Codex Alimentarius Loves Fluoride, Part 2

Dees Illustration

Updated Excerpt from  
Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom   

Brandon Turbeville

In the previous article I discussed the BfR Recommended Daily Intake levels of fluoride and limits placed on fluoride in food supplements. This is a very important distinction and there are some things that should be noted. First, the Maximum Permitted Level set for fluoride by BfR’s risk assessment deals only with the amount of fluoride to food supplements. It does not deal with the fluoridation of water supplies, the application of fluoride dental treatments, toothpaste, and the utterly ridiculous practice of giving fluoride tablets for “medicinal” purposes.  

These guidelines would only apply to food supplements that contain fluoride which are unlikely to ever be marketed to anyone seriously knowledgeable and concerned about their health. Certainly, the natural health industry is not beset by requests for fluoride supplements. So it is important to understand what is happening here. There is regulation of fluoride in an area that, for all intents and purposes, it does not exist. 

In the areas where fluoride dominates, such as the aforementioned “medicinal” purposes, drinking water, toothpaste, and other dental treatments, there is no regulation by Codex. In fact, not only is there no regulation, the toxin has now been considered a mineral and a nutrient complete with an RDA (recommended daily allowance) to encourage daily intake.

Second, through the flawed process of risk assessment and the Global Expectable Average Daily Diet, BfR is able to set the maximum permitted levels for true nutrients like Iron, Copper, and Manganese at 0 and the Recommended Daily Intake at very low levels for food supplements.  BfR is able to do precisely the same thing with fluoride in an area where it has no impact to begin with – thereby lowering the amount of fluoride considered in the GEADD and still allowing fluoride to be considered a nutrient. This because fluoride is not as heavily consumed in food or as a food supplement as it is in its other forms. Therefore, it largely avoids the clutches of the GEADD.

Third, BfR is completely aware of at least some of the many adverse effects of fluoride, as well as the environment in which it is created. As quoted above, the BfR report clearly documents that the Institute knows of fluoride intoxication with serious and even fatal side effects. Hence, the creation of the Certainly Lethal Dose (CLD) of 5-10g. Yet, animal tests also revealed “a possible carcinogenic effect” [1] and “kidney damage.”[2]  However, the claim is made that such a reaction does not occur in other species. BfR also claims that the most serious effects are limited to the skeleton and teeth.[3]  

Although ignoring such conditions as liver and kidney damage, weakened immune system, cancer, symptoms akin to fibromyalgia, lower IQ’s, and Alzheimer’s disease, BfR is still forced to admit the existence of at least some adverse effects. [4]  It is truly hard to believe that such extensive and widely-known research can simply fly under the radar of scientists like those conducting the risk assessment experiments. It is also interesting to note that BfR does not mention long-term studies for the adverse effects of fluoride. Rather, it mentions only that the consumption of the chemical at one time. Not only that, but the distinction is not made between calcium and sodium fluoride, once again blurring the lines between the two. Based on the rest of the risk assessment conducted by BfR, it is not hard to believe that only calcium fluoride might have been tested, yet sodium fluoride was still included in the results. While there is no direct evidence to prove that this is the case, there is without a doubt legitimate cause for speculation based on the results of the study BfR has presented.

Furthermore, if there is any doubt as to whether or not BfR combines calcium fluoride and sodium fluoride it is erased when BfR attempts to address the issue of skeletal fluorosis. Here the report states, “Crippling bone fluorosis is mainly observed in tropical areas with a high natural content of fluoride in drinking water or high fluoride exposure from industrial plants.”[5]  This not only demonstrates the blurring of the lines between calcium and sodium fluoride, but also the prior knowledge by BfR and, subsequently, Codex that one form of fluoride is actually toxic waste. It is important to understand that Codex now recognizes industrial waste as a nutrient. 

Lastly, besides the obvious lunacy of labeling a toxic substance as a nutrient, BfR admits that there is no known benefit to consumption of fluoride. This is yet another obvious reason that fluoride cannot be considered a nutrient, even in calcium fluoride form. 

The study directly admits, “Since fluoride is not essential to man, requirements cannot be defined. A recommended intake can only be indicated with a view to its favorable impact on dental health. WHO notes that there are no proven clinical symptoms of fluoride deficiency in man and there are no diagnostic parameters which correlate with a fluoride deficiency.”[6] 

Even BfR itself must concede that there is no nutritional benefit to consuming fluoride (even in its natural form) and there are no known problems associated with lack of fluoride in the diet.[7]  Of course, the study refers to the dental health benefits provided by consumption of the chemical, but, as mentioned earlier, these so-called benefits are virtually non-existent. In the face of this, BfR and Codex still conduct science that is nothing more than poorly performed magic tricks, and they continue to ask the rest of us to engage in mental gymnastics, while believing that toxic waste is a nutrient. 

Notes:
[1] Ibid. p. 232
[2]  Ibid p. 234
[3] Ibid.
[4] Fassa, Paul. “How To Detox Fluorides From Your Body,” Natural News, July 13, 2009. P.1  http://www.naturalnews.com/026605_fluoride_fluorides_detox.html
[5] Use of Vitamins in Foods: Toxicological and nutritional-physiological aspects,”Domke, A., Grosklaus R., Niemann B., Przyrembel H., Richter K., Schimdt E., WeiBenborn B., Worner B., Ziegenhagen R., Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, BfR, p. 230, 2005
[6] Ibid p.229
[7] Ibid. p. 229