Please do everything to support keeping fluoride in water supplies-it is safe and most ethical means of community prevention of dental decay
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/getting-facts-fluoride
Thanks for posting the link. The link leads to a well written contribution to the debate, although even when following the offered links there is not a lot on addressing the issue of freedom of choice, a topic that has at least two aspects. What do you do if you want to avoid it and what is next on the list of additives (folic acid is/was already in the discussion, and mandatory fortification was cancelled in the last minute). I think it would be worth to genuinely address such concerns too. No luck either for people in Hawke’s Bay who want to know what the local statistics are and, for example, compare Napier and Hastings. The data seems not to be available to the public. The Oral Health Survey 2009 is 355 pages long but only gives summary data on such comparisons. The first one on page 168 lists the DMFT Index (which gives the number of Decayed, Missing or Filled Teeth) for children aged 2 to 17. I was surprised to see that New Zealand-wide the difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated area is not even a single tooth (DMFT 1.5 vs. DMFT 2.4). No doubt any missing or compromised tooth is a loss (and a cost), but with all the hoo-hah, I had thought the difference would be larger. Clearly, this issue is a very charged one, probably on both sides of the argument. Here is an interesting link to a website that gives a bit on the history of fluoride and tooth health going back to the early 20th Century: http://www.nidcr.nih.gov/oralhealth/topics/fluoride/thestoryoffluoridation.htm (National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research website in the US) Cheerio r
Oops, the above post had a hyperlink in regards to folic acid, but that got lost when I published the comment. I try again and hopefully it will work now: http://www.foodsafety.govt.nz/elibrary/industry/fortification-bread-folic-acid/index.htm
Hi Arish,
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting the link. The link leads to a well written contribution to the debate, although even when following the offered links there is not a lot on addressing the issue of freedom of choice, a topic that has at least two aspects. What do you do if you want to avoid it and what is next on the list of additives (folic acid is/was already in the discussion, and mandatory fortification was cancelled in the last minute). I think it would be worth to genuinely address such concerns too.
No luck either for people in Hawke’s Bay who want to know what the local statistics are and, for example, compare Napier and Hastings. The data seems not to be available to the public. The Oral Health Survey 2009 is 355 pages long but only gives summary data on such comparisons. The first one on page 168 lists the DMFT Index (which gives the number of Decayed, Missing or Filled Teeth) for children aged 2 to 17. I was surprised to see that New Zealand-wide the difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated area is not even a single tooth (DMFT 1.5 vs. DMFT 2.4). No doubt any missing or compromised tooth is a loss (and a cost), but with all the hoo-hah, I had thought the difference would be larger. Clearly, this issue is a very charged one, probably on both sides of the argument.
Here is an interesting link to a website that gives a bit on the history of fluoride and tooth health going back to the early 20th Century:
http://www.nidcr.nih.gov/oralhealth/topics/fluoride/thestoryoffluoridation.htm (National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research website in the US)
Cheerio r
Oops, the above post had a hyperlink in regards to folic acid, but that got lost when I published the comment. I try again and hopefully it will work now: http://www.foodsafety.govt.nz/elibrary/industry/fortification-bread-folic-acid/index.htm
ReplyDelete