The benefits of fluoride in drinking water are indisputable and can benefit everyone, says a public health physician, including for low-income people who may have trouble accessing a dentist for cavities.
“It’s been estimated that for $1 spent fluoridating water in a community, there is a cost savings. That is a benefit to you … . It enriches everybody,” said Dr. Olanrewaju Medu. “I would encourage the City of Moose Jaw to continue with fluoridation.”
Fluorine is a naturally occurring, widely distributed Earth element and is a natural component of the Earth’s crust and soil, Medu explained. Small amounts of the mineral are present in water, air, plants and animals.
“The use of fluorides in drinking water ranks as one of the great public health interventions of the past century,” he said. It has reduced dental cavities and is effective and cost-efficient. Many professional health groups in Saskatchewan have endorsed its use in municipal water systems.
Medu spoke to city council during its 2020 budget meeting about the effects of fluoride in drinking water, after council expressed uncertainty about the need to re-start the fluoridation program at the Buffalo Pound Water Treatment Plant and spend more than $1.2 million to install new fluoridation equipment.
Council later voted 6-1 to restart the fluoridation program, with Coun. Scott McMann opposed.
Presentation
Medu was unable to say why the City of Regina did not fluoridate its water since he had lived in Saskatchewan for only a short time. However, he pointed out a study in 2017 showed dental cavities in Calgary increased when that city stopped fluoridating its water.
The idea that fluoride can be a neurotoxin and have negative effects on the brain came from a particular study that looked at the intellectual IQ levels of infants, especially formula-fed babies, Medu told Coun. Chris Warren. However, that fear is unfounded based on the evidence.
First, this was a cohort study, which is not the best option to demonstrate casual evidence since such studies are subject to potential confounding variables and biased recall issues, said Medu. Confounding variables are factors other than fluoride exposure that could contribute to the result but were unaccounted for or unmeasured.
Second, one of the central planks of the authors’ assertion about fluoride levels in infants used an approach that cannot be considered a valid measure for fluoride intake in babies, he continued.
The assessment of infant fluoride exposure also relied on the measurement of the mineral at the water treatment plants, which would provide elevated levels since fluoride levels at the source are higher than at the tap, said Medu. Measuring fluoride levels at the tap would be a better option.
“The concept of causation relies on the specificity of the association,” he continued. This means an outcome should be linked directly to the exposure or cause for it to be considered responsible. In this study, the authors were unable to demonstrate that the cause of the lower IQ measures was due to fluoride levels in tap water.
“There (are) a myriad of causes that may be responsible for these differences that (were) not fully elucidated,” he added.
An article council received about fluoride suggested the mineral could attract lead out of underground pipes and carry lead through the system, said Warren. He wondered if that was true.
That study came from North Carolina, where the fluoride levels were two milligrams per litre (mg/l), or 20 parts per million, which is eight times the maximum allowed levels, said Medu. In Canada, the acceptable level is 0.7 mg/l, or seven parts per million, which shouldn’t have any harmful or deleterious effects.
Council then voted to receive and file Medu’s report.
The first regular council meeting of the new year is Monday, Jan. 13, 2020.
