|
by Brandon Turbeville
February 2011
from
ActivistPost Website
Part 1
February 3, 2011
In a previous article, I wrote about the
global implications of Codex Alimentarius.
I discussed in some detail the
oppressive standards recommended by BfR (German
Federal Institute for Risk Assessment - Bundesinstitut
für Risikobewertung), which have largely been
included in the Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food
Supplements.
However, there is one more provision
included in the risk assessment process that even many critics of
Codex are unaware of. This is the goal to not only treat nutrients
as toxins, but treat toxins as nutrients.
At first, this is not readily apparent. A closer look at the risk
assessment provided by BfR provides one with a glimmer of what might
one day be a completely Orwellian policy toward vitamins, minerals,
and toxins.
The fact that researchers have the audacity to claim that vital
minerals like Iron should not be consumed in measurements above 0 mg
is disturbing enough. However, there is one more substance added to
the findings and, more alarmingly, listed as a mineral that should
be just as frightening. That substance is the very toxic chemical
known as fluoride.[1]
This chemical poison is listed only in the “moderately high-risk”
level of risk categories.[2]
Yet the reality is that fluoride is a
very dangerous chemical with serious risks of harm to both health
and the environment. In truth, there are actually two different
forms of what is called fluoride - calcium fluoride and sodium
fluoride.
Calcium fluoride appears naturally and is confined, for the most
part, to underground water sources and, in some instances, seawater.
[3] In this form it is relatively benign, but prolonged
exposure has been linked to skeletal and dental fluorosis. [4]
However, sodium fluoride, the form of fluoride that is added to most
municipal water supplies, food, and drink, is a very dangerous and
toxic chemical.
It does not occur naturally and is not
even one distinct substance. Rather, it is a conglomeration of many
different chemicals that is given the name of sodium fluoride and
paraded as a health benefit. It is essentially a mix of waste
products from the nuclear, aluminum, and fertilizer industries.
It is also used for rat poison and
pesticides.[5]
The results of having water supplies contaminated with fluoride
reads like a laundry list of health problems:
Interestingly enough, sodium fluoride
also causes dental fluorosis, a yellowing and hardening of the teeth
that causes teeth to break and wear down.
This is quite ironic considering that
the ADA promotes fluoride as an additive that prevents decay and
promotes healthy teeth.[6]
The distinction in BfR’s results between calcium fluoride and sodium
fluoride is not readily made and, as is so often the case, the devil
is in the details. Throughout the published study, all forms of
fluoride are constantly referred to simply as "fluoride" with no
delineation as to which form is being discussed, except by
contextualization and observation.
Occasionally, a specific form will be mentioned but, for the most
part, the umbrella term “fluoride” is sufficient for the purpose of
these researchers. This is how the toxin comes to be classified as a
mineral and henceforth a nutrient.
This is also where the nutrient group methodology comes into play.
Sodium fluoride could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be
considered to be a mineral or nutrient on its own. However, by using
the nutrient group approach, which lumps all forms of the substance
tested into one category, it slips under the radar.[7]
Indeed, in the section which discusses the sources of fluoride
intake BfR states,
“Fluoride is taken up from solid
foods, drinking water, mineral water, black tea,
fluoride-containing toothpaste, dental care products,
fluoridised table salt and, eventually, from fluoride-containing
medicinal products.” [8]
There is clearly no distinction here
between the different forms of fluoride.
For example, the form of fluoride contained in mineral water (unless
sodium fluoride was added) is calcium fluoride, while the fluoride
contained in toothpaste is sodium fluoride. Yet there is no
distinction given between the two.
While BfR does admit potential danger in
the use of fluoride, by using the nutrient group approach fluoride
is still categorized as a nutrient, thus allowing one foot through
the door.
BfR is obviously aware of at least some dangers of fluoride, such as
dental and skeletal fluorosis, as well as the more serious health
problems. The report states,
“There are reports of acute fluoride
intoxications in people caused by accidents, attempted suicide,
or erroneous fluoridation of drinking water. The symptoms are
nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea, heavy salivation,
cardiac arrest, cramps and coma.
Severe hypocalcaemias were observed.
An amount of 5-10 g fluoride has been calculated as the
‘certainly lethal dose’ = CLD for adults.” [9]
Bad as they are, these conditions are
only a few of the adverse effects related to fluoride.
It would seem logical then to place very
high restrictions on the amounts of fluoride meant for consumption
and subsequently a recommendation for zero intake. Yet BfR comes to
a startling and self-contradicting conclusion.
Even after discussing the dangers of fluoride throughout the study,
as well as the fact that it is present in many drinking water
supplies in the world (especially the United States), “medicinal”
products, and other sources, the same strict standards of risk
assessment and the Global Expectable Average Daily Diet evidently do
not apply.
If they were, then Americans would
probably be in the red in terms of dietary intake of fluoride.
BfR admits,
“This leaves no scope for a safe
maximum dose of fluoride in food supplements. BfR believes that
a maximum dose for fluoride of zero in food supplements is the
only safe management option.”[10]
Yet in its final analysis, it determines
that the Recommended Daily Intake be established at 3.8/3.1 (m/f)
for adults and 3.2/2.9 (m/f) for children.[11]
So while limits are set on the amount of
fluoride in food supplements, it is still concluded that individuals
need a certain amount of fluoride in their diet and toxic fluoride
is still considered a nutrient.
Notes
[1] “ 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. 18-23, 2005.
[2] Ibid.
[3] 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
[4] Fassa, Paul. “A Fluoride-Free Pineal Gland is More Important
than Ever,” Natural News, June 2, 2009.
http://www.naturalnews.com/026364_fluoride_pineal_gland_sodium.html
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] In truth, even Calcium Fluoride should not be considered a
nutrient as there is not enough evidence to show that is vital,
or even positively linked, to human life and health. 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
[8] 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
[9] Ibid. p. 234
[10] Ibid p. 235
[11] Ibid p. 23
Part 2
February 8, 2011
In
the previous Part 1, 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
|