive a FAN T-shirt. If you order a T-shirt please indicate in a separate email to[Ellen@fluoridealert.org ](mailto:Ellen@fluoridealert.org)[](mailto:Ellen@fluoridealert.org)what size you want (small, medium, large, or X-large).
- For a donation of $61 you can receive a FAN tote bag.
- For a donation of $101, you can receive a copy of *The Case Against Fluoride* signed by the lead author.

[**Please Donate Today**](http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=dUHsvGdh%2Foo6Cu3qOrA%2FrNQG1atXMn7V&ref=foodconsumer.org)

**List of books available for $45 donation**

After you have made your donation of $45 please send us an email to indicate which book you would like. As there are a limited number of these books available please have an alternative.

- *Fluoridation: The Secret War* by Geoffrey Smith (several copies donated by Philip Robertson from Geelong, Australia)
- *Fluoride Fatigue* by Dr. Bruce Spittle (several copies donated by Philip Robertson from Geelong, Australia)