Fluoride Free New Zealand Releases New “Controversial” TV Ads

Posted on August 15th, by Danny in Fluoride Controversy, Fluoride Video. 8 comments

When you look beyond what you are being told, and do your own research on topics such as artificial water fluoridation, the truth sometimes becomes so ridiculously apparent, that it is painful to read articles like this one recently posted from Stuff.co.nz in New Zealand “Anti-fluoride group air controversial TV ads.”

The mere title frames the article in a way that immediately places bias against anti-fluoride groups. However, what is actually controversial about the TV ads posted by Fluoride Free New Zealand? Is it “controversial” to inform the public on the origin of the chemical being used to medicate the entire population? Is it “controversial” to inform the public on the toxicity of the chemical being used by the government to treat you and your children? Is it “controversial” to display the statistic showing only 4% of the countries around the entire world fluoridate their population? Is it “controversial” to state that tooth decay has dropped just as fast if not faster in non-fluoridated countries vs fluoridated countries?

In the year 2016, it should be comically simple for scientists to finally provide conclusive evidence that ingesting fluoride works; however, that evidence has never been found. And since any evidence compiled so far is not conclusive, how can select 4% of governments around the world force this medical practice on entire populations without the consent of those populations and without scientific consensus?

If there is a consensus, the world has already spoken on the subject of artificial water fluoridation. As I mentioned, only 4% of the world artificially fluoridates their water supplies. This means that 96% of the world does NOT. That seems to be as close to a consensus as anyone could hope for from a global scientific perspective.

Over the past 50 years, 96% of the world has agreed that artificial water fluoridation does not work, violates our right to informed consent, causes more harm than benefit, and yet the following videos are “controversial”:

On the other hand, adding toxic chemicals to the water supply to “treat tooth decay” despite 96% of countries around the world rejecting the practice… is not.

8 thoughts on “Fluoride Free New Zealand Releases New “Controversial” TV Ads

  1. As it has been my experience that most anti fluoridation websites employ censorship in lieu of provision of facts and evidence, it will be interesting to see if FFNZ has the integrity to post this comment, or whether it will instead choose to censor out the facts I present here, under my full name.

    Okay, in order to demonstrate the false and deceptive claims made by FFNZ in its ads, let’s look at what FFNZ claims to be “THE 6 INDISPUTABLE FACTS FEATURED IN ADS” as listed in a previous article which may be found:


    1. FFNZ : HFSA, commonly known as “fluoride”, is a waste product from the phosphate fertiliser industry.

    Facts: First, a substance used productively is, by definition, not “waste”. HFA is used productively in the addition of fluoride ions to drinking water, as well as in other processes.

    Second, HFA is a co-product of the process used to produce the other co-product, phosphoric acid. Phosphoric acid is found in soft drinks we consume and in fertilizers which become incorporated into foods that we eat.

    Third, hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA) is not “commonly known as ‘fluoride’.” Fluoride is the anion of the naturally occurring element, fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom. HFA is a compound which contains the fluoride ion. An atom is not a compound, nor is it “commonly known” as one.

    2. FFNZ: “This fluoride chemical also contains traces of lead, aluminium, arsenic, mercury, and sometimes uranium.”

    Facts: This is a deceptive half truth. These contaminants which all exist naturally in the environment, are in such minuscule, barely detectable amounts, so far below US EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety, that it is not even a certainty that those detected aren’t those that already exist in water naturally. The “chemical analysis” provided by FFNZ is the composition of raw, undiluted HFA. One will find such contaminants in nearly all such compounds. Water at the tap is that which is consumed and otherwise utilized by consumers. It is therefore the quality of the water at this point which is of relevance to consumers, not the contents of raw, undiluted fluoridation compounds or other routine additives. Fluoridated water at the tap easily meets all US mandated quality certification requirements under Standard 60 of NSF International. A complete list of the contents of fluoridated water at the tap, including precise amounts of any detected contaminants, and the US EPA mandated maximum allowable levels for each, may be found on the “Fact Sheet on Fluoridation Substances” located on the website of NSF International.

    3. FFZ; “It is banned from being released into lakes, sea, air and rivers because it is toxic to animals and the environment.”

    Facts: This is yet another deceptive half-truth. There are few substances which are not “banned from being released into lakes, sea, air and rivers because it is toxic to animals and the environment”. Uncontrolled dumping into the environment of any chemicals of unknown quantity or concentration will not be allowed in most developed countries which exercise due responsibility towards the environment.

    There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that fluoride ions at the minuscule concentration at which water is fluoridated, are, in any manner, toxic to anything or anyone. In fact, peer-reviewed science has demonstrated optimally fluoridated water to not have any adverse effect on the environment.

    “Fluoridated water losses during use, dilution of sewage by rain and groundwater infiltrate, fluoride removal during secondary sewage treatment, and diffusion dynamics at effluent outfall combine to eliminate fluoridation related environmental effects. In a literature review, Osterman found no instance of municipal water fluoridation causing recommended environmental concentrations to be exceeded, although excesses occurred in several cases of severe industrial water pollution not related to water fluoridation. Osterman found that overall river fluoride con centrations theoretically would be raised by 0.001-0.002 mg/l, a value not measurable by current analytic techniques. All resulting concentrations would be well below those recommended for environmental safety.”

    —Water Fluoridation and the Environment: Current Perspective in the United States
    Howard F. Pollick, BDS, MPH
    Int J Occup Environ Health 2004;10:343–350

    4. FFNZ: “4% of the world fluoridates.”

    Facts: So what? There are myriad reasons why different countries may or may not fluoridate their water systems. Does NZ want to make healthcare decisions directly affecting all of its citizens, based on what other countries elect to do based on their own circumstances…….or based on the best available science and recommendations from those best qualified to render appropriate ones?

    5. FFNZ: “98% of Europeans do not have fluoridated water and their teeth are just as good, or better.”

    Facts: The cause and preventive factors involved in dental decay are numerous. It is impossible to credibly assess the effectiveness of but one preventive measure, fluoridation, based on nothing but snapshots of data which control for none of the other variables involved in dental decay. Countless peer-reviewed scientific studies which do control for variables, clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of fluoridation in the prevention of dental decay in entire populations. I will gladly cite as many as anyone would reasonably care to read.

    6. FFNZ: “Scotland’s Childsmile program saves millions of dollars and is giving Scottish kids better teeth than NZ kids.”

    Facts: This is false. Childsmile is drastically more expensive than fluoridation, restricted to 120,000 school children, is dependent upon compliance of those children, has decay reduction no greater than fluoridation, and does not appear to have reduced SES inequalities.

    From the British Fluoridation Society:

    “The Scottish ChildSmile Program, while a good initiative, is saving no money. This program involves a supervised toothbrushing program in schools, twice yearly fluoride varnish applications in selected areas, and various education initiatives. The total number of children involved is 120,000. The total annual cost of the program is £15 million . This equals £125 per child per year.”

    “By contrast, the entire fluoridation programme currently serving 6 million people in England is costing around £2.1 million a year and is benefiting everyone with natural teeth, regardless of age, education or socio-economic status.  Importantly, it is benefiting all children.   The cost per person of fluoridation in England is therefore around 35 pence per annum.”

    “The fact that the British Dental Association in Scotland has recently come out publicly to call for Scottish communities to move towards introducing water fluoridation undermines the arguments of anti-fluoridation groups, whether in the United States or in the UK, that Childsmile is an adequate substitute for water fluoridation.  The professional body representing dentists in Scotland does not see it that way.”

    Steven D. Slott, DDS
    Information Director
    American Fluoridation Society

    • This is End Fluoride Toronto, not FFNZ. Are you not even aware of the websites you and your team are trolling Steven?

      You can copy and paste your trash all over the internet forever Steven, but you still have not answered the most important questions: Exactly how much fluoride should a 20 lb child ingest on a daily basis? Is this amount different than the amount of fluoride a 200 lb man should ingest on a daily basis?

      • Danny

        Interesting that you fail to address the blatant misrepresentations made by FFNZ in its ads, and that End Fluoride Toronto elected to publicly defend those ads, obviously not having verified the validity of the content of those ads, prior to doing so. Do you care to explain why such verification was not performed prior to posting this article?

        And, yes, it is obvious that you consider facts and evidence to be “trash”. This is a common belief of fluoridation opponents, and one main reason they have no credibility.

        Instead of attempting to divert attention from the facts by posting false and irrelevant nonsense about “teams”, “trolling” and other such things, why don’t you address the facts and evidence I have provided?

        To answer your question, fluoridation is not about how much fluoride one “should ingest on a daily basis”. It is about taking full advantage of a mineral that humans always have and always will, ingest in their water, fluoridated or not, while strictly maintaining the concentration of that mineral well below the threshold of adverse effects.

        The daily upper limit of fluoride ingestion before adverse effects may occur, as established by the US Institute of Medicine is as follows:

        0-6 mos.- 0.7 mg
        6-12 mos – 0.9 mg
        1-3 years – 1.3 mg
        4-8 years – 2.2 mg
        8 years and older – 10 mg

        The only risk to infants and children 0-8 years exceeding this UL in association with optimally fluoridated water is mild to very mild dental fluorosis during those teeth developing years. This level of dental fluorosis is barely detectable and causes no adversity on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. Compare this with the lifetimes of extreme pain,debilitation, black discoloration and loss of teeth, development of serious medical conditions, and life-threatening infection directly resultant of untreated dental decay which can be, and is, prevented by fluoridation.

        Steven D. Slott, DDS
        Information Director
        American Fluoridation Society

        • Indicating the daily upper limit of fluoride ingestion before harm takes place is not the same as indicating the exact amount of a drug (not mineral) that a person should consume everyday for their entire life. Are doctors allowed to prescribe medication to patients with directions “Take as many pills as you like everyday, but don’t take more than 20 because that might harm you.”?

          Very scientific Steven.

          I see your Disqus account has no more activity: https://disqus.com/by/steve_slott/comments/ Must have become a little too obvious one man, let alone a practicing DDS, couldn’t possibly have the time to write over 400,000 words in Disqus comments alone in one year besides Facebook, independent blogs, independent websites, hundreds of newspaper articles, etc…

          Long live freedom of choice! Using the water supply to deliver any form of medication will end.

          • Danny

            1. You still have as yet to address the misrepresentations made in the FFNZ ads which I pointed out in my original comment, or the reason EFT failed to perform due diligence in verifying the validity of the FFNZ claims before publicly defending them. Do you care to comment?

            2. You still fail to understand the elementary basics of water fluoridation.

            A. There are no drugs involved in this process, and no one is prescribing anything. There are simply fluoride ions, identical to those fluoride ions which have always existed in water. The attempt to suddenly proclaim these ions to be a drug, is obviously ludicrous.

            B. Fluoridation simply achieves maximum benefit from a mineral existing in our water that we will ingest, fluoridated or not, while maintaining the level of this mineral well below the level of adverse effects.

            Non-fluoridated water systems still have fluoride which is ingested. The difference is that it exists at a level which does not provide benefit, and there are no controls which maintain that level below the threshold of adverse effects. Any perceived “risks” from ingestion of fluoride still exist in non-fluoridated systems.

            Readers need only consider which scenario is more logical…….obtain maximum benefit with strict controls over concentration level, or obtain no benefit, have no controls over concentration level, and have no elimination of whatever “risks” are perceived to be?

            3. I challenge you to prove that any comments posted under my name have not been written and posted solely by me. That which you personally deem me to have time to do is of no relevance. Given that you cannot address even simple facts and evidence, it is understandable that you are incapable of comprehending the capabilities of those who can and easily do so.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

          • Steven,

            You have failed to address how much fluoride is optimal for consumption on a daily basis and the difference between children and adults. Please provide the facts for everyone to see.

            A couple more questions:

            1) What has more of an impact on tooth decay: Sugar consumption or fluoride consumption?
            2) Why does fluoridated toothpaste have a poison warning label clearly stating “Do not swallow”?

          • Danny

            1. You continue to avoid addressing the issue about which this article was written. Yet once again, do you care to comment on the false and misleading claims of the FFNZ ads, and why due diligence was not performed by EFT in determining the validity of these claims prior to publicly defending them? Your continued refusal to address this issue is clear demonstration that you have no answers, and cannot defend the poor judgment exhibited by EFT in defending those ads without first having verified its information.

            2. There is no more need to address “how much fluoride is optimal for consumption on a daily basis” in regard to water fluoridation, than there is to address how much chlorine, ammonia, or any of the numerous other routine water additives “is optimal for consumption on a daily basis”. Water fluoridation is not about optimum fluoride intake. It is about optimum fluoride concentration in drinking water. As long as this concentration does not exceed the threshold for adverse effects, it makes no sense to not adjust the level of fluoride to this level at which maximum benefit will be attained from a substance we will ingest anyway. This optimum concentration, as recommended by the US Department of Health and Human Services is 0.7 ppm.

            3. In regard to your questions:

            A. Dental decay preventive measures are not mutually exclusive. Providing nutritional education does not automatically mean that fluoridation or any other viable preventive measures cannot, or should not, be employed, any more than does implementation of fluoridation mean that no nutritional education can be provided. The problem with untreated dental decay is overwhelming in your country, my country, and most others. We need all the help we can get in combatting it. Water fluoridation is the most cost-effective means we have available to prevent significant amounts of dental decay in entire populations.

            B. Fluoridated toothpaste has 1200-1500 times the fluoride concentration as does fluoridated water. That is the reason for the warning on the tube.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

          • There you have it folks. Straight from the forced fluoridation fanatic Dr. Steve Slott himself: “Water fluoridation is not about optimum fluoride intake. It is about optimum fluoride concentration in drinking water.”

            In other words, it does not matter how many pills you take on a daily basis, as long as you take that pill with every single sip of municipal drinking water you consume for the rest of your life.

            Science? No real doctor can prescribe any medication without a prescription based on the needs of the individual. The one-size-fits-all approach of using the water supply to deliver medication is unscientific, baseless, and wrong.

            95% of the world does not artificially fluoridate. Quacks like Disinformation Director Slott would be eaten alive in Germany, Sweden, China, Russia, India, Japan, South Korea, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, etc… etc… but don’t believe any of the policies of these countries or 95% of the world what do they know?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *