Vote Yes on CA Prop 37- Make Informed Food Choices
Let Your Food Be Your Medicine

The first in our series in support of CA Proposition 37, requiring the labeling of genetically engineered foods. This issue affects dental health in particular and has far reaching consequences for environmental health in general.  (See our latest post on dentistrygoesgreen.com and a prior post at http://bit.ly/T6ARlD on this subject).

As the above video shows, food sensitivities can cause gum problems, among other health considerations. Supporting CA Prop 37 is important because a healthy diet is necessary for natural dental health. The GMO labeling advocated by Prop 37 is necessary so that informed food choices can be made by all.

As a holistic dentist as well as a citizen,  I am reminded once again of the quote by the Roman physician Galen, “Let your food be your medicine and let your medicine be your food.” That is as true today as it was in his time.

Let Your Voice Be Heard

The California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is the lead agency for the implementation of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, better known by its original name, Proposition 65. Proposition 65 is a voter approved initiative that addresses the public’s concerns about exposure to toxic chemicals, and requires that the State publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. Currently, the list, which must be updated at least once a year, has grown to include approximately 800 chemicals since it was first published in 1987.

The Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) advises and assists OEHHA in compiling the list of these harmful chemicals. Fluoride and its salts, and tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate will be considered for possible listing by the CIC at its next meeting, scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday, October 12 and 13, 2011.

The City of San Diego—as well as the cities of Coronado, Del Mar, and Imperial Beach—began fluoridating all of its drinking water in February 2011, following the San Diego City Council acceptance of an offer of funding from the First 5 Commission in June of 2008. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, there are profound and consequential disparities in the oral health of our citizens that have resulted in a “silent epidemic” of dental and oral diseases that disproportionately affects low-income and minority populations. The First 5 Commission of San Diego County states that, “Community water fluoridation is considered the safest, most effective, cost-efficient and equitable means to provide protection from tooth decay in a community.”

But what does fluoridation mean to you and your health? How do you feel about public water being used as a vehicle for mass medication? And, how do you feel about having city water, water that you pay for, fluoridated against your will?

According to the Fluoride Action Network, a non-profit organization dedicated to raising awareness of the health effects of fluoride ingestion (due to water fluoridation as well as other sources), there are at least fifty reasons to oppose fluoridation. Additionally, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) acknowledges that the mechanism of fluoride’s benefits are mainly topical and not systemic. This means that the fluoride that you swallow in your drinking water won’t be doing you much good (if any) as it splashes by your teeth on the way to your stomach. In April of last year, an issue of Time magazine included fluoride on a list of “The Hazards Lurking at Home,” pointing out that fluoride is “neurotoxic and potentially tumorigenic if swallowed; [and that] the American Dental Association advises that children under 2 not use fluoride toothpaste.”

While San Diegans drink, play and scrub up in fluoridated water, it is to be noted that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has never approved any fluoride product designed for ingestion as safe or effective and that no clinical trials have been conducted and submitted to the FDA to demonstrate the effectiveness of ingesting fluoride. If the FDA does not recognize the safety and effectiveness of fluoride supplements, how can we, as a community of athletes, infants, elders, medical patients (with special emphasis on kidney dialysis patients), and average citizens—all of whom consume various amounts of water in a myriad of ways—feel safe with fluoridated water?

The Fluoride Action Network reports that fluoride is a cumulative poison and that on average, only 50% of the fluoride we ingest each day is excreted through the kidneys. The remainder accumulates in our bones, pineal gland, and other tissues. If the kidney is damaged, fluoride accumulation will increase, and with it, the likelihood of harm.

For more information on the health impacts of fluoridated water, visit The Fluoride Action Network at www.fluoridealert.org and Citizens for Safe Drinking Water at www.nofluoride.com

Fluoride & Water Action Alert
We have the opportunity to let our views about fluoridation be taken into account. A public comment period regarding the toxicity of fluoridation is being held by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment until 5 p.m. on Tuesday, September 6, 2011.

The OEHHA encourages you to submit comments in electronic form, rather than in paper form. Comments transmitted by e-mail should be addressed to coshita@oehha.ca.gov. Comments submitted in paper form may be mailed, faxed, or delivered in person to the address below:
Ms. Cynthia Oshita
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
P.O. Box 4010, MS-19B
Sacramento, California 95812-4010
Comments transmitted by fax should be sent to
(916) 323-8803.
OEHHA will organize and index the comments received and forward the information to the CIC members prior to the meeting at which the chemicals will be considered.

SIDE BAR: The fluoride used for water fluoridation does not have FDA approval and is considered by the FDA as an “unapproved drug.” The proper use of any drug requires an understanding of how much is too much. Since fluoride is already in many foods and beverages, an estimated total intake of existing fluoride amounts is imperative.

Reprinted with permission from Ocean Beach People’s Organic Food Market. www.obpeoplesfood.coop

As a holistic dentist concerned with overall wellness and dental health, I was please to see that the EPA is re-examining the levels of fluoride targeted in drinking water, especially since this delays water fluoridation in San Diego.  I was also pleased to see a balanced article from Mike Lee at the Union Tribune, http://bit.ly/guZdvW, that doesn’t paint those  concerned about medicating our drinking supply as quacks.

Access to clean water is fundamental to health, much more fundamental than access to fluoridated water.  Particularly since it has been proven that fluoride is only effective in strengthening teeth when applied topically, whereas systemic use of fluoride does not strengthen bone.

The primary concern of the EPA is the mottling and pitting of teeth when too much fluoride is ingested. toothpaste is one common source of fluoride. There are other pervasive sources like fruit juice made with already treated water and pesticide residues on fruit such as grapes.  It is difficult to monitor the amount of fluoride that children are getting, even with lowered guidelines.  It would be much simpler if children received topical treatments from their dentists as requested by their parents, rather than altering the water supply.

Another problem is that the hydrofluosalicic acid used in water treatment has never been tested and approved by the FDA.  The FDA’s mandate to monitor public health was not in effect to the degree it is now at the time the fluoridation practice was implemented.  So we really don’t know if an additive used in the water supply in every major city in the nation is actually good for the population.

Many say ‘no,’  and most nations have rejected fluoridation.  In fact India has identified 17 out of its 32 states where high levels of fluoride in the ground water puts the population at risk for skeletal fluorosis and many have been afflicted.  It would certainly be good if the FDA followed the EPA’s example and established some better ground rules for public health .

Last night I was fortunate to have dinner with Dr. David Kennedy, retired San Diego holistic dentist and past president of the  International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT).  Dr. Kennedy is the author of How to Save Your Teeth,  which ” synthesizes the current scientific knowledge of environmental health, preventive and environmental dentistry into a comprehensive self help program,” according to a summary on Amazon.

As stated on its web site, the IAOMT was formed in 19984 to promote ” Evidence Based Dentistry” in order to “review, support, and disseminate research on the suitability of materials and methodologies used in the dental practice. The IAOMT convened in San Diego this past week for its biannual gathering of brilliant speakers.  Among them was Boyd Hayley,  head of the chemistry department at the University of Kentucky and a renowned expert on environmental health.  Numerous YoutTube videos can be found in which Dr. Haley discusses mercury in amalgam fillings and its effects.  Here are some of the links:

http://bit.ly/b1Zb0D

http://bit.l /df1gsu

http://bit.ly/arGGHG

Europe is pretty far ahead of the U.S. when it comes to issues of environmental health like EMF’s.  EMF’s stands for electromagnetic frequencies, the energy field generated by electronics like cell phones, computers,  appliances like microwave ovens, medical imaging devices like MRI’s and even cars and  telephones.  In a world where we are moving toward Super-wi-fi – meaning that instant connectivity will be available to wireless users- there is an ever-increasing ‘soup’ of EMF’s surrounding us.  Some people are especially sensitive to this type of energy, approximately 3% of the population.  It makes it more difficult for these folks to heal and in some cases it may even become a stress that adversely impacts their health.

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection issues some guidelines in 1998 and the following year the E. U. followed up with some regulatory suggestions that several European nations have complied with.  In our office we are sensitive to this issue.  We actually do not have a wireless hookup for our computer network or for the Internet; we use DSL, which does not have quite the same impact.  We have experimented with numerous devices and frequencies to create a shield of EMF protection and are continuing to research the possibilities.  We will continue to share our findings on this subject with you.