EPA Files

DonateNow

 
National Research Council (2003-2006):
Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards

DIRECTORY: Health > EPA Fluoride Standards > NRC Review (2006)

NEW: Review of NRC Report by Dr. Robert Carton

Dr. Robert Carton, a former risk assessment scientist at the Environmental Protection Agency, reviews the strengths and limitations of the NRC's report. Read review

NEW: Interview with NRC Panel Member Dr. Kathleen Thiessen

Dr. Kathleen Thiessen discusses the relevance of the NRC report to water fluoridation in this interview with FAN. Read transcript of interview

LOOKING for a COPY of the NRC REPORT?

If you are a FAN member and wish to obtain a free copy of the NRC report, please email us. The report can also be purchased online at the NAS website.

NOTABLE QUOTES:

The report "should be a wake-up call."
- Dr. Robert Isaacson, NRC Panel Member.

“The thyroid changes do worry me. There are some things there that need to be explored. What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too long, really—and now we need to take a fresh look. In the scientific community, people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began. In the face of ignorance, controversy is rampant.”
- Dr. John Doull , NRC Panel Chair

“The difference between the levels of fluoride causing toxic effects and the levels added to water to prevent tooth decay is vanishingly small and deeply troubling.”
- Dr. J. William Hirzy, Vice President, Environmental Protection Agency's Headquarters Union, Washington DC.

"l personally feel that the NRC report is relevant to many aspects of the water fluoridation debate... [T]he report discusses the wide range of drinking water intake among members of the population, which means that groups with different fluoride concentrations in their drinking water may still have overlapping distributions of individual fluoride exposure. ln other words, the range of individual fluoride exposures at 1 mg/L will overlap the range of individual exposures at 2 mg/L or even 4 mg/L. Thus, even without consideration of differences in individual susceptibility to various effects, the margin of safety between 1 and 4 mg/L is very low."
- Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NRC Panel Member.

“The crucial message of this report is that the highest scientific authority in the US has determined that low levels of fluoride in drinking water may have serious adverse health effects."
- Dr. Paul Connett, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network.

"In my opinion, the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming and policy makers who avoid thoroughly reviewing recent data before introducing new fluoridation schemes do so at risk of future litigation."
- Dr. Hardy Limeback, NRC Panel Member.

REPORT's FINDINGS:

IMPLICATIONS for EPA FLUORIDE PESTICIDE REGULATIONS:

PRESS COVERAGE:

BACKGROUND:

On Wednesday, March 22, the National Research Council (NRC) relesed its report: "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards."

The NRC began working on the report in 2003 following a request by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review the latest research on fluoride toxicity and assess the adequacy, or lack thereof, of EPA's current safe drinking water standards for fluoride.

The EPA standard that NRC has reviewed is called the "Maximum Contminant Level Goal" (MCLG). The MCLG is the maximum concentration of fluoride that EPA considers safe for all subsets of the population, including the most vulnerable.

EPA's current MCLG for fluoride is 4 parts per million (ppm), or 4 milligrams fluoride per liter of water (mg/L). The standard was first established in 1985 amidst considerable controversy, as it was designed to only protect against crippling skeletal fluorosis (an extreme effect of fluoride) and not earlier effects such as dental fluorosis (a white, brown and black discoloration of teeth with pitting and cracking of the enamel).

As noted to EPA in 1983 by Dr. Stanley Wallach, a member of the Surgeon General's health committe on fluoride: "You would have to have rocks in your head, in my opinion, to allow your child much more than 2 ppm.

EPA's decision in 1985 to enact the 4 ppm MCLG was thus harshly criticized by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Headquarters Union of EPA scientists and professionals.

Current controversy over EPA's standard has been fueled, in part, by EPA's use of the standard in a recent decision to grant DOW AgroSciences approval to spray a new fluoride fumigant on a wide series of foods prepared in the US.

Thus, in addition to the implications for EPA's water standards, the NRC review will also have a strong bearing on EPA's tolerances for fluoride pesticides.

LINKS for FURTHER INFORMATION:

Background on EPA's Fluoride Standard Being Reviewed by NRC:

FAN's Submissions to NRC review committee (2003-2005)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 
 
Fluoride Action Network | 802-355-0999 | health@fluoridealert.org