Pin It


Home/Family Health/The Questions of Fluoridegate

The Questions of Fluoridegate

Scandal Widens, Calls for Hearings Grow as New Revelations Highlight Science in Conflict with Officials’ Statements on Water Fluoridation Safety

Part 1 of a Series, By Daniel G. Stockin, MPH

Following the Hurricane Katrina formaldehyde trailers fiasco and the Washington D.C. lead-in-drinking water disclosures, now yet another scandal provides evidence that what is said and done by public health experts may not be as important as the reasons behind what is left unsaid and undone.

Enter Fluoridegate, a multi-faceted scandal unfolding while simultaneously a growing number of cities and water utilities have halted water fluoridation or are considering legislation to end it.

City officials in Milwaukee, New York City and Phoenix have recently discussed ending water fluoridation. Quebec and Calgary in Canada, College Station in Texas, and Pinellas County in Florida have ended it, along with numerous smaller cities and agencies.

“I think there are safety concerns and fiscal concerns causing people to rethink fluoridation,” says Wally Babb, a former Georgia water plant operator reveling in the cities’ actions, since he was fired in 2008 for his stance against fluoridation.

“But I also think prosecutors and investigative bodies are going to be very interested to ask why certain groups and individuals did not share key information about fluoridation risks,” he says.

“If any scandal ever deserved a series of investigative hearings, this is it. This is going to call some very high level people on the carpet.”

Prominent Washington D.C. product safety attorney James S. Turner concurs.

“The evidence is shocking,” he says. “It’s time to put some of the key players under oath in Fluoridegate hearings.”

The developments point to a central question: Did a group of vested interest federal and private sector officials collude to use the public health infrastructure to control what the public hears about fluoridation and divert attention from increasingly bad news about harm from fluorides?

For those still unfamiliar with the developments, here are some of the deeply troubling questions of Fluoridegate.

Controlling the Discussion and Talking Points

Water fluoridation is the long-standing practice of adding fluoride chemicals to drinking water to help prevent cavities. For decades, Americans have been told that the practice is entirely safe, though controversy about fluoridation safety has never completely disappeared.

In 2011 a Freedom of Information Act request asked for the names, titles, and job descriptions of all persons past and present inside the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that had input into CDC’s decision to support fluoridation. The request turned up a disturbing fact: CDC’s Oral Health Directors, acting alone within CDC for more than 35 years, had sole input and control in deciding to support fluoridation.

The revelation raised obvious questions. How were CDC’s dental professionals, with expertise in oral health, competent to assess new research and make statements about possible harmful outside-the-mouth effects from fluorides? Why did CDC not seek assistance and input from its own cancer, diabetes, and minority health professionals, and from toxicologists in its sister organization, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry?

Were improper influence and the Oral Health Division’s close ties to the American Dental Association with its long history of denying harm from fluoridation the reasons CDC continued to deny any outside-the-mouth harm?

Interestingly, a letter from ADA had protested that it was “very disturbed” about a proposed reorganization in CDC that would downgrade the status of the Oral Health Division, folding it inside another unit. In explaining that ADA had “come to value its relationship with the (Division of Oral Health)” and describing the two organizations’ “close collaborative relationship,” ADA listed water fluoridation as its number one example of collaborative efforts with the Division.

Was it collaboration…or collusion?

With the information disclosed by the Freedom of Information request, actions by CDC were now seen in a new light. CDC had continued to offer stout assurances that more than 60 years of “extensive research” had proven fluoridation to be safe. But in 2006 the prestigious National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies of Science issued a 507 page report on fluorides that documented a long list of fundamental, basic-in-nature whole-body research that had never been performed.

Had CDC officials been lying in saying that extensive fluoridation safety research had been performed?

CDC had also issued a widely-circulated statement that fluoridation was one of the 10 great public health achievements in the 20th century. But in a 2008 article in Scientific American, John Doull, chairman of the NRC fluoride committee, stated, “…when the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on.” He also stated, “The thyroid changes do worry me.”

Cleverly calling fluoridation one of 10 great public health achievements had worked public relations wonders. It had preemptively diverted many from a deeper investigation of fluorides. But the NRC report and other developments would bring fluorides back under the microscope.

Unnerving Information for HIV, Organ Transplant, Diabetes and Kidney Patients

In addition to dismaying information about thyroid concerns, buried within the voluminous NRC report were other unnerving admissions such as this statement: “More research is needed to clarify fluoride’s biochemical effects on the brain.”

The technical jargon and size of the report are daunting, but readers willing to wade through it learn that consumers are ingesting uncontrolled amounts of fluorides through their water supply without our scientists knowing what this does to our brains.

Because fluorides deposit cumulatively in the bones over time, the report also says it is “paramount” that research be conducted because bone marrow is where immune cells have their genesis. It points out that research could be conducted to determine “what percentage of immunocompromised subjects have adverse reactions” at various levels of fluoride in water.

News of this is understandably alarming to organ transplant patients and persons with HIV/AIDS or congenital immune diseases, but there has been little or no communication of the concerns about fluoride immune system impacts to these groups.

The NRC report also listed diabetics, kidney patients, seniors, children, outdoor workers and other groups as “susceptible subpopulations” that are especially vulnerable to harm from ingested fluorides.

What was done with these startling statements in the report? Had they been quickly acted on and formally distributed by federal officials to affected stakeholder groups such as the National Kidney Foundation, the American Diabetes Association, thyroid health advocates, HIV support groups, child health groups, etc? If so, the groups were uniformly and strangely quiet about receiving it. And why did the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and CDC’s parent health agency take nearly five years, and until EPA was threatened by a fluoride fumigant lawsuit, to issue a tepid recommendation to slightly lower the level of fluorides in drinking water?

Was the fix in because the dental industry, water agencies, and other groups would face tremendous legal liability if fluorides were now admitted to be potentially harmful? And were CDC and other groups working to “spin” the NRC report, to do damage control?

Fluoridation advocates cited statements within the report that its purpose was not a specific assessment of water fluoridation, implying that the process of studying fluorides produced no information useful in assessing fluoridation safety. This tactic backfired because it is akin to saying that efforts to put a man on the moon did not produce information useful for other spaceflight programs. Plus, the report designated certain groups as “susceptible subpopulations” without respect to what concentration of fluoride was in their water.

Again, the question: Did a group of vested interest federal and private sector officials collude to use the public health infrastructure to control what the public hears about fluoridation and divert attention from increasingly bad news about harm from fluorides? This is where Fluoridegate hearings will come in. Both federal and state agencies and attorneys general will find numerous avenues of fertile investigation.

Harm to Minorities: the Issue that “Has the Potential to Gain Traction”

One of the key areas for investigation will focus on fluoridation promoters’ actions concerning disproportionate fluoridation risks and harm for minority groups.

For example, why did CDC fail to openly inform the black community of news that blacks are disproportionately harmed by “dental fluorosis,” a permanent and in many cases disfiguring staining of teeth that indicates childhood overexposure to fluorides? CDC continued to not openly share the information with minority advocacy groups even after The Lillie Center in Georgia presented a detailed fluoridation ethics complaint to CDC citing the omission in 2007.

And the issue of harm to black citizens continues to grow. In an April 2011 letter, leaders of the American Dental Association requested assistance from U.S. Assistant Secretary for Health Dr. Howard Koh to help deal with concerns raised by civil rights leaders Ambassador Andrew Young and Rev. Gerald Durley. The two courageous black community leaders had publicly issued letters calling for a halt to fluoridation. In the ADA leaders’ letter to Dr. Koh they explained why they were seeking his assistance to address the concerns Young and Durley had raised about fluoridation safety for minorities.

The letter from ADA leaders stated: “We believe that this issue has the potential to gain traction.”

Gain traction? Fluoridation advocates had long scoffed that fluoridation opponents’ arguments were unfounded. In fact, they said, fluoridation was especially helpful for minority and low income populations, helping eliminate oral health disparities. So what was there about the issue of minorities being harmed by fluoridation that could possibly gain traction?

Could it be that there is substance to the concerns? Does fluoridation in fact disproportionately harm minority populations?

Here we find more grist for Fluoridegate hearings. Studies and other information on fluoride exposure levels and harm had never effectively or formally been presented to minority leaders until recently, by fluoridation opponents.

For example, a fall 2009 study published in the Journal of Public Health Dentistry documented that black children are ingesting significantly more fluorides in water than white children. And CDC released information in 2005 documenting that blacks and hispanics have disproportionately more dental fluorosis than whites. CDC’s statistics were found deeply buried in the very last of 23 dizzying data tables in an article in CDC’s August 26, 2005 “MMWR” publication.

The news spread. Martin Luther King Jr.’s daughter Bernice King spoke out against fluoridation on a radio program. Her cousin, Alveda King, spoke out against fluoridation on her blog. And in the summer of 2011, the League of United Latin American Citizens passed a resolution opposing fluoridation.

Let the Litigation Begin

As part of its efforts to support community water fluoridation programs, the American Dental Association had published a long list, a compendium of organizations that had lent their names as endorsing fluoridation. Dozens of national and international health advocacy, government, and professional organizations were on the seemingly impressive list.

But now it appears that organizations on the list may be named in legal actions. Citizens and decision makers relied on the organizations’ listed names in deciding to buy-in to fluoridation. Very telling will be the groups’ responses to a simple question: Did your group do its own research into potential fluoridation risks prior to allowing your name to be used on ADA’s list, or did you provide a courtesy endorsement of fluoridation without doing your own research?

The list of persons, groups, companies, and agencies that may be sued extends beyond the organizations in ADA’s compendium list. It includes almost anyone that should have warned users of fluoride products of various concerns related to fluorides. Water utilities, bottled water providers, toothpaste sellers, government agencies, nonprofits and industry trade groups, and numerous other individuals and groups may find themselves in the lawsuit cross hairs.

Washington DC toxic tort attorney Chris Nidel said this: “I think when we look back we’ll ask why Fluoridegate didn’t surface earlier. There are serious concerns about possible conflict of interest and heavy editing of information being fed to the public about fluoride risks and impacts.”

Two fluoride-related legal cases were filed in 2011 in Maryland and California courts. Both cases encountered significant, but not unexpected challenges. It’s still early in the process of developing various types of fluoride litigation, but given the now-strongly growing interest in pursuing legal actions, the future looks to hold many fluoridation and fluoride-product-related cases. The sheer number of potentially harmed citizens — persons with dental fluorosis, kidney patients tipped into needing dialysis, diabetics, thyroid patients, etc — numbers in the millions.

Concerning upcoming legal cases and hearings, perhaps most delicious to long-time fluoridation opponents is the prospect that for the first time, key officials in government and private sector agencies can be put on the witness stand and directly questioned about harm from fluorides.

A few interesting questions may be: Why are we warned to spit out pea-sized amounts of fluoridated toothpaste, but we were told we can ingest the same amount of fluoride when it comes in a large glass of fluoridated drinking water? How can it be safe to drink as much fluoridated water as we’d like? And why haven’t Americans been told that fluorides accumulate in the pineal glands in our brains?

In 2008, the National Kidney Foundation’s board of directors quietly issued a new position statement on fluoridation, causing NKF’s name to be removed from the ADA’s compendium list of fluoridation endorsers. But why did NKF not openly announce its new statement? Was it because NKF had been a recipient of grant monies from the CDC and did not wish to risk the ire of CDC officials? Did NKF risk the health of its own constituents, most of who today do not know that the National Research Council has designated kidney patients and diabetics as especially susceptible to harm from ingested fluorides?

Affecting Our Babies and Even Our Pets

Many Americans do not know that for one-time, acute exposures, fluorides are known to be slightly less toxic than arsenic and slightly more toxic than lead. But even with longer-term, lower level chronic exposures, the risks are real, especially for babies and other groups that are particularly vulnerable to harm from fluorides. The NRC report stated that on a body weight basis, infants and young children are ingesting 3-4 times the amount of fluorides as are adults.

On another front, what is fluoridated water doing to our pets and horses? This issue has received little attention until recently, but given Americans’ deep protective instincts for their pets and horses, the issue threatens to become an enormous one in its own right. News of the deaths of the fluoridated water-poisoned horses of Colorado resident Cathy Justus is quickly spreading. A growing number of stunned pet and horse owners are educating themselves further about fluorides before they continue to provide fluoridated water for Fido, the family feline, or a beloved horse.

There are so many facets to the Fluoridegate scandal that it will not be surprising if a number of attorney generals, district attorneys, politicians, investigative journalists, philanthropists, and others make their mark uncovering the harm done and the names of those responsible. Fluorides are an equal opportunity offender, so it is also not surprising that both Democrats and Republicans are joining the calls for Fluoridegate hearings or for a halt to fluoridation.

What are the other key issues? Will there be sacrificial lambs among those subpoenaed for Fluoridegate hearings and court cases? Who will point fingers at each other to try to escape blame?

Part 2 of The Questions of Fluoridegate will delve further into the numerous swirling questions.


Daniel G. Stockin, MPH, is the former manager of the EPA Western Regional Lead Training Center. He is a career public health professional with a background in toxics assessment and hazardous materials management. He is known internationally for his work at The Lillie Center Inc., a Georgia-based firm working to end water fluoridation. He may be reached at:

© 2012 The Lillie Center Inc. This article may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without modification.

Written by

The author didnt add any Information to his profile yet

66 Responses to “The Questions of Fluoridegate”

By Wally Davis - 10 July 2012 Reply

I have spent many hours researching Fluoridation. Beyond any doubt, Fluoridation should be stopped.

By Richard - 10 July 2012 Reply

Where is the FDA, poison is poison. Who are the politicans in favor of this.

By joyce martino - 10 July 2012 Reply

I’ve been in this “FIGHT” for many yrs…

We need to slay this monster!!!!!

I work with FAN (Fluoride Action Network) group….

Keep up your work and kill the monster and it’s polluters who push it….

By Norm Donaldson - 10 July 2012 Reply

If your water has fluoride in it, one drinks it at his own risk. Quit trying to legislate everything that comes down the pike. A McDonalds hamburger is a far more serious health hazard! If I choose to eat it….that is my business, not anyone else. So, where is the priority? We have lost personal responsibility, and personal accountability. Get the damn lawyers out of our lives. If one makes bad choices, so be it.

By Cynthia Talbert - 10 July 2012 Reply

I completely agree with this article and the dangers of fluoride. Many years ago I worked with a grassroots organization which defeated adding fluoride to the water in Worcester, Massachusetts.
I also winter in the Pinellas County area of Florida and was totally upset when the Florida voters supported the move to add fluoridation to the water.
After speaking to a group of my peers (Seniors) I learned that at the hearings prior to the vote they were told what a good thing it would be to strengthen bones and teeth. NOTHING could be further from the truth!!! It is the WORST thing .
I saw a container in Worcester which transported the
fluoride material and on the side were pictured a skull, and cross bone, the sign for POISON. I was told it was used as “rat poison”. This was the same substance that would be added to drinking waster.
In addition they added fluoride to consumer goods such as ketchup and toothpaste to name but two.
When dentists put fluoride on teeth, they caution the child NOT TO SWALLOW!! Even though it is a different form of fluoride and can be helpful for young children, they are not allowed to swallow it.
I have seen pictures of people who have been effected by fluoride and they have structural damage to their limbs due to the damage to bone marrow, and that’s only seeing the outside. Just imagine what the effects have been internally.
The article noted that Pinellas County had voted to remove the fluoride. Unfortunately before the ban could be put into effect, someone convinced the Board that fluoride was a good thing, and this spring word was that the ban was recinded and the fluoride would be returning.
I believe that the use of fluoride was supported because the product is an industrial waste product and was difficult to be disposed. So the government
supported its sale as a “health product” and the Dental Community also bought in, much to the detriment of the consumers.
Please continue the fight. The facts are there if
anyone really cares about the present and future health of our country.

By Rick Horowitz - 10 July 2012 Reply

Thank you for this. It’s a great article, and the answer to all of the questions you raise is, of course, “yes”. I started a campaign in my city, Portsmouth, NH, but have let it go fallow because of the enormous obstacles in New Hampshire. I am required to gather signatures of 10% of registered voters to get a citizens petition on the ballot, not only in my city, but in all of the towns (5) to which Portsmouth provides water. Then it needs to gain a majority of the vote in the subsequent election — against all the pro-fluoride lobbies. Perhaps I’ll get active on this again, but it is exhausting to try to counteract the years of propaganda from the “trusted”, “official” organizations behind this catastrophe. I say, “sue the bastards”, and then bring the really guilty parties up on criminal charges. Thanks.

By L Stuck - 10 July 2012 Reply

I believe that every human being deserves the right to choose what we ingest.
This includes fluoride as well as GMO products.
ALL should be labeled and ALL should never be forced upon anyone.

By patrick m. faughnan - 10 July 2012 Reply

absolute tip of the iceberg, could be a contributing factor also in the rise of coronary artery disease. Chlorine and flouride combined are exponentially more harmful than alone, I have read reports about the combination actually scarring arterial walls, and the cholesterol plaque is laid down as a reaction by the body to the scarring. Thyroid problems …epidemic…ADD/ADHD .. these people are supposed to value science, and human health..does not seem to be the case

By Sandi Martin - 10 July 2012 Reply

They need to take it all out! This is one reason so many persons use bottled water. While most do not realize what they buy often is just tap water, they attempt to do right. We need a petition to stop this practice!

By Dewey Fish - 10 July 2012 Reply

This Should NEVER Have been added to our water supply, and the people responsible should be shot for their high crime against humanity. and Those Who still add it to the water should also be shot..

By Bonnie MacPherson - 10 July 2012 Reply

I understood long ago, while still in school, that the government originally added floride to city water because they thought it would promote mind control of citizens, then found out it just promotes healthy teeth. But I have long been concerned about constantly drinking floridated water, especially so since I have seen new toothpastes touting “NO FLORIDE” on the labling. Keep researching!

By Mark Bales - 10 July 2012 Reply

Please give me a pdf of this article and part 2 so I can email it to everyone I know.

mark bales

By Jane Belk - 10 July 2012 Reply

Stop poisoning our water and anything else has has fluoride in it. It is a crime against humanity. Jane Belk

By David Dunigan - 11 July 2012 Reply

Pure evil; mind control poison. Must be stopped!

By David Dunigan - 11 July 2012 Reply

It is a detrimental substance that should never be ingested; contrary to what ADA tooted it actually harms teeth!

By Pat - 11 July 2012 Reply

I’m dismayed that fluoride is still an ingredient of toothpaste. I hope more people get the word on the dangers of fluoride, and your efforts should help greatly.

By Paula Cochran - 11 July 2012 Reply

Studies have shown that excess fluoride causes bone cancer. This should not be in our water supply…It is unnecessary exposure and hazardous to our health. Also the studies I have seen that compare cities that put fluoride in their water system have absolutely no advantage over dental health outcome versus cities that do not put fluoride in their water. Let finally get the truth out!!!!!

By Cathy Justus - 11 July 2012 Reply

Dan is doing a great job revealing the toxic effects of fluoride and revealing to people that we are being slowly poisoned. Fluoridegate is growing in damning information and dissemination of the scientific facts about the product used to artificially fluoridate municipal water.

We have lost 8 horses and 4 dogs from the consumption,accumulation and systemic effects of this product. This was scientifically proven by Dr. Lennart Krook, PhD. from Cornell University in New York. There are now an editorial and two peer reviewed scientific manuscripts published in the FLUORIDE journal, The Quarterly Journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research on our horses. They are at: , and . A short documentary on our horse/fluoride called POISONED HORSES by Dr. David Kennedy and the Internationl Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology can be seen at: They ailments that fluoride caused in our horses are being manifested in all mammals that consume this poison.

Everyone needs to pay attention to FLUORIDEGATE. We have been lied to by the powers that be that have been padding their pockets for over 50 years by putting this toxic waste into our muncipal water so we can carry it to our early graves instead fo them having to dispose of it at A1 toxic dumps for the worst of the worst toxins. And the health of not only humans but animals too, is showing this chronic, cumulative poisoning. I am certainly not saying fluoride accumulation is the cause of all ailments in the US but fluoride is the number one most consumed known toxin. Wake up America. We do have a choice. We stopped fluoridation in our town in 2005 after 20 years of it’s practice. The momentum is gaining speed and Fluoridegate is major part of that. America take back your right to choose what you put into your body as individuals. Stop fluoridation!

By James Reeves - 11 July 2012 Reply

I would like to thank Daniel Stockin and the Lillie Center for all they have done and are doing to end fluoridation. They have been very effective in informing various groups of the dangers it causes.

Read the best scientific information on fluoridation in Dr. Paul Connett’s book, “The Case Against Fluoride,” published last year. It contains over 1200 peer reviewed studies and sound scientific reasoning showing the ineffectiveness and dangers to health from fluoride. Also presented is scientific evidence to show that it causes cancer, thyroid & pineal gland damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ, kidney disease, and other serious health problems.
Also see his very informative site here (

By Barbara - 11 July 2012 Reply

Fluoride is one reason I have used point of use filtration on my water faucets, fridge, and showers since 2004.

By Melissa Yee - 11 July 2012 Reply

Hawaii saw the Light in 2003 and the City and County of Honolulu passed an ordinance to prevent the addition of any substance that would treat a medical condition. At that time Honolulu and Portland Oregon were the only two major cities that did not fluoridate its water. However, military bases, federal prisons and Native American reservations are mandated to fluoridate their water supply. Look at the dental and medical conditions in those places!

By Anna - 11 July 2012 Reply

I can only hope that investigations continue until “We the People” can restore our rights to KNOW and prohibit Industry to have its way with “We the People” as our government sits by allowing it to happen… even participating in the destruction and deterioration of its people. Anna

By Connie McNair - 11 July 2012 Reply

FINALLY! There have been a few more people who have decided to open their eyes. Its time to think for ourselves and stop blindly trusting that we are being properly informed and lead to making (or forced to make) the best decisions concerning our health. And what else have we been lied to about? Immunizations? Flu shots? Circumcision of newborn boys? Cancer? Surgery? Proper diet? GM foods? Artificial sweeteners? Antibiotics? I have questioned many of these for years, while most people wondered if I was nuts. They would defend “their” opinions with great zeal, yet could not show any research or reasons for their strong feelings. And still they want to think that they have been correct, and even though I HAVE done my own research, that my opinions are dangerous and their blind-trust has to be the only “right” answer. And remember when you question these things, who has the incentive to alter the actual test results? So if you know 2 people who have doubts and 100 who blindly trust, those 2 people have nothing to gain, while the others must now desperately defend what they have been preaching. And those who have been benefiting financially should be made accountable for lying to us for so long. I never ask others to trust my opinions, just to do their own research and then make their own minds. Too bad most people find it too hard to do that!

By Sandi - 11 July 2012 Reply

go or it! Get this stuff OUT of our drinking water. Keep up the good work

By JoAnn McNicholas - 11 July 2012 Reply

I’ve been fighting the addition of the poison fluoride for Years. It is ignorant and illogical.

By Ronald G Eheman - 11 July 2012 Reply

Fluoridation laws, state mandated or at the local level, are causing the cities and water operators to break federal FDA laws who will ultimately be liable for purchasing / receiving unapproved drugs and repackaging (diluting) fluoridation drugs

Under the FDCA, every person engaging in the manufacture, preparation, compounding, or processing of drugs in any establishment which he or she owns or operates, is required to immediately register his or her name, places of business, and all such establishments. 21 U.S.C. § 360(c). The terms “manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing” include repackaging or otherwise changing the container, wrapper, or labeling of any drug in furtherance of the distribution of the drug from the original place of manufacture to the person who makes the final sale to the ultimate consumer or user. 21 U.S.C. § 360(a)(1).

Is the city registered for repackaging (diluting) fluoridation drugs??

Illigally accepting unapproved drugs AND repackaging them for final sale to the ultimate consumer is a criminal act.

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) is a federal law enacted by Congress

FDA develops regulations based on the laws set forth in the FD&C Act or other laws under which FDA operates. FDA follows the procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act to issue regulations

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) is a federal law enacted by Congress. It and other federal laws establish the legal framework within which FDA operates. The FD&C Act can be found in the United States Code, which contains all general and permanent U.S. laws, beginning at 21 U.S.C. 301.

FDA develops regulations based on the laws set forth in the FD&C Act or other laws under which FDA operates. FDA follows the procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act, another federal law, to issue FDA regulations. This typically involves a process known as “notice and comment rulemaking” that allows for public input on a proposed regulation before FDA issues a final regulation. FDA regulations are also federal laws, but they are not part of the FD&C Act. FDA regulations can be found in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)2.

Do federal laws override state laws when the two are in conflict?

Supremacy Clause was written into Article IV of the Constitution providing the primary basis for the federal government’s power over states. The article states the “acts of the Federal Government are operational as supreme law throughout the Union . . . enforceable in all courts of the land. The states have no power to impede, burden, or in any manner control the operation of “federal law.”

Can state constitutions override the US Constitution if the Supreme Court rules it so?

No, quite the contrary. If there is a conflict between the US Constitution and a state constitution, the US Constitution prevails. Article VI of the US Constitution states (first paragraph omitted):

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”

Supremacy Clause

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and laws made pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, shall be “the supreme law of the land.” The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state. (Note that the word “shall” is used, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.) However, the Supremacy Clause only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, as noted by the phrase “in pursuance thereof” in the actual text of the Supremacy Clause itself.

The “supremacy clause” is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts.

Administrative Procedure Act

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Pub.L. 79-404, 60 Stat. 237, enacted June 11, 1946, is the United States federal law that governs the way in which administrative agencies of the federal government of the United States may propose and establish regulations. The APA also sets up a process for the United States federal courts to directly review agency decisions. It is one of the most important pieces of United States administrative law. The Act became law in 1946.

The APA applies to both the federal executive departments and the independent agencies. U.S. Senator Pat McCarran called the APA “a bill of rights for the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose affairs are controlled or regulated” by federal government agencies. The text of the APA can be found under Title 5 of the United States Code, beginning at Section 500.

The Fourteenth Amendment

Striking similarities exist between the supremacy clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

Both of these are parts of the Federal Constitution that define the Federal Government’s supremacy over the States regarding laws that have been delegated to the federal government in accordance with the Tenth Amendment. A difference between the two, however, is that whereas the Supremacy Clause deals with the relationship between the Federal Government and the states, the Fourteenth Amendment deals with the relationships among the Federal Government, the States, and the citizens of the United States.

There are some well-kept secrets about the Fourteenth Amendment, which are highly pertinent to the question of policepower, and these may conceivably become more widely understood or even become legal orthodoxy in the twenty-first century.

The first well-kept secret about the Fourteenth Amendment is found in the four dissenting votes to the Slaughter House Cases, which rest mainly on the very capable and powerful opinions of Justice Stephen Field41 and Justice Joseph Bradley.42 Section 1 of the FourteenthAmendment restrains the several States from abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. Most certainly these dissenters were right in maintaining that this clause serves to incorporate all guarantees of civil liberty found in the United States Constitution as further restraints on the several States, including the First through Ninth Amendments.43 And in light of legal tradition, they were right in maintaining that the Fourteenth Amendment, by incorporating the Ninth Amendment, imposes the old Statute of Monopolies44 upon the several States. Another well-kept secret about the Fourteenth Amendment, which may be unpleasant to some people yet ever so true, is that the article was never lawfully adopted,45 mainly because it was proposed by a Congress which unlawfully excluded representatives and senators from ten States for having had the temerity of holding views not to the liking of an impassioned and factious majority. Moreover, adoption was unlawful because ratification by those ten States, essential to adoption, was coerced by keeping them under martial law until they ratified,47 contrary to principles already known and adjudicated to be unconstitutional.48 Because time is a wonderful solvent of truth, we may anticipate that in the twenty-first century the Fourteenth Amendment may well be stricken from the United States Constitution.

The final well-kept secret about the Fourteenth Amendment is this: if and when it is finally acknowledged that the Fourteenth Amendment was never lawfully adopted, we shall not be deprived of means, under the fundamental law of the Union, to restrain the several States from acts of invidious discrimination or other forms of injustice. The reason is that everything worthwhile so far done in the name of the Fourteenth Amendment, and much more besides, can also be done upon a more enlightened view of the American Revolution, in the name of the Guarantee Clause.49 E pluribus unum. Annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum.

By Dr. Jack Tips - 11 July 2012 Reply

The very concept of the government “doctoring” water is offensive. Water should be, well, water. Pure and simple.
Putting chemical fluoride in water for teeth? Why not put prune juice in the water because granny’s constipated? And put some antidepressants in the water because, well hey, things don’t always go our way. Oh yeah, there already are antidepressants in tap water–recycled from the urine of people who are on antidepressants. And while we’re chatting, chlorine is another thyroid-damaging halide. Here in Austin, Texas, we get a dose of chloramines–they combine with other compounds in tap water to create 6 known carcinogens. Bon apetito! We sure can appreciate that chlorine in the water help prevent epidemics, but every home needs powerful purification at point of use. It’s hard to get chloramines out of the water — even harder for your body to deal with them. Fluoride for teeth should come from plants. The fluoride that occurs naturally in water is not the same molecule that is spiked into tap water–but it’s a great way to get rid of a toxic waste and filter it through millions of people’s bodies. May God bless those with the gumption to make positive health changes. Lend support to those who seek to clean up their tap water and protect their children’s brains. Bless you!

By Carolyn Demorest - 11 July 2012 Reply

It was hard to read because the left side of the column was cut off. The issue is very important, horrific. Could you resend it correctly?


By Gretchen Anderson - 11 July 2012 Reply

Have worked on two campaigns to keep fluoride out of the water in Bellingham, WA. I sure hope you’re right that the CDC will be sued and finally brought to answer for their ongoing position on this toxin. My adult son has fluorosis because I was convinced by his pediatrician to give him fluoride drops when he was an infant and toddler. He had digestive symptoms of fluoride poisoning the entire time and no doctor or dentist ever considered the source as fluoride supplements. I finally got wise and quit giving him the drops after 3 years of poisoning him.

By Mari - 11 July 2012 Reply

I had started reading about the dangers of fluoride years ago…back in the 90’s. My community used fluoride in our water. My only option then was to filter my water before drinking. I have since moved to the country and am on a well. I no longer purchase toothpaste with fluoride and do not allow the dentist give fluoride treatments to my family. Since doing all this our teeth have actually gotten better. We used to always have cavaties at each 6 mos. visit. Now they are rare. Coincidence? I don’t think so. Keep up the reporting and get it in the mainstream media somehow. Most of those I speak with about this issue think I’m nuts.

By Julie - 11 July 2012 Reply

I’ve known about this for years, since the 40’s and 50’s. Petition to Congress to end fluoridation nationwide.

By Richard Brackett - 11 July 2012 Reply

Glad to hear that something is being done to change our water treatment. Is anyone suggesting Magnesium treatments??

By Richard Brackett - 11 July 2012 Reply

Glad to hear that something is being done to change our water treatment protocol. Is anyone suggesting magnesium water treatments?

By Lenore Beck - 11 July 2012 Reply

Allopathic physicians told me this in the 70’s. Another example of greed at the expense of the health of the populace.

By Marsha Jarvis - 11 July 2012 Reply

Let’s get rid of water flouridation. People are taking better care of their teeth, having teeth cleanings every six months. That is why there are less cavities, not water flouridation. If we toxify our brains, we toxify our bodies. This is too important not to act on.

By Anita Cannata Nowell - 11 July 2012 Reply

Many, many years ago I read an article about the concerns of fluoride and also what the package of toothpaste states and haven’t drunk anything but distilled water since. Even cook with it. So many people comment that I am doing the wrong thing by drinking distilled water since I’m not getting the proper minerals, reply, I’m not a plant and wouldn’t benefit from them, besides my health food books only recommends distilled water and I’m into supplements,have been taking super blue green algae for about 17 yrs., eat no meat, I do eat foul & fish, no alcohol, don’t smoke for about 35 yrs., and am very happy with my health conditions. When people talk about cancer, my comment is always it has to be our water or/and air since that is the, only, thing everyone has in common. I hope to hear about the findings of fluoride all over the news. Just like cigarettes the execs. knew and so do the cell phone execs. know the harm. These people, along with almost all political people, know however, their greed allows them to be corporate controlled marionettes. May reap what they sow.
TUVM for your report.


By T Meloche - 11 July 2012 Reply

please continue to fight for our right to healthy food and water, and prevention of toxic additives such as the Fluoridegate issue.

By carole bush - 11 July 2012 Reply

Please make your points shorter. I agree with you but don’t have the time to read this long information.

By James - 11 July 2012 Reply

I am 61 with broken teeth that I attribute to having put Fluoride drops into our mike starting around 1958 for that purpose told to my mother that it would help prevent tooth decay in childrens teeth. Both of my parents and older sister and brother have had the same problems with their teeth as they became adults. No ammount of dental care was able to keep this poison from doing its intended damage to our dental health. I have read that experiments on rats showed that their teeth would break after exposure to this chemical poison. I had no idea until I read about this being an acid and after reading that I further understand how it could collect in my bones and affect my teeth. Also I have to take daily a Synthroid, Levothyroxine sodium tablet for a thyroid problem. Thinking back to my school years, why was I so unresponsive to learning, but for some time now I have put that blame on the mental effects of this poison in our milk, something that was given to my mother by our denist. I expect that he didn’t know either, but trusted the ADA and CDC in their reports of helping to prevent tooth decay in children. I drink only filtered water now but have no idea if Fluoride is filtered out of the water or not and also I am HIV positive. You may contact me if you have any need of wanting to do testing with me to further your understanding of what this may have caused in my health now as an adult.

By Susan Gage - 11 July 2012 Reply

I’m so glad this issue has finally come to the surface. I stopped using flouride toothpaste years ago, and my water is well water, thank goodness. But whoever is responsible for forcing the public to be poisoned by this chemical without proper studies being done and complete information being reported should be held accountable for their actions, or in this case, their INactions.

I just wish that all chemical companies could be investigated for the same thing–thousands of chemicals are in everyday products that the public either uses or ingests, but these chemicals have not gone through proper screening or clinical trials to see what the long-term effects might be. We’ve all been “lab rats” for a long time and it’s high time the public knew about it and did something about it.

Thank you Citizens for Health for doing what you do. Keep on doing it…please!

By AMY BAUER - 11 July 2012 Reply

I am a practicing Dental Hygienist and I DO NOT approve of water flouridation. Research has shown that fluoride in toothpaste is effective. Toothpaste that contains xylitol actually inhibits cavity causing bacteria. EWe should not be consuming toxic fluoride.

By RAJEANNE LAURELLE - 11 July 2012 Reply

Drinking fluoridated water has desroyed my thyroid!!! It is sooo harmful…why do dentists believe it is good for teeth??? Hitler gave it to his Jewish holocaust victims to limit their energy…which it did!!! There should be more writing about the NEGATIVITY OF FLUORIDE…and it should be completed eliminated in all water content!!!
Thank you,

By Caryn Cowin - 11 July 2012 Reply

I completely support your fight against fluoridation!!! Thank yuo for taking up the charge!

By Steve - 11 July 2012 Reply

Fluoride has been proven to be a poisonous toxin over and over again. Its mass release into the environment is one of the worst disasters to the environment of our time. Cancer rates shot through the roof after its introduction into our water supply long ago. This mass poisoning must stop.

By Paul Seidl - 12 July 2012 Reply

Why isn’t said info Headline news world-wide and litigation implemented to incarcerate the phony profiteers promoting such unfounded claims? To me, they seem to all be in collusion with the aim of just making personal gains at the risk of others…

By Marianne - 12 July 2012 Reply

Flouride is a RATT poison.

By Marianne - 12 July 2012 Reply

floride coses all uncurabls. it is a poison.

By LILLIAN BURNS - 13 July 2012 Reply


By Heather Rizzoli - 14 July 2012 Reply

My husband just bought a whole house filter that will completely get rid of Fluoride or Hydroflurosilic Acid! It was a wonderful gift! Next: another filter/attachment to clear-out Cloromine/Chlorine!
Five years ago my sister’s doctor had one of my nephews on Fluoride water, now, this same doctor has changed her mind and told my sister NOT to give her two year old son Fluoride!
My sister stopped giving her first son within his first year and a half of life after I gave her the book The Fluoride Deception.
I am a fan of specific Spring Water or filtered water and adding my own minerals (those I need and choose).
Thanks for covering this topic!

By Bruce Jones - 14 July 2012 Reply

I am for legislation against adding fluoride to our water supply. I do not think it is healthy and this should not be forced on us!

By Sally Wells - 15 July 2012 Reply

My husband and I have suspected for a long time that fluoride was/is not the thing to drink in our water or have in any other items. We buy water and hopefully are buying the really pure water and not from someone else’s faucets.

Thank you for getting into this subject. It has been needed for a long time.

By Loren - 15 July 2012 Reply

This is very disturbing on so many levels. I look forward to learning more about it and seeing the end to this sickening practice for profit and prejudice. Thank you for your concise article.

By Cindy Scalf - 16 July 2012 Reply

It sounds like according to new research Fluoridated Water is not safe. If its not quite as bad as arsenic but worse than lead and accumulates in the brain its bad bad bad and needs to be stopped!!!!!!

By Susan - 16 July 2012 Reply

Let’s petition to have an investigation.
Let’s petition EPA to IMMEDIATELY change the allowable added fluoride to drinking water to zero.

By Frank Herd - 19 July 2012 Reply

I appreciate your interest, and know how one’s time can be too short to read everything one would want to.
We post articles like this so that folks who want more information have access to it, and those that don’t have time, can skim for the information they want. The alternative would meet the latter interest, but leave folks wanting more with the responsibility of seeking it out elsewhere. We believe the greater good is served by the approach we use, and hope you agree.

By Frank Herd - 19 July 2012 Reply

I am sorry you had trouble with the formatting of the article. However, it was provided as “correctly” as possible. We work to provide content in a way that will be accessible to everyone, and I do not know of another way to format it so that you could view it properly, given I do not know how your PC is configured for viewing webpages.
Perhaps you could investigate a remedy in your PC’s/browser’s settings?

By Frank Herd - 19 July 2012 Reply

Perhaps you could simply copy and paste the article into Adobe, or even into MS Word, to disseminate it to interested parties?
Or you could forward our original email alert calling attention to the article to anyone you think would be interested. Hope this helps.

By Michael Edwards, MA, CHES, RHEd, CNC - 22 August 2012 Reply

Great article! I’ve spread the word about the dangers of flouridation since I did a study of dental caries in grad school. The professor scoffed at my concerns about such a dangerous chemical in our water supply and oral preparations. Dentists have been hiding this information for generations-like they have done with mercury fillings. If we don’t stand up for our health NO ONE else will!

By Elaine - 22 August 2012 Reply

Thank you for the information. I have been concerned about water quality for quite while. No guarantees that most bottled water is merely public water in a plastic containers which are just accumulating in landfills. Considering a whole house RO system and adding Himalayan Salt for drinking purpose. Would appreciate info onrecommended approaches/sources an individual can take as I do not believe any agency is going to adequately deal with this problem.

By leigh - 5 November 2012 Reply

I believe the US EPA does not condone the dumping the toxic industrial waste product from the phosphate fertiliser industry in to the environment.
If so, why should they allow it to be put in to public water supplies?

[…] fluoride and affecting the lives of all Americans, especially children and the immune compromised. Lawsuits are being prepared.  Children are ingesting 3-4 times more fluoride by body weight as adults and “[t]he sheer […]

By Margarie Ostrovski - 8 December 2012 Reply

Hey Big Government Idiots: the head of the EPA is the former CEO of Monsanto! It’s not rocket science to know that the government is corrupt and it’s a liberal pipe dream that supposedly the government is some sort of benevolent body. Wake up, Americans! Your time has come for another revolution.

By Margarie Ostrovski - 10 December 2012 Reply

I just don’t understand why people are FIRED in government agencies for saying water fluoridation is dangerous! It’s as if they are hiding something! Why is it such a hot-button issue? Is it because millions of people will sue once they find out what’s been done to them by government? When will people wake up? If there is ANY question AT ALL from scientific studies about the safety of fluoride, why have they continued it or even started it up in some places (Portland, OR in Sept 2012). Why has this been a controversial issue for over 30 years, and our government continues to condone poisoning people?!!!!!!!

By Dave - 22 January 2013 Reply

One only needs to pull up the MSDS (material safety data sheet) to find some eye opening information. Like the first thing being this in BOLD text,

Here is the link to the MSDS

Class 3 poison to humans.. Did you also know it is the #1 active ingredient in rat poison? We need to seriously ask ourselves this question, If the Nazi’s where such evil terrible people, why then after WW2 did we make sure to grab up the very best of their mad scientists and start implementing the exact same experiments used on the Jews in the concentration camps??? They used to put fluoride in the Jews drinking water because the Nazi’s knew exactly the effects it had..Funny there is never any mention of the effects on the brain from fluoride. Could it be because that is the what is targeted??? Our President continues to lie, ignore campaign promises, defile the constitution yet somehow, someway this tyrant was re-elected. For those of you who where foolish enough to vote for him, i hope you see the consequences of your actions…And just think, come March it can be made mandatory for ALL Americans to have a micro- chip implanted as part of Obama care…Looks like you not only voted for a horrible person but an anti- Christ to boot…Way to go America

By laura blake - 11 June 2013 Reply

I would never give my children any of the required vacines after they switch one because I was on medicare So what was in that one I wonder

By laura blake - 11 June 2013 Reply

I would never give my child another vacine after they took back one and came with another because I was on medicad I told them they could take that one back too because my children were not getting any of them

Leave a Comment