Fluoride
is a substance at the centre of furious debate.
It’s a topic gone globally ramped. Government institutions, the general public, wellness enthusiasts and health professionals, all scratching their heads, trying to figure out the answer to this one notorious question: “What dangers can Fluoride
consumption pose on human health?” People are generally confused; frozen between
scientific evidence that concludes conflicting results, and the instructions from government authorities and related organisations who strongly endorse the
consumption of fluoride in drinking water. When we visit the dentist
and seek their honest advice about the subject, their personal opinion is monitored – seemingly ruled by government
sanction.
What’s
all the Fluoride commotion about anyway?
When referring to fluoride in its natural
and undisturbed state, there’s not much to go on about at all. All organisms require the presence of
fluoride in order to prosper - humans, plants, animals and sea creatures alike.
So when we come across it as nature presents it, the exposure to fluoride is
usually beneficial – and when optimal levels are obtained, fluoride has been
particularly shown to protect tooth enamel and prevent tooth decay.
There are however, some exceptions to this
rule. In certain corners of the world, naturally occurring fluoride in
waterways are quite high, and numerous studies have been conducted on these populations
(namely regions in China, Africa and India) to observe the health
impacts of living with unavoidable elevated fluoride levels – the results of
which have shown numerous and repeated adverse side effects.
Fluoride is found naturally in rock, soil, water, the air and in living organisms. It can also be released spontaneously via natural events such as volcanic
emissions.
Human activity can disturb and expose
natural deposits, increasing fluoride concentrations above normal
environmental levels – mining, aluminium manufacturing, combustion of coal, and the use of phosphate fertilisers, are all common practices
that contribute to the release of fluoride.
Human consumption of fluoride occurs via
food (trace amounts usually), drinking water (naturally or when added for
dental health), fluoridated milk, fluoridated salt, fluoride supplements,
dentist fluoride treatments and products with ‘added’ fluoride such as
toothpaste and mouthwash.
Our principal intake of fluoride is through the
consumption of food and water.
Concerns
arise when Fluoride exposure exceeds ‘safe’ quantities - here are the facts:
- Fluoride is toxic at high
levels. We drink it in our water, our dentists apply it to our teeth, and we
ingest it every day via our toothpaste and mouthwash. We can suffer Acute
Toxicity (immediate poisoning) and Chronic Toxicity (caused by excessive
fluoride exposure over longer periods of time).
- High-level fluoride consumption
at any ONE time can prompt ‘Acute Fluoride Poisoning’. Symptoms include,
but are not limited to: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and abdominal pain.
- Over-exposure to fluoride above optimal levels over a period of time, can cause what it known as ‘Fluorosis’; a condition that has been proven to affect the teeth and skeletal framework. Skeletal Fluorosis has been linked to heart disease, cancer, cognitive function, arthritis, osteoporosis and hypothyroidism. Dental Fluorosis causes tooth discolouration, and severe cases can often result in ‘mottled’ tooth enamel.
- Fluoride is a Neurotoxin. Since
2006, studies have recorded up to six newly categorised developmental neurotoxins - one of which was Fluoride. Neurotoxins are responsible for
contributing to neuro-developmental disabilities including autism, attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia and other cognitive impairments. These
conditions affect millions of children worldwide, and researchers are finding
that some of these diagnoses seem to be increasing in frequency.
- The range of fluoride levels in
drinking water deemed safe by the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines(updated March 2015) is between 0.7 and 1mg/Litre. This range is
very narrow and maintenance of fluoride levels in drinking water must be regularly
and diligently monitored by state governments and local councils. Outside of metropolitan areas, councils are usually responsible for adding fluoride to water supplies.
- In the 1960’s and 1970’s
Australia began fluoridating it’s drinking water supplies. By 1984, almost 66%
of the Australian population had access to fluoridated drinking water. Today,
around 90% of Australians have access to fluoridated drinking water.
- In 2006, a major study known as the The Iowa study showed a strong significant positive relationship between total fluoride intake (including diet, water, dental products and supplements) and the prevalence of ANY fluorosis. Cumulative average daily intakes of more than 0.04 mg/kg bw/day resulted in a significantly higher prevalence of fluorosis. The highest rates of fluorosis were associated with intakes of more than 0.06 mg/kg bw/day. The results of this study have also been acknowledged by the Food Standards of Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ). The Australian Water Guidelines (set by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and endorsed by the Australian Dental Association (ADA)), regard safe fluoride levels in drinking water to be between 0.6 and 1.1mg/L.
- A final 'Information Paper' is expected to be issued in 2016 by the the Australian NHMRC, providing information on the latest evidence regarding the “efficacy of the practice” of Australia’s widespread fluoridation of drinking water, and whether the “decades long scheme is bringing the desired benefits” of mitigating tooth decay. Published scientific articles have been called upon as the first step of the review process to ensure that any future advice provided by the NHMRC “is based on the most current evidence”.
- Fluoride treatment is effective when applied topically. A study published in 2013 titled “The cariostatic mechanisms of fluoride” concluded that: “the current evidence from clinical and laboratory studies suggest that the caries-preventative mode of action (of fluoride) is mainly topical”. The findings also stated, that when fluoride is continually present in oral fluids such as saliva, this fluoride is able to prevent the demineralization of teeth by absorbing directly into the surface of the enamel.
- Water fluoridation in Australia
is supported and endorsed by the following major organisations:
-
Australia’s National Health and
Medical Research Council
-
Public Health Associations of
Australia
-
Australian Medical Association
-
Australian Dental Association
-
Australian Institute of Environmental
Health
-
Australian Institute of Health
and Welfare
-
Arthritis Australia
-
Osteoporosis Australia
-
The Pharmacy Guild of Australia
So the question remains: “What danger can Fluoride consumption pose on human health?”
Why are we still involuntarily drinking fluoride in our tap water? Studies show that we can maintain dental health by topical application. Why
has the Australian government approved what seems like a “mass medication” of
the Australian public without fully knowing what the health implications would be for the 90% of Australians who have now been consuming fluoridated water for several decades? What will
the NHMRC’s final Information Paper expose about fluoride consumption in 2016?
Will it be too late for many of us to reverse what could potentially involve, skeletal, cognitive, neurological and even cardiovascular damage?
Fluorosis
– The mystery illness
At the moment, the ONLY disease formally recognised to be directly associated with flouride intake, is Fluorosis.
There are two types of Fluorosis: Dental Fluorosis and
Skeletal Fluorosis.
Dental fluorosis is regarded as the most
common form of the two. The World Health Organisation describes clinical dental fluorosis as “staining and pitting of the teeth.” And “in more sever cases, all
the enamel may be damaged”.
The Australian Dental Association defines
Dental Fluorosis as the "staining or mottling of the teeth as a result of
greater than optimal fluoride exposure while a child’s teeth are developing”.
The Centre for Disease Control confirms
that “only children aged 8 years and younger can develop dental fluorosis
because this is when permanent teeth are developing under the gums. Once the teeth
erupt through the gums and are in the mouth, they can no longer develop
fluorosis. The teeth of children older than 8 years, adolescents and adults
cannot develop dental fluorosis”.
So, of what we can PHYSICALLY SEE, the
first NOTICEABLE symptoms of dental fluorosis are teeth discouloration and with
more sever cases, “mottled” tooth enamel – displays of which only affect children, and are described by the NHMR as entirely “aesthetic”.
[What 'aesthetic' MEANS is, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia considers dental
fluorosis symptoms to be a mere cosmetic issue - basically... nothing to worry about... we can just bleach that stuff into oblivion... now let's sweep it under the rug and forget about it... problem solved.]
If teeth can show external abnormalities
from overexposure to fluoride, then it is reasonable to question what fluorosis
could mean from an ‘internal’ perspective. Out of the entire human skeletal
system, teeth are the only bones to exist externally. They are the only portion
of our entire bone structure that can be physically observed from the outside.
We cannot go to a dentist or doctor with teeth discolouration and say “Hey, can
you have a look at my hip bones as well and tell me if they’re normal? Do you
think I’ll need a hip replacement in 20 years time if I don’t start reducing my
fluoride intake?”
If children can form Dental Fluorosis under
the age of 8, what else could have, or
could STILL BE, happening internally to the rest of the skeletal structure,
that is NOT. BEING. CORRECTLY. ADDRESSED? More directly, what other health
issues are we suffering that are being EXCLUDED from the diagnosis, AND THE TREATMENT of, fluorosis?
If teeth are affected before they
erupt, then something seriously abnormal is happening within a child's system that
could well be lingering right through to their adult and senior years.
The second form of Fluorosis is “Skeletal Fluorosis”, where fluoride accumulates in the bone progressively over
many years. Early symptoms include stiffness and joint pain. The World Health Organisation states that in severe cases of Skeletal
Fluorosis, “the bone structure may change and ligaments may calcify, with
resulting impairment of muscles, and pain”.
Shall we go out on a 'tangent" here and dare to compare
these symptoms to a common (but serious) household ailment known as... Arthritis? I think we should, just for
curiosity’s sake…
Arthritis Australia states that “Arthritis
related problems include, pain, stiffness, inflammation, and damage to joint
cartilage and surrounding structures. This can result in joint
weakness, instability and deformities that can interfere with the most daily
basic tasks”.
Can anyone else see a similarity?
Right now a massive 28% of the
Australian population have arthritis and other muscoskeletal conditions (that’s
around 6.1 million people). Of the different forms of Arthritis, Osteo-Arthritis is the LEADING SOURCE of
health expenditure on arthritis in Australia, accounting for $2.03 billion per year.
Osteoarthritis is the progressive deterioration of the joint. If Osteoarthritis
degenerates to advanced stages, cartilage not only breaks down (leading to
stiff and restricted joints), but new bone (or spurs) can form near the joint
as a result.
And what did WHO say again? They
stated that in severe cases of Skeletal Fluorosis, “the bone structure may
change and ligaments may calcify, with resulting impairment of muscles and
pain”.
Arthritis symptoms compare very similarly
to that of ‘Skeletal Fluorosis’, yet no direct correlation has been formally
acknowledged by any government health body - none that I’ve come across in my
research anyway.
In 2006, the Food Standards Australia New
Zealand (FSANZ) stated in a document titled “Application A588 – Voluntary Addition of Fluoride to
Packaged Water”, that:
“The prevalence of very mild and mild
dental fluorosis is usually higher in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated
areas. However, there is no evidence of skeletal fluorosis that is attributable
to fluoridated water supply sources in Australia and New Zealand”…
Could there have been a higher incidence
of osteoarthritis in these areas instead?
The document goes on to read:
“The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines
says levels above 4mg/L can cause skeletal fluorosis (NHMRC and NRMMC, 2004),
but the maximum fluoride level set in the Guidelines (at the time) was 1.5mg/L. No evidence
of occurrence of skeletal fluorosis in Australia or New Zealand was found.
Levels of fluoride in drinking water in Australia and New Zealand are much
lower than those attributed to the development of skeletal fluorosis.”
But what about Fluoride levels in drinking
water that could possibly attribute to something like Arthritis?
In a World Health Organisation background
paper published in October 2004, Osteoarthritis (OA) is regarded as:
“A complex disease whose cause is not
completely understood. Furthermore, effective biomarkers, diagnostic aids and
imaging technology are not available to assist in the management of OA. There
are also several areas where information is still lacking; these include:
epidemiology, pathophysiology, environmental risk factors, genetic
predisposition and lifestyle factors.”
The paper also stated that: “at present,
there is not a cure of OA”.
Or is there?
If levels above 4mg/Litre can cause skeletal
fluorosis, then just how easy is it to reach 4mg/L? Combine fluoridated drinking water with
fluoridated products like toothpaste and mouthwash, and we could easily be
increasing our risk of fluorosis. The problem here is
that there is no easy and accurate way of measuring our total daily
consumption. In addition, the upper and lower limit of ‘safe’ fluoride ingestion is quite narrow
(currently0.7-1mg/L), so merely
estimating our level of exposure will not suffice. Despite all of this, we are still being left to our own devices by our government to try and save ourselves from
the crippling effects of fluorosis. The NHMRC has confirmed this by stating:
“The
prevalence of fluorosis has been significantly reduced with more appropriate
use of OTHER FLUORIDE SOURCES”.
The Australian Dental Association supports the NHMRC's recommendations by agreeing that the “preferred strategy for maintaining the low
incidence of dental fluorosis” is to “CONTROL ADDITIONAL fluoride sources, RATHER THAN the reduction or removal of the optimum fluoride level in drinking
water”.
(ADA Policy Statement April 2014 )
Even if we could accurately
measure our fluoride intake form other sources, how do we know that the fluoride in
our drinking water is maintained at consistently safe levels?
How can the levels of fluoride be accurately monitored by state governments and local councils,
100% of the time?
In December 2013, the Snowy River Shire
Council (NSW, Australia) found that fluoride levels in local drinking water reached 2.8mg/Litre. That’s more than DOUBLE the maximum recommended fluoride concentration, and this was likely to have occurred over several days. If the World Health Organisation
t
akes the stand that:
“the control of DRINKING WATER IS CRITICAL in preventing fluorosis”,
and our food regulatory body, FSANZ,
conforms with the Australian Drinking Guidelines
(set by the NHMRC) which recommend:
“levels above 4mg/L can cause skeletal
fluorosis (NHMRC and NRMMC, 2004)",
then the residents of the Snowy River Council who happened to drink two or more litres of water a day during that
critical time, have been unknowingly put at risk of skeletal fluorosis while trusting the effectiveness of government policy and regulation.
How often do breaches like this happen all over the nation, of which we are NOT told about?
It makes sense then, that we could well be
overdosing on Fluoride, not only due to the fact that we can not adequately measure our own exposure from "other fluoride sources", but as a result of inconsistencies with water quality management. Skeletal Fluorosis is apparently very rare in Australia - how do we know if this is true? The general public are not routinely tested for fluoride to support such a claim. The direct cause and cure of Osteoarthritis (something that is very prevalent in Australia) is not yet known - why not? Because the general public are not routinely tested for fluoride? WHY THE HELL AREN'T WE BEING ROUTINELY TESTED FOR FLUORIDE?
Is it possible that a portion of the 28% of
the Australian public currently diagnosed with Arthritis, are NOT actually
suffering from ‘Arthritis’ at all, but another completely different condition sharing the same symptoms? A condition by the name of “skeletal Fluorosis”
perhaps? The very same condition that might be resolved
by simply reducing one’s fluoride intake?
The dilemma doesn't stop there - what about that other bone disorder currently crippling Australia… Osteoporosis?
In the past, Fluoride has been used as
experimental treatments for osteoporosis, trials of which consequently found
that “fluoride therapy” actually INCREASED vertebral fractures and bone loss (Gutteridge
DH, et al. (2002)). Right now in our own country, every
5-6 minutes someone is admitted to an Australian hospital with an osteoporotic
fracture.
There are people suffering from the
debilitation of Arthritis and Osteoporosis, who could well be in fact experiencing
chronic fluoride toxicity. Excessive fluoride intake is often concurrent with joint pain and
stiffness. Even the US Department of Health and Human Services has admitted to that one. What if relieving and treating
arthritis or osteoporosis, was as simple as reducing fluoride intake over a
certified time frame? Right now, that seems extraordinarily ridiculous! But how
do we know, when for some reason, our health professionals are not openly giving
us the option of getting tested?
Fluoride levels can be determined through blood tests (serum level tests) which indicate the amount of fluoride in soft
tissues (long term exposure), and urine tests (which indicates immediate and everyday
fluoride exposure like occupational ingestion, and constant excessive consumption due to residing in areas with high fluoride levels - such as naturally high
water fluoridation).
Could you imagine if the solution to
preventing common diseases like Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis was as simple
as reducing our consumption of fluoride? Or is that too out of reach given that we
already have a massive market for prescription ‘solutions’, many of which are comfortably
listed on the Public Benefits Scheme? (Ahhhhh… the frustration of it all!)
Fluorosis, Arthritis and Osteoporosis... Overshadowed by the Public Benefits Scheme?
Lets talk about this! Let’s go there….
The Pharmaceutical Industry Profile on the
Australian Government’s Department of Industry and Science’s website writes “The Pharmaceuticals
Industry receives significant financial support from the Australian Government through
the sales of medicines listed on the Public Benefits Scheme (PBS).”
According to the Australian Department of
Industry and Science website, “Australia’s population only represents approximately
0.3 per cent of the world population. However, Australians consume large
amounts of medicines. Pharmaceutical sales in Australia made up a significant
share of the global market, making Australia the 12th largest world
market in 2012 (IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics Report 2012).”
These are the figures, and straight from the source. Can it get any more obvious? Clearly, it is far more desirable
(and profitable) to treat the symptoms, and not the cause. I don't need to ask about fluoride testing anymore... I have found my answer. Prescription medicine has, and always will be, the unfortunate
lifeline of that massive and highly influential universe, that is, the Pharmaceutical Industry.
Sponsorship... The new Governor?
And then there's the possibility of ‘sponsoring’ by all the big companies, behind all the big toothpaste brands. If the ADA says to minimise the
risk of Fluorosis by reducing “other sources”, then that would mean restricting
fluoridated products such as toothpaste and mouthwash. If the ADA presents this information plain and simple, then why are fluoridated products from brands like
Colgate and Oral B starring you in the face as soon as you walk into a registered dental
clinic?
The ADA is recommending toothpastes and mouthwash that contain fluoride... the very same “other sources” that we are told to
restrict, to control our risk of fluorosis.
Here is the complete list of oral hygiene products endorsed by the ADA (as of January 2015):
Toothpaste:
Colgate Total
Colgate Total Mint Stripe
Colgate Fluoriguard Sparkling Mint Gel (currently Spiderman )
Colgate Fluoriguard Sparkling Mint Gel ( Currently Dora )
My First Colgate
Colgate Total Advanced Whitening
Colgate Total Advanced Fresh
Colgate Total Advanced Clean
Colgate Sensitive Fresh Stripe
Colgate Sensitive Whitening
Colgate Sensitive Multi Protection
Colgate Maximum Cavity plus sugar acid neutraliser (Clean Mint)
Colgate Maximum Cavity plus sugar acid neutraliser (Fresh Mint)
White Glo Toothpaste
Coles Toothpaste Total Care
Coles Toothpaste Total Care & Whitening
Macleans Milk Teeth
Oral B Pro Health Fresh mint
Oral B Pro Health Clean Mint
Mouthwash:
Colgate Savacol Mouth and Throat Rinse Mint
Colgate Savacol Mouth and Throat Rinse Freshmint
Colgate Savacol Mouth and Throat Rinse Alcohol-Free
Listerine Coolmint
Listerine Freshburst
Listerine Mouth Rinse
Listerine Tartar Control Antiseptic Mouth Rinse
Listerine Teeth Defence Antiseptic Mouthwash with Fluoride
Listerine Total Care Mouthwash
Trendpac
Denitex Teeth Defence
Denitex Gentle Care Zero
Denitex Ultra Fresh Burst
Denitex Tartar Control
What else is the Australian Dental Association promoting? Parabens, sodium laurel sulfate (skin irritant, suspected carcinogen), artificial sweeteners (carcinogenic), triclosan (hormone disrupter), artificial colours, artificial flavours, artificial preservatives, antifreeze (propylene glycol) and numbers that don’t even register
in the English language. That’s ok, because we’ll all have great teeth won't we?
Looking at the below, it is hard to believe that these ingredients/chemicals are even deemed SAFE to put in our mouth, let alone endorsed by the Australian Dental Association:
Colgate Total Mintsripe:
Sodium Fluoride, Triclosan, Water, Hydrated Silica, Glycerin, Sorbital, PVM/MA Copolymer, Sodium Laurel Sulfate, Cellulose Gum, Flavour, Sodium Hydroxide, Carrageenan, Propylene Glycol, Sodium Saccharin, Mica, Titanium Dioxide, FD&C blue no.1, D&C yellow no.10.
Macleans Milk Teeth (ingredients listed on the packet):
Glycerin, Water, Hydrated Silica, Xylitol, PEG-6, Xanthan Gum, Sodium Fluoride, Sodium Methyl Cocoyl Taurate, Disodium Phosphate, Flavour, Titanium Dioxide, Sodium Saccharin, Mehtylparaben, Propylparaben, C173360, C174160.
Oral B Pro Health Fresh Mint:
Sodium Fluoride. The full ingredients list could not be found... promising!.
Colgate Savacol:
Could only find that it contains
Chlorhexidine Gluconate. An ingredient that
may cause reversible staining of the teeth and tooth-coloured restorations. It may also lead to increased tartar production and a temporary alteration in taste perception. Side effects include white patches or sores inside of the mouth and swelling of the salivary gland. If swallowed and an overdose is suspected, poisons information should be called immediately.
Eucalyptol, Menthol, Methyl Salicylate, Thymol, Water, Alcohol, Sorbitol Solution, Flavouring, Poloxamer 407, Benzoic Acid, Sodium Saccharin, Sodium Benzoate, FD&C Green No. 3.
Interestingly, there is not one organic or even natural brand of toothpaste mentioned on the official product list. Dentists are promoting oral health (as expected)... but they are doing it at the expense of our entire general wellbeing; Fluoridated drinking water prevents tooth decay (and is also linked to several other serious diseases). Fluoridated products improve oral health (and contain ingredients that are both carcinogenic and hormone disrupting).
Is there a reason why the ADA supports these particularly nasty mainstream brands? These products do improve oral hygiene (to an extent), but is there some other motivation behind the ADA's official list of endorsements?
When toothpaste brands are splashed all over the walls of dental rooms, when
supermarket shelves are filled with these same big company names (products that
contain fluoride… AND parabens AND other cheap fillers), and when the products
of these Brands are being indirectly encouraged by the government, it makes you
question… Are big companies sponsoring dentists? Are government health
departments receiving funds from the same source? Is this all connected? Is the
push for oral hygiene through the use of fluoridated products, just ONE BIG
MONEY PIT?
Fluoride toxicity and the myriad of other linked diseases
While “Dental Fluorosis” is a term that
conveniently represents only aesthetic side effects in young children
(apparently ‘aesthetics’ indicates nothing else but unfavourable appearance),
there are other health warnings concerning Fluoride exposure that the NHMR swiftly dismisses with responses like: “there is insufficient evidence”, and... “there is no clear association”.
Independent scientific studies by the FluorideAction Network (FAN) suggest otherwise. FAN argues that there ARE INDEED other health risks associated with Fluoride, and some of these concerns are COMMON and WIDESPREAD
pandemics.
FAN is an organisation that raises awareness specifically targeting
fluoride toxicity by releasing detailed and current research from studies
conducted across the globe. FAN also acts as a ‘watch dog’ over US government
agencies regarding any political decisions that may influence the public’s
exposure to fluoride.
FAN has presented several studies linking fluoride toxicity to the following conditions:
It’s no wonder we’re literally crawling on
our hands and knees, struggling to find our way through the grey matter that is: FLUORIDE.
What are we to believe? What are we to do?
While we ponder in our hopelessness, our families are still consuming fluoridated
tap water, our dentists still encourage fluoridated products and treatments,
the government consistently highlights the facts that support fluoride
consumption, and then there are the Brands like Colgate, Oral B and Maclean’s that make
millions from our vulnerability.
On one side of the coin, we have to do
whatever we can to ensure the health of our family. If we are told that
fluoride prevents tooth decay and the best care for oral hygiene is to follow
regulatory guidelines, then out of moral responsibility, we feel obliged to
conform.
On the other side of the coin, we still have
to do whatever we can to ensure the health of our family. We educate ourselves
beyond the confines of political agenda, and we try to take recourse from what
we know. There are hundreds of scientific studies and articles from independent scholars on the
medical implications of fluoride consumption… there’s a reason for the bounty
of information for and against fluoride. No smoke without fire, right? And ignorance is
definitely NOT BLISS!
What
can we do to protect ourselves and our families?
If you live in Australia and you consume
tap water:
- Then you are most likely
drinking fluoridated water.
- You may need to look at un-fluoridated oral hygiene products and discuss the signs of dental fluorosis with your dentist before any
professional fluoride treatments are provided during your appointment.
- Consider the use of natural and organic, un-fluoridated toothpastes for the whole family.
- If you are concerned about
fluoride levels in your drinking water, contact your local council for more information.
- If you are concerned about previous fluoride exposure, you may be able to request being tested by your GP.
- Consider investing in a good quality water filter.
If you live in Australia and you are
drinking naturally un-fluoridated, or filtered water:
- Consider natural toothpastes
with added fluoride. Avoid the parabens and chemicals in commercial
brands whenever possible.
- If you are concerned that you
are below optimum levels of fluoride intake, then you may be able to request being tested by your GP.
For children, parental vigilance is key. Always:
- Monitor the your child’s use of
fluoridated products.
- Limit toothpaste to a pea-sized
amount for each teeth cleaning session. For children under 2 years of age, avoid fluoridated products - use a damp cloth and rub gently over teeth.
- Look for natural toothpaste. If
your child is consuming filtered water and is over 2 years of age, try to source toothpaste that is
organic, contains natural ingredients and contains a small amount of fluoride.
If your family consumes tap water, it may be beneficial to switch to an
organic, natural and NON-fluoridated toothpaste a couple of times week.
Fortunately, Australia has embraced a low fluoride stance for commercial brands
of children’s toothpaste – unfortunately, most brands sold in supermarkets
contain all the other undesirables like parabens, numbers, artificial everything and an array of other really bad additives.
If Fluoride is swallowed and poisoning is suspected, call the Poisons Information Centre immediately on 13 11 26.
Good quality, 100% natural and organic toothpastes can be hard to find. For this reason,
Nourish Me Whole Heartedly specifically adores
Riddells Creek Organic Toothpaste - 100% Australian owned and Australian made. Riddells Creek toothpastes contain recognisable, natural and organic ingredients - a wonderful and completely safe alternative to fluoridated toothpaste... and there is definitely no need to call poisons information if swallowed... You could eat it if you really wanted to! :)
And
lastly, PLEASE educate yourself. Knowledge is POWER!
Love and care to you all,
Candice. Xx
Like this post? Visit our beautiful website– You’ll love it!
.jpg)
