2009 Alllance for naLural PealLh

"
!"#$%!&' )$$* '+)!,- +",.$#/,- '+-' /,&' $0+- ,$ %",
,$$,.%+',! ,$1/2 /2 )$$* '"%%3!4!2,'

!)'+5 67&87 9:;<=>?@?@A >B:CD E:C >A>?@
lor Lhe unlnlLlaLed, LlSA-oLherwlse known as Lhe Luropean lood SafeLy
AuLhorlLy-ls Lurope's hlghesL auLhorlLy on food safeLy. 1he Luropean lnsLlLuLlon
lurks ln Lhe hllls of norLhern lLaly, close Lo arma. Cenerally, when LlSA says a
foodsLuff ls safe, lL goes on free sale Lhrough all-now 27-Luropean Member
SLaLes. Conversely, when LlSA says someLhlng ls noL safe, lL geLs banned or severely
resLrlcLed.
So, leL's now look aL LlSA's oplnlon on sodlum monofluorophosphaLe (SM). 1hls
chemlcal ls essenLlally a dellvery sysLem for fluorlde, Lhe reduced halogen LhaL ls
wldely used ln oral hyglene producLs wlLh Lhe lnLenLlon of reduclng LooLh decay.
lluorldes are used for many oLher purposes, from dlssolvlng glass, Lo Lhe preparaLlon
of nuclear reacLor fuels. ?eL LlSA sLaLes ln lLs Cplnlon:

1be pteseot oploloo Jeols ooly wltb tbe sofety of soJlom moooflootopbospbote os o
sootce of flootlJe ooJ tbe bloovolloblllty of tbe flootlJe ftom tbls sootce. 1be sofety of
flootlJe ltself lo tetm of omooots tbot moy be coosomeJ, ls ootslJe tbe temlt of tbls
looel.

1he sclenLlflc loglc of LlSA avoldlng from lLs remlL (wlLh no reasons glven) Lhe safeLy
evaluaLlon of fluorlde lLself" beaLs us. ln Lhe lnLeresLs of consumer safeLy, lsn'L Lhls
Lhe whole polnL?

FG>D ?H H:I?C; ;:@:J=C:8:<G:H<G>D7K
SM ls Lhe mosL common sLuff added Lo LooLhpasLe and oLher 'oral hyglene'
producLs for Lhe purposes of reduclng LooLh decay. AdvocaLes of fluorlde belleve lL
helps re-mlnerallse LeeLh, maklng Lhem more reslsLanL Lo decay and helplng Lo
rebulld enamel damaged by aclds produced by 5tteptococcos motoos, Lhe maln
bacLerla responslble for LooLh decay. lluorlde also apparenLly lnLerferes wlLh Lhe
carbohydraLe meLabollsm of Lhese bugs, so reduclng Lhe amounLs of damaglng aclds
Lhey produce. 8uL, glven LhaL Lhese aclds are produced malnly when sugar (sucrose)
ls ln Lhe mouLh, why noL push Lhe publlc a llLLle harder Lo ouL sugar, raLher Lhan
fluorldaLlng klds and adulLs allke!
1he blL Lhe fluorlde supporLers don'L llke Lo admlL ls LhaL fluorlde also kllls
5tteptococcos and oLher bugs ln Lhe mouLh. AfLer all, lL's been used wldely as a pesL
conLrol agenL, wlLh lnsecLs and raLs belng amongsL lLs LargeLs. As you'll see laLer, we
Lhlnk lL's lmporLanL Lo undersLand LhaL LooLh decay ls an offlclal dlsease. WhaL's
more-aL leasL among Lhe pro-fluorlde ma[orlLy of Lhe denLal professlon who are
eager Lo geL fluorlde lnLo as many 'hyglene' producLs as lL can, lL's also regarded as a
Lransmlsslble dlsease.


2009 Alllance for naLural PealLh
#
1here's acLually a falr blL of sclenLlflc conLroversy as Lo [usL how well fluorlde,
especlally when added Lo Lhe drlnklng waLer supply, sLops Lhe raLe aL whlch our
LeeLh roL. 1here are, for example, suggesLlons of some serlous daLa manlpulaLlon ln a
number of Lhe blg sLudles carrled ouL [1], buL Lhls ls noL Lhe place for Lhls parLlcular
dlscusslon. Cf course, some would say-as we do-cuLLlng ouL sugar (sucrose) from
your dleL and brushlng your LeeLh properly ls probably a whole loL beLLer Lhan
puLLlng a polson ln your mouLh and elLher splLLlng lL ouL or swallowlng lL.
1he lnLrlnslc LoxlclLy of fluorlde ls Lhe reason why LooLhpasLe manufacLurers ofLen
lnclude a warnlng on Lhe Lube whlch says 'don'L' swallow'. lL's Loxlc you see, very
Loxlc. 1here ls also qulLe a conLroversy as Lo wheLher repeaLed exposure Lo lL mlghL
be llnked Lo cancer.
Well surprlse, surprlse. 8efore you even geL off Lhe flrsL page of LlSA's Cplnlon,
daLed 27
Lh
november 2008, you sLumble across Lhe followlng:
.. cooclosloos of comptebeoslve evolootloos loJlcote tbot qeootoxlclty ooJ
cotclooqeolclty ote oot of cooceto fot flootlJe exposote lo bomoos.

1haL's a llLLle odd, when Lhere's a falr old llLeraLure on cancer and muLaLlon rlsks
from fluorlde. noL leasL of all ls a large epldemlologlcal sLudy carrled ouL by !apanese
sclenLlsLs on a very large uS daLa seL lnvolvlng over 20 mllllon Amerlcans sub[ecLed
Lo varylng levels of fluorlde ln Lhe waLer supply. 1hey found LhaL Lhere was a poslLlve
assoclaLlon beLween fluorlde concenLraLlon ln Lwo-Lhlrds of Lhe 36 dlfferenL Lypes of
cancer LhaL were recorded [2]. 1hls ls noL Lhe sorL of daLa you could lgnore, surely?

1here's also a bunch of oLher Lhlngs LhaL fluorlde has been lmpllcaLed ln, lncludlng
lncreased rlsk of bone fracLures, learnlng dlfflculLles ln chlldren exposed whlle
foeLuses, oLher neuroLoxlc effecLs and posslbly predlsposlLlon Lo Alzhelmer's ulsease.
8uL LlSA's selecLlve exploraLlon of Lhe daLa seems Lo have bypassed Lhese papers.

276 CH7 J:8 D::DG<>HD7 D:L?@

now, here's how Lhe Lwo companles who have peLlLloned LlSA for approval of SM
propose Lo use Lhe chemlcal:

5oJlom moooflootopbospbote ls loteoJeJ to be oseJ by botb petltlooets lo fooJ
sopplemeots os o sootce of flootlJe lo tbe fotms of moltl-vltomlo, moltl-mloetol
sopplemeots, sollJ toblets ot toblets Jlspetslble lo llpolJ.

1hls equaLes Lo saylng: 1he sLuff we've been Lelllng you for years noL Lo swallow ln
LooLhpasLe ls now safe Lo Lake as a supplemenL. ln facL, we now Lhlnk lL's a good ldea
Lo add Lhe LooLhpasLe Loxln Lo your dally mulLl-vlLamln."

/H J=C:8?I7 > @CD8?7@DM > D:L?@ :8 > I8CAK

1he premlse of someLhlng belng boLh a nuLrlenL and a poLenLlal Loxln ls noL new. ln
facL, one of Lhe mosL fundamenLal LeneLs of Loxlcology ls LhaL all Lhlngs are Loxlc, lL


2009 Alllance for naLural PealLh
$
[usL depends on Lhe dose. 1heophrasLus hllllpus Auroleus 8ombasLus von
Pohenhelm, beLLer known as aracelsus, came upon Lhls general vlew some 300 or
so years ago.

1he real quesLlons of course should be: whaL dose ls safe and whaL dose becomes
Loxlc, Lo whom? 8uL, as we've already heard, LlSA lsn'L Loo boLhered by Lhls as lL's
'noL wlLhln lLs remlL'.

AnoLher lssue we should conLemplaLe ls: why ls LlSA dolng rlsk assessmenLs on a
producL where Lhe lnLended use ls noL nuLrlLlonal? Why ls lL evaluaLlng a producL
LhaL ls used Lo LreaL a dlsease-ln Lhls case denLal carles-LhaL should make all
fluorlde producLs used for Lhls purpose fall falrly and squarely under medlclnes law?

1he uk naLlonal PealLh Servlce webslLe sLaLes ln lLs advlce Lo paLlenLs [3]:

lf yoo ote ptooe to Jeotol Jecoy, yoot Jeotlst moy oJvlse tbe ose of flootlJe
sopplemeots lo oJJltloo to flootlJe tootbposte fot extto ptotectloo. nowevet, lt ls
vety lmpottoot tbot flootlJe sopplemeots ote ooly tokeo oo tbe oJvlce ooJ losttoctloo
of yoot Jeotlst.

1hls ls clearly a medlclnal use of fluorlde. AfLer all, Lhe deflnlLlon of a medlclne under
Luropean law ls as follows:

Aoy sobstooce ot comblootloo of sobstooces pteseoteJ os bovloq ptopettles fot
tteotloq ot pteveotloq Jlseose lo bomoo beloqs (amendlng ulrecLlve 2004/27/LC).

8uL medlclnal appllcaLlons are flrmly ouLslde Lhe remlL of LlSA, whlch ls an auLhorlLy
on food. Medlclnes are dealL wlLh cenLrally by anoLher Luropean lnsLlLuLlon, Lhe
London-based Luropean Medlclnes Agency (LMLA). So why ls LlSA evaluaLlng
fluorldes llke SM and calclum fluorlde for use ln food supplemenLs when Lhey are
belng used Lo LreaL or prevenL a dlsease?

SM and lLs oLher synLheLlc fluorlde couslns are nelLher essenLlal mlnerals, nor are
Lhey generally regarded as nuLrlenLs. 1here ls, however, qulLe a body of work belng
generaLed by Lhe pharmaceuLlcal lndusLry whlch shows how fluorlde can-because
of lLs lnLlmaLe relaLlonshlp wlLh calclum-help re-mlnerallse bones and hence reduce
osLeoporosls. 8uL, owlng Lo Lhls very same relaLlonshlp, Lhere's also unequlvocal
evldence LhaL calclum can be sLrlpped ouL of bones and LeeLh and cause skeleLal and
denLal fluorosls. lL's a classlc double-edge sword LhaL lnvolves Lhe perpeLual
conundrum of conslderlng rlsk, beneflL and dosage assessmenLs. 1hls ls Lhe domaln
of drug noL food regulaLlng auLhorlLles.

urug companles do already have a serles of fluorlde drugs on Lhe markeL LhaL alm Lo
geL Lhls balance Llpplng Lhe rlghL way, Lhey dellver fluorlde aL relaLlvely low doses-
loglcally-beneaLh Lhose LhaL cause Lhe calclum Lo be sLrlpped ouL. Agaln, lL's all
raLher medlcal and noL aL all 'foody'. CeL Lhe dose wrong and you could really harm
people, especlally lf Lhey are already llvlng ln an area where Lhe drlnklng waLer ls


2009 Alllance for naLural PealLh
%
fluorldaLed.

LlSA hasn'L Louched on Lhe non-LooLh decay uses of SM because Lhe peLlLloners
know Lhelr producLs would have Lo be regarded as drugs lf Lhey dld. AfLer all, every
medlcal encyclopedla Lells us LhaL osLeoporosls ls a dlsease. 8uL Lhe problem for LlSA
ls, so ls denLal carles!

So, here we have LlSA evaluaLlng fluorlde's safeLy ln food supplemenLs, buL LlSA
sclenLlsLs haven'L even Louched on evaluaLlng how lL works, lf lL works, or lf Lhere
mlghL be less rlsky ways of geLLlng Lhe same, or even beLLer, resulLs! We're lefL
Lhlnklng lL would be uncharacLerlsLlcally progresslve of LlSA Lo suggesL LhaL
removlng sucrose from chlldrens' confecLlonary, whlch would ellmlnaLe Lhe
condlLlons ln whlch oral bacLerla (5tteptococcos motoos ln parLlcular) produce
enamel-desLroylng aclds, would be more approprlaLe Lhan offerlng fluorlde as a food
supplemenL. Sucrose could be replaced by oLher sugars llke glucose or xyllLol LhaL
don'L creaLe Lhese condlLlons. 8uL agaln, Lhese sorLs of conslderaLlons are
lnexpllcably ouLslde LlSA's remlL. LlSA's deslre Lo comparLmenLallse lLs rlsk
assessmenL work, wlLhouL looklng aL any of Lhe beneflLs of a glven foodsLuff, ls now
legendary-and compleLely lrraLlonal! 1hls approach ls conLrary Lo Lhe lnLeresLs of
publlc healLh and urgenLly needs revlewlng.

Who decldes when Lhe rules can be benL? Why are Lhe rules benL when lL sulLs? Why
so much lenlency and avoldance of known sclenLlflc facLs when Lhese declslons may
endanger publlc healLh? Lspeclally when ln oLher cases, LlSA Lakes an lncredlbly
cauLlous llne, complalns of lnadequaLe daLa Lo prove safeLy and glves a slaLher of
negaLlve oplnlons. negaLlve oplnlons have been Lhe faLe or llkely, soon wlll be, for a
range of beneflclal mlnerals llke vanadlum and chromlum (whlch compeLe wlLh anLl-
dlabeLlc drugs) and sllver (whlch compeLes wlLh anLlbloLlcs).

'9?7@D?J?9 NC@O

We were flabbergasLed when we read Lhe basls on whlch Lhe green llghL was glven
Lo SM. We remaln flabbergasLed. ln facL, we are unllkely Lo recover from Lhls
condlLlon unLll LlSA decldes Lo use conslsLenL, raLlonal and ob[ecLlve sclenLlflc
meLhods when lL underLakes lLs rlsk assessmenLs.

ln 2003, LlSA seL 1olerable lnLake Levels (1lL) [4]-ln oLher words Lhe maxlmum
amounL you can lngesL safely on a dally basls from all sources-LhaL [usL don'L flL
elLher wlLh Lhe sclence or lLs meLhodology already used on essenLlal vlLamlns and
mlnerals. 1hese are Lhe ones LhaL are acLually good for us.

1hey've convenlenLly seL Lhe followlng maxlmum safe levels:

1.3 mg/day for chlldren aged 1-3 years
2.3 mg/day for chlldren aged 4-8 years
3 mg/day for chlldren aged 9-13 years
7 mg/day for chlldren over 13 years and adulLs


2009 Alllance for naLural PealLh
&

We say 'convenlenLly' because we know LhaL Lhey know LhaL counLrles llke lreland
and Lhe uk, who fluorldaLe all or some of Lhelr publlc waLer supplles llke Lo do Lhls aL
abouL a level of 1 mg /L. So because a 3-year-old doesn'L generally drlnk more Lhan
1.3 llLres of waLer a day, LlSA feels comforLable lLs 1lL can'L be exceeded. 1he same
goes for an adulL. lf you are a keen sporLsperson and sweaL a loL, you could flnd
yourself drlnklng up Lo 7 llLres a day. Agaln you wouldn'L have exceeded LlSA's
clalmed safe level lf you were drlnklng fluorldaLed Lap waLer. 8uL, we presume, LlSA
would be assumlng you don'L swallow your LooLhpasLe.

8uL hold on a mlnuLe, LlSA are meanL Lo be separaLed from Lhese pracLlcal reallLles.
1hey are meanL Lo be dolng Lhe real sclence and peruslng all daLa LhaL ls relevanL and
maklng ob[ecLlve [udgmenLs abouL safeLy uslng a full complemenL of avallable daLa
and Lhe laLesL rlsk assessmenL sclence!

And Lhls ls where we have no opLlon buL Lo use Lhe necessarlly harsh Lerm 'sclenLlflc
[unk'. LlSA have compleLely lgnored a good body of evldence LhaL suggesLs LhaL
denLal fluorosls-whlch lL agrees ls Lhe mosL senslLlve lndlcaLor of fluorlde LoxlclLy-
occurs ln chlldren when Lhe fluorlde (naLural or synLheLlc) conLenL of drlnklng waLer
exceeds around 0.7 mg/L [3,6,7,8].

1hls 0.7 mg/L Lhreshold level ls [usL under half of Lhe 1.3 mg/L maxlmum safeLy level
seL by Lhe World PealLh CrganlzaLlon (WPC) for drlnklng waLer. 1he WPC, whlch
acLually recommends a maxlmum arLlflclal fluorldaLlon level of 0.3 - 1.0 mg/L Lo
accounL for exLra fluorlde LhaL mlghL be ln Lhe dleL, has a beLLer excuse. lL lmplles
LhaL lf lL wenL much lower, Lhere would be a ma[or lssue for all Lhose parLs of Lhe
world where naLural fluorldes-whlch seem Lo be lnLrlnslcally safer Lhan arLlflclal
ones llke SM-flnd Lhelr way lnLo Lhe drlnklng waLer supplles, LLhlopla belng a case
ln polnL.

8oLLom llne: why ls LlSA saylng adulLs are flne wlLh 7 mg/day, and why are Lhey
allowlng very young klds Lo have 1.3 mg a day when Lhe mosL well accepLed daLa on
waLer consumpLlon [9] shows LhaL 3-year-olds should consume 1.3 llLres?

now for some slmple maLhs: 1.3 (volume of waLer needed by a Loddler dally)
mulLlplled by 1 (Lhe Lyplcal amounL of fluorlde ln fluorldaLed Lap waLer) equals 1.3,
convenlenLly under Lhe 1.3 mg 'safe level' seL by LlSA. 8uL lf Lhe Lhreshold
concenLraLlon ln drlnklng waLer as shown by a number of sclenLlflc sLudles ls acLually
0.7 mg/L, Lo calculaLe Lhe dally Lhreshold dose 8LLCW whlch you need Lo be lf you
wanL Lo be safe, you musL mulLlply 1.3 (Lhe amounL of waLer consumed) by 0.7 (Lhe
concenLraLlon above whlch denLal fluorosls occurs). 1hls glves you 0.91 mg/day. 1hls
amounL should be aL Lhe very leasL an approxlmaLlon Lo Lhe LowesL Cbservable
Adverse LffecL level (LCALL) ln rlsk assessmenL.

So why lsn'L Lhe acLual safe level sLlpulaLed by Lhe Luropean regulaLor well below 0.9
mg/day for Loddlers? 8emember 0.9 mg/day ls Lhe Lhreshold! 8y Lhe Llme you
lnclude an uncerLalnLy facLor, lL would be lnconcelvable-assumlng use of Lhe


2009 Alllance for naLural PealLh
'
approach LlSA employs for essenLlal vlLamlns and mlnerals-Lo come up wlLh a safe
level more Lhan one-LenLh of Lhls amounL. 1herefore: besL case scenarlo, aL leasL for
Loddlers, Lhe maxlmum safe level should noL exceed 0.09 mg/day.

We'll remlnd you agaln, LhaL LlSA's supposed safe level for Loddlers ls 1.3 mg/day,
whlch ls almosL 17 Llmes greaLer Lhan whaL ls probably a much more accuraLe safe
level! And Lhe peLlLloners wanL Lo use SM Lo dellver fluorlde aL levels up Lo 2
mg/day, 22 Llmes over Lhe safe level we've [usL deLermlned.

P>9O D: HC<<=7;7@DH

lL's much harder Lo have a clear vlew on Lhe safeLy of SM for adulLs, as we're
somewhaL less suscepLlble Lo havlng Lhe calclum sLrlpped ouL of our LeeLh. 8uL we're
sLlll qulLe suscepLlble Lo havlng lL sLrlpped ouL of less vlslble and hard Lo monlLor
areas llke our skeleLal sLrucLure, hence Lhe well researched poslLlve assoclaLlon
beLween fluorlde and bone fracLures. 1here's almosL cerLalnly a relaLlonshlp
beLween fluorlde and osLeoporosls, buL LhaL's a hoL sub[ecL LhaL we're noL meanL Lo
Lalk abouL. 8aLher llke Lhe cancer llnk. So we won'L Lalk abouL lL (any more).

ln looklng aL Lhe dose range requesLed by Lhe peLlLloners, LlSA says:
nowevet, wbeo tbe poteotlol flootlJe coottlbotloo of soJlom moooflootopbospbote
sopplemeototloo ls oJJeJ to tbe totol flootlJe Jolly exposotes estlmotes lo otope fot
cbllJteo, flootlJe toletoble oppet lotoke levels !"## %& &'(&&)&) "* +,-. (/-&-." [our
emphasls].

8uL Lhey sLlll glve lL a green llghL? 1hey are seemlngly happy LhaL Lhe group mosL
vulnerable Lo Lhe effecLs of fluorlde-chlldren-geL exposed Lo fluorlde
supplemenLs? 1o arrlve aL Lhls concluslon, LlSA have had Lo use a compleLely
dlfferenL approach Lo LhaL whlch Lhey've used for Lhe essenLlal vlLamlns and
mlnerals. WlLh Lhese, LlSA subLracLs Lhe hlghesL dally lnLakes LhaL can be found ln a
glven socleLy from a hlghly precauLlonary upper Level (along Lhe llnes, buL even
more cauLlous Lhan Lhe one of 0.09 mg/day LhaL we calculaLed above) Lo glve Lhe
supplemenLal maxlmum level. 1hls procedure ls gulded by sLaLemenLs made ln
ArLlcle 3 of Lhe Lu lood SupplemenLs ulrecLlve (2002/46/LC).

Powever, ln LlSA's fluorlde Cplnlon, LlSA sclenLlsLs lgnore a whole bunch of key
llLeraLure, Lhey lgnore relevanL uncerLalnLy facLors ln creaLlng Lhelr upper Level and
Lhey are happy Lo noL subLracL hlghesL mean dleLary lnLakes from Lhe upper Level.
All Lo make sure Lhe peLlLloners can have a Loxln LhaL ls lnLended Lo LreaL or prevenL
a dlsease ln Lhe mouLh and may, ln Lhe process, expose consumers Lo slgnlflcanL
healLh rlsks.

lL's hard Lo explaln Lhls ln any oLher way oLher Lhan Lhe abuse of sclence Lo sulL blg
corporaLe concerns. 1hls ls [unk sclence. 1hls ls downrlghL dangerous sclence. lf lL ls
none of Lhese, mlghL LlSA care Lo glve us some [usLlflcaLlon for Lhe radlcally dlfferenL
approaches used Lo evaluaLe Lhls lnLrlnslcally Loxlc bloclde as compared wlLh
lnLrlnslcally safe and beneflclal vlLamlns? 8emember: when Lhe laLesL sclence Lells us


2009 Alllance for naLural PealLh
(
LhaL Lhose of us who don'L geL lnLo Lhe sun ln norLhern Lurope should be Laklng
around 4000 lu of vlLamln u3 a day (noLably ln Lhe wlnLer monLhs), lL's asLonlshlng
LhaL Luropean rlsk assessmenL sclence has found a way of saylng LhaL we shouldn'L
Lake more Lhan a LwenLleLh of Lhls (200 lu) dally! 1haL's Lhe amounL,
proporLlonaLely, LhaL your body geLs when exposed Lo less Lhan 30 seconds of
sunllghL ln Lhe mldsummer!

SupplemenLlng wlLh a LooLhpasLe Loxln ls madness, when Lhe producL should
properly be reglsLered as elLher a bloclde (under Lhe Lu 8locldal roducLs ulrecLlve)
or as a full blown llcenced medlclne. ls LlSA really preferrlng cerLaln peLlLloners?

Who could LrusL LlSA Lo use good sclence when lL appears so ready Lo alLer lLs rlsk
assessmenL procedures Lo sulL commerclal lnLeresLs-and allow us (and especlally
our chlldren) Lo be polsoned ln Lhe process?

Whlle LlSA Lakes Lhls very cavaller, non-precauLlonary approach Lo fluorlde on one
hand, lL Lhen uses ulLra-resLrlcLlve rlsk assessmenLs LhaL lead Lo bans on nuLrlenLs
LhaL are good for us. 8uL maybe lL's LhaL old chesLnuL: has LlSA, llke so many
governmenL auLhorlLles around Lhe world responslble for llcenclng of medlclnes,
become vulnerable Lo pressure from some of Lhe largesL corporaLlons on Lhe planeL?

#7J787@97H

1. Colquhoun !. Why l changed my mlnd abouL waLer fluorldaLlon. letspect 8lol
MeJ. 1997, 41(1): 29-44.

2. 1akahashl k, Aklnlwa k, narlLa k. 8egresslon analysls of cancer lncldence raLes
and waLer fluorlde ln Lhe u.S.A. based on lAC8/lA8C (WPC) daLa (1978-1992).
lnLernaLlonal Agency for 8esearch on Cancer. I plJemlol. 2001, 11(4): 170-9.

3. uk naLlonal PealLh Servlce Cholces page on fluorlde:
bttp.//www.obs.ok/cooJltloos/flootlJe/loqes/lottoJoctloo.ospx?otl=loqes/w
bot-ls-lt.ospx [lasL accessed 23 !anuary 2009].

4. LlSA, 2003. Cplnlon of Lhe SclenLlflc anel on uleLeLlc roducLs, nuLrlLlon and
Allergles on a requesL from Lhe Commlsslon relaLed Lo Lhe 1olerable upper
lnLake Level of lluorlde. 1be l5A Iootool 192, 1-63.

3. 8oLLenberg , ueclerck u, Chldey W, 8ogaerLs k, vanobbergen !, MarLens L.
revalence and deLermlnanLs of enamel fluorosls ln llemlsh schoolchlldren.
cotles kes. 2004, 38(1): 20-8.
6. Lkanayake L, van der Poek W. revalence and dlsLrlbuLlon of enamel defecLs
and denLal carles ln a reglon wlLh dlfferenL concenLraLlons of fluorlde ln
drlnklng waLer ln Srl Lanka. lot ueot I. 2003, 33(4): 243-8.



2009 Alllance for naLural PealLh
)
7. ?ang !, Long ?, Shen ?. 1he opLlmal concenLraLlon of drlnklng waLer ln easLern
Cuangdong. noo \l koo Olooq l \oe 2o 2bl. 2001, 19(1): 38-40.
8. Wondwossen l, AsLrom An, 8[orvaLn k, 8ardsen A. 1he relaLlonshlp beLween
denLal carles and denLal fluorosls ln areas wlLh moderaLe- and hlgh-fluorlde
drlnklng waLer ln LLhlopla. commoolty ueot Otol plJemlol. 2004,32 (3): 337-
44.
9. lnsLlLuLe of Medlclne of Lhe naLlonal Academles. uletoty kefeteoce lotokes fot
wotet, lotosslom, 5oJlom, cblotlJe ooJ 5olfote (2004). WashlngLon uC: 1he
naLlonal Academles ress. bttp.//books.oop.eJo/cotoloq/10925.btml.