SCIENCE
WATCH Newsletter: Fluoridated Water
& Infant Formula
DIRECTORY:
FAN
>
Health
>
Newsletter
> Issue # 9
FAN SCIENCE-WATCH
May 6, 2004
Bulletin #9: Fluoridated Water & Infant Formula
by Michael Connett
Editor, FAN Science-Watch
The use of fluoridated water in infant formula is in the news.
Yesterday, Reuters published an article
on a study from the Journal of the American College
of Nutrition which found that consumption of beverages
(particularly infant
formulas reconstituted with fluoridated water) is associated
with an increase of dental
fluorosis in a baby’s primary teeth.
Reuters’ article comes on the heels of a press
release issued by the New York State Coalition Opposed
to Fluoridation (NYSCOF) addressing the same study.
While the authors of the study do not overtly challenge fluoridation
policy, they do tip-toe into interesting terrain: namely, the
potential need to restrict the use of fluoridated water in infant
formula.
To quote:
“Our results suggest that the fluoride contribution
of water used to reconstitute formulas increases risk of fluorosis
and could be an area for intervention.”
“Supporting long-term lactation could be an important
strategy to decrease fluorosis risk of primary teeth and early
developing permanent teeth.”
“Fluoride concentrations of both human milk (0.005–0.010
ppm) and cows’ milk (0.03–0.06 ppm) are low, and
consumption of either human milk or cows’ milk could
decrease fluorosis risk.”
Recent Controversy in Ireland
To put these findings in some context, it bears noting the
recent experience in Ireland.
When Ireland’s Minister of Health convened “The
Fluoridation Forum” to review Ireland’s mandatory
fluoridation policy, the Forum asked the Food and Safety Authority
of Ireland (FSAI) to conduct a risk assessment on fluoride.
In the FSAI’s initial risk assessment, they concluded:
"The scientific committee agrees that the precautionary
principle should apply and recommends that infant formula
should not be reconstituted with fluoridated tap water."
The FSAI’s Scientific Committee voted unanimously (with
9 out of 15 committee members present) to adopt this recommendation
at its October 3, 2001 meeting. Soon thereafter, on October
18, 2001, the FSAI’s Wayne Anderson presented the FSAI’s
conclusions to the Minister’s Fluoridation Forum.
However, in the week following Anderson’s presentation
to the Forum, some of the 6 FSAI’s Committee members who
were not present at the October 3rd vote, began calling for
a retraction and re-examination of the report’s conclusions.
Thus, despite the fact that the Committee vote adopting the
report was unanimous, the FSAI retracted the report, stating
that there were “some errors and that it didn't necessarily
take account of all of the science that was there.”
However, another potential reason why the FSAI may have retracted
the report, became quite evident at a July 10, 2003 parliamentary
hearing in Dublin.
At the hearing, it was revealed that Ireland’s leading
fluoridation promoter, Dr. Joe Mullen (who was also a member
of the Fluoridation Forum) believed that the FSAI’s initial
conclusion may have meant the end to water fluoridation in Ireland.
According to Dr. Mullen’s testimony:
“I think it would probably have meant a serious
re-evaluation, it probably would have meant the end of water
fluoridation and at the very least a serious re-appraisal
of it.”
Mullen’s appraisal was later seconded by Dr. Wayne Anderson
of the FSAI, under questioning from the parliamentary committee
members. Here is the exchange:
John Gormley (Panel Member): "Do you
not accept that if that report, the original report, had been
accepted that that was the end of water fluoridation in Ireland?"
Wayne Anderson (FSAI): "I don't actually
know the full details of how that would have effected it.
I think we would be speculating. But I would have suggested,
rather like Joe (Mullen), that it would have had a serious
effect on it. There is no doubt about that. And that's why
it was very important we got the report correct scientifically."
John Gormley: "It is very convenient."
Chair of Committee: "Quite a turn-around."
In the Irish Times article
discussing this hearing, panel member John Gormley (the Chair
of Ireland’s Green Party and former Mayor of Dublin) was
quoted as saying:
"This is clearly a pivotal matter, as even those
who came before the committee admitted that had the initial
report been approved, it would have meant the end of water
fluoridation in Ireland," he said.
Implications for Water Fluoridation
As can be gleaned from this controversy, the recommendation
that fluoridated water not be used for infant formula, has potent
implications on the policy of mass water fluoridation.
Imagine, for instance, the logistics involved for governments
to ensure that parents in fluoridated communities not use fluoridated
water in infant formula. How will parents access the fluoride-free
water? Who will bear the cost of purchasing it? How will parents
react to the hassle and cost of not being able to use their
own tap water?
Adding to the importance of not using fluoridated water in
infant formula is another recent study, from the Journal
of Human Lactation, which reports that breast-feeding is
– as would be expected - protective against dental fluorosis
(see abstract below).
Based on these findings, the authors of the study conclude
that:
“dental professionals should support efforts
to increase the rate and duration of breastfeeding.”
Translated this reads: Dental professionals should discourage
parents from adding fluoridated tap water to their infant’s
formula.
Simple advice, but if you follow its logical implications,
a major liability to the continuation of the anachronistic fluoridation
program.
----------------------------------
Journal of Human Lactation 2003 Nov;19(4):386-90.
Breastfeeding is protective against dental fluorosis
in a nonfluoridated rural area of Ontario, Canada.
Brothwell D, Limeback H.
Community Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
To determine the relationship between early infant feeding and
dental fluorosis in a non-fluoridated area, 1367 children were
examined for fluorosis and given a water sample vial and questionnaire.
752 families responded (55%). Breastfeeding was reported by
69% of respondents, with 53.6% breastfed < 6 months, 35.3%
6-12 months, and 11.1% > 1 year. Formula feeding was reported
by 84% of respondents, with 60.3% and 39.7% formula fed for
< 1 year and > 1 year, respectively. Fluorosis prevalence
was 23.3% and was present in 27.2%, 19.6% and 13.8% of children
breastfed for < 6 months, 6-12 months, and > 12 months,
respectively (P < .05). About 87% of formula fed children
had tap water added to the bottle. Breastfeeding for
> 6 months may protect children from developing fluorosis
in the permanent incisors. This study suggests that dental
professionals should support efforts to increase the rate and
duration of breastfeeding.