Press Release 26 February 2010Its competence already queried at inception in June 2009 by International Society of Doctors for Environment(ISDE) (1), the EU’s Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) which is investigating fluoridation chemicals, has now been accused of a conflict of interest. SCHER’s credibility is thus further compromised by one of its members having actively co-promoted fluoridation in Switzerland. Prof Ackermann-Liebrich was involved with others in needlessly prolonging fluoridation in Basel-city for several years until in 2003, the Swiss Canton stopped fluoridation because even after 40 years, no study could prove the caries-preventive effect of fluoridation. Basel-city also cited the risk of fluorosis of bone in particular the risks to young children and babies. The only EU countries still allowing this practice are Ireland and a few English water PLCs (Scotland, Wales, N.Ireland and the Isle of Man reject it outright).The conflict of interest charge is contained in an Open Letter (2) to new Maltese Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection (SANCO) Mr John Dalli. The letter reproduces WHO data for Malta showing no relationship between dental caries and fluoride content in drinking water. Other WHO international data for 12 yr olds was also provided to Mr Dalli that similarly found no statistical support for fluoridated water’s claimed caries prevention.The letter is from Austrian physicist Rudolf Ziegelbecker son of the late Rudolf Ziegelbecker, scientist from Graz, whose compelling statistical evidence after many years research, demonstrates the fallacy of water fluoridation. The late Rudolf Ziegelbecker’s evidence was a decisive contribution in persuading German-speaking nations in Europe to reject fluoridation and they were later followed in the 1990s by the neighbouring Czech and Slovak republics, by former East Germany, Hungary and Poland totalling some 100 million in today’s EU.While alerting the new Comissioner to the fallacy of water fluoridation, Mr Ziegelbecker also criticised the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for its persistent failure a) to recognise fluoride’s inefficacy as a caries preventitive and b) its setting of tolerable upper limits that do not protect against harmful effects. He quotes correspondence about this important matter from his late father to EFSA members, yet not a single opinion issued by several recent EFSA panels references any of Ziegelbecker’s research or any other scientific papers which refuted the scientific basis of caries-fluoride prophylaxis. The Open Letter explicitly questions why the Commission has instructed SCHER to collaborate closely with an agency whose work on fluoride has been challenged because it is so manifestly ill-informed and unbalanced.Mr Ziegelbecker appeals to Commissioner Dalli to use his best efforts to stop fluoridation throughout the EU because of the immediate risk it poses to children, citing the large rise in dental fluorosis in Irish children.Finally, in expressing disapproval of the suppression of independent fluoride research in the medical literature – Medline still does not include the highly respected open access journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research (ISFR) Fluoride – the Austrian notes how difficult it is for EU consumers to obtain independent scientific information on the subject of fluoride.Comment from Robert Pocock of VOICE of Irish Concern for the Environment:“ Mr Ziegelbecker’s revelations about how most of central Europe for very sound reasons stopped fluoridation, should be a wake-up call to DG SANCO. Mr Dalli must now recognise that his predecessor’s decision to involve SCHER and EFSA in assessing water fluoridation was thoroughly misguided. Unless SCHER now also finds that fluoridation of drinking water is fundamentally flawed, its report will command no credibility across Europe. Indeed if this committee -- qualified to assess risks from environmental pollutants only -- is to emerge with any credit from the mess visited on it by the EU Commission, SCHER must now state unequivocally that fluoridation can only be assessed as a medicine ie pharmacologically. Unless the EU Commission faces up to its regulatory duty to enforce the Medicines Directive*, which prohibits any medicinal claim to be made for a substance without a medicinal authorisation, it will not regain EU consumer trust, least of all in Ireland and England where unauthorised and therefore illegal fluoridation chemicals are added to drinking water.Consumers in both fluoridated Ireland and England are further disadvantaged because their respective governments officially deny the severity of dental fluorosis caused by fluoridation, with the Irish government calling it ‘a cosmetic condition’ and the UK government suppressing fluorosis evidence completely.”* Directive 2001/83/EC as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC and effective 30th October 2004, classifies all products which are presented to ‘treat or prevent’ disease or which have a ‘pharmacological , immunological or metabolic action’ as medicinal products. The only exemptions are products which are ‘clearly’ foods, food supplements etc. The amending directive makes clear that ‘in cases of doubt’ (ie ‘borderline products’) medicinal law shall have supremacy over any other EU law. Under these terms hydrofluorosilicic acid whose stated purpose is to prevent dental caries, must be regarded as medicinal. However drinking water medicated with fluorosilicic acid is not classified as medicinal by the UK or Irish government medicines regulator or by the European Medicines Agency.The EU Commission has presided over this ten year regulatory failure despite appeals from Irish and UK MEPs and the European Parliament’s Petition Committee which lodged a petition against fluoridation (No 210 of 2007.(3)(1) http://www.ukcaf.org/files/michael_letter_re_scher_mandate.pdf(2) Open Letter copied in full below(3) http://voiceireland.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/090609_Water-Fluoridation-in-the-EU-1999_final.pdfMag. Dipl.-Ing. Dr. techn. e-mail: zbr@aon.atRudolf ZiegelbeckerFranckstraße 248010 Graz Tel.: 0043 - 316 - 34 96 53Mr. John DALLIEuropean Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy (CA.16)personallyEuropean CommissionB - 1049 BrusselsFeb 19, 2010Open LetterDear Mr Dalli,I welcome your assurances to MEPs at the European Parliament hearing on 14.01.2010 that"The underlying theme of my work will be Patients First, Consumers First" and that you wanted "well-informed consumers who can take educated decisions on the goods and services they consume". http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/008-67215-013-01-03-901-20100113IPR67206-13-01-2010-2010-false/default_en.htmYour focus is very appropriate because there is an issue currently before DG SANCO which adversely affects many consumers, namely the negative health effects, especially in children, of an intentionally increased fluoride exposure. As regards being well-informed, EU citizens (like the EFSA panels) are so poorly informed about this toxin and about the change of paradigm due to the results of diligent scientific research, that they are unable to take educated decisions on how to protect themselves. While e.g. in Ireland already more than a third of the children in fluoridated areas suffer from visible fluorosis, the more than 60 years old studies seemingly showing a benefit of fluoridation and on which the EFSA, the WHO and dentists’ organizations rely, have been refuted scientifically (even unopposed) now for more than 30 years. Even many of today’s papers still do not consider the effects to which these refutations call attention.On August 23, 2007 the highly respected Albert W. Burgstahler, Prof Emeritus of Chemistry, University of Kansas (PhD Harvard 1953), editor of Fluoride (www.FluorideResearch.org), wrote to me: "Even now, despite no clear evidence of any real caries reduction from water fluoridation or even from topical fluorides, many researchers submitting research reports for publication in ‘Fluoride’ still adhere to the belief that there is such evidence. But then, when asked to cite it, they bring up outdated and disproved reports or else drop the claim."Here are only two of many independent checks confirming that the basis of fluoridation is invalid, a “50% caries reduction by fluoride” as has been promised by dentists would look much different:(Data from Ziegelbecker R.&R.C., Fluoride1993,26(4)263-6)The above diagrams only “repeat” the “father of fluoridation” method – but in contrast show a zero effect. If one would also account for the fluoride-caused tooth eruption delay – which is a toxic effect that produces large pretended “benefits” (differences in caries due to less and youn­ger teeth) but is still ignored in probably all “scientific” papers which recommend fluoridation – the above data, like many other studies, would indicate even less resistant teeth at higher fluoride intake = inverted benefits = harm which occurs additionally to fluorosis and to many other observed or possible side effects, already at the “recommended” intake level and from any form of lifelong fluori­dation (water, tablets, salt, nutri­tion). There are many more completely independent checks and proofs for the scientifical untena­bility of the foundations of fluoridation, as Bill Osmunson’s Fig.1 in http://www.fluorideresearch.org/404/files/FJ2007_v40_n4_p214-221.pdf which suggests a zero effect of water fluoridation in the USA or John Colquhoun’s diagram showing a decline of caries during decades without any indication of efficacy of fluoridation in New Zealand (Fluoride 1993:26(2)125-34), some of them having been sent to the DG SANCO during its calls for information in spring 2009.Your predecessor in the DG SANCO placed undue reliance on fluoride opinions by EFSA experts, even though these opinions are scientifical­ly invalid, as well as on the current SCHER procedure.However, there are some very important facts demanding your personal engagement in this highly important issue:1. Even after EFSA’s director had been extensively informed by email on Feb. 13/14, 2006 by my late father http://www.fluorideresearch.org/423/files/FJ2009_v42_n3_p162-166.pdf , an Austrian expert on fluoridation, about the fact that the EFSA relies on studies which have been refuted for more than 30 years, the EFSA panels act as if they do not have any knowledge of these developments. EFSA panels continued producing scientifically untenable opinions on fluoride and inadmissibly “declaring” fluorides as “nutrients” (a recent example was in November 2008 when EFSA approved sodium monofluorophosphate (‘MFP’) as a food supplement, at direct odds with the EU Cosmetics Directive on fluoride toothpastes that requires they carry a warning to children under 6 years to minimize swallowing toothpaste containing MFP, and in a way that the leading toxicologist and long-serving expert adviser to the Europe­an Com­mis­sion, Prof Vyvyan Howard, was moved to question why EFSA chose to ignore the risk of fluo­ride exposure to the foetus and to growth and development – http://www.anhcampaign.org/files/090123-Commentary-Prof-Vyvyan-Howard-EFSA-SMP-opinion.pdf).2. If scientific methods are to be correctly applied now,a) EFSA panels would have to correct=overthrow their own earlier opinions, andb) the SCHER must not rely (again) on them.Both requirements are not only not provided, but even impeded by the method selected by the former EU commission: To the contrary, the text “While no one doubts the beneficial effects of fluoride...” in SCHER’s preli­mi­nary working mandate was issued at a time when serious doubts were available to the EFSA and therefore also to the DG SANCO, and theactual working mandate contains a close coopera­tion of SCHER with EFSA of which people will be further dismayed due to the questionable competence of the EFSA concerning fluorides.3. Another major cause for concern is the involvement of Professor Ursula Ackermann-Liebrich. Being an opponent to my father in 1999 in a fluoridation hea­­ring on Basle (see http://www.sso.ch/doc/doc_download.cfm?uuid=882FA737D9D9424C46408F384F86C9C0 p. 544 bottom), as a consequence of which she was also responsible for the senseless prolonging of Basle’s water fluoridation (which was finally stopped in 2003 because the promoters could not provide a proof for its efficacy), she is now - as a member of the SCHER and despite her declaration of a conflict of interests – “deciding in her own case”.When in 2009 your predecessor called for information on fluoride and fluoridation chemicals for risk-assessment by the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER), she was clearly not familiar with the battle against fluoridation in Germany, Austria and Switzerland since the 1970s. All readers of the book by Dr.med M.O. Bruker and Rudolf Ziegelbecker (my late father), know that the precondition and main reason for stopping fluoridation in continental Europe was its inefficacy against dental caries, accompanied by taking account of its actual and possible side-effects, which fact is well documented in this book.I therefore enclose 2 copies of the book “Vorsicht Fluor” for your and your authority’s use.It also covers efficient methods of reducing dental caries (pp. 15-17 and 321-323), the untenable scientific basis of fluoridation (e.g. pp. 332-348), the elimination of fluoridation in Europe (pp.398-405) and manipulation of information (pp. 422 ++).While in true science the remarkable fact that the “caries flood” which had been predicted by fluoridation promoters in case of ending the numerous fluoridations – which indeed took place in many European countries since the 1970s – has never occurred after such stops (see Fluoride 1998; 31(3)171-4 in http://www.fluorideresearch.org/313/files/FJ1998_v31_n3_p129-174andS1-S34.pdf and pp. 368/369 and 404/405 of the book “Vorsicht Fluor”) would have completely refuted the hypothesis of the “benefit of fluoridation” by every single one of these cases, such important findings against fluoridation are simply ignored or suppressed from getting to the relevant researchers and authorities which are supplied instead with “selected” information in a complete departure from responsible science, even up to this day:For example Fluoride, the open-access, quarterly scientific journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research (ISFR), despite all efforts, has never been available on Medline, the database most used by medical researchers (see the Editorial Report in http://www.fluorideresearch.org/424/files/FJ2009_v42_n4_p256-259.pdf), which fact results in some editors still publishing erroneous claims about fluoridation (which then are available via Medline!) simply because the scientific evidence has been hidden in this way.Dear Mr Dalli, if consumers and especially children are truly to be your top priority, please use your very best efforts to rectify the greatest dental health policy error of recent decades, fluoridation. Only by your early personal action, by completely stopping fluoridation across the whole Euro­pean Union and putting this issue on a scientific basis again (which includes full incorporation also of the refutations of the papers which have led to fluoridation into the scientific discussion, and full publication also of contrary results) plus information of the con­­sumers and revision of EFSA’s earlier scientific opinions including a lowering of the Upper Tole­ra­ble Intake Level for fluoride can consumers and children in the European Union be adequately protected.Given the widespread public concern about this matter, I am sending this as an Open Letter.