Open up medicine to effective prevention and cure.
EU Food Authority double standard: Fluoride source approved for use in Supplements
According to an article in Nutraingredients.com, the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) expressed a positive opinion regarding calcium fluoride as a source of fluoride in food supplements. That same day, another fluoride compound was approved - sodium monofluorophosphate - but this one was not mentioned in the Nutraingredients report.
These opinions appear to be in stark contrast with the over-cautious evaluation of vital nutrients (vitamins and minerals) in progress. A scientific dossier proving the safety of those nutrient sources is required before EFSA will consent to their use in supplements, and limiting dosages are being considered to make sure there is not a shadow of a possibility of an 'adverse effect'.
The Alliance for Natural Health (ANH) published a critical review of the EFSA opinion under the title EFSA—are you trying to poison us? which was subsequently taken up by Nutraingredients.
EFSA felt moved to defend their position in another article on the Nutraingredients site: EFSA defends independence against ‘toxic toothpaste’ attack
Of the particular sodium monofluorophosphate opinion, the EFSA spokesperson observed, by way of clarification: “The opinion to which you refer was an evaluation of the safety of sodium monofluorophosphate added for nutritional purposes as a source of fluoride in food supplements and on bioavailability of fluoride from this source. The safety of fluoride itself was outside the remit of the Panel.”
Yet, fluoride is NOT an essential nutrient and has known toxicity at very low dosages. Both these facts should act as red flags, impeding the approval of fluoride compounds in nutritional supplements.
Robert Pocock, an anti-fluoridation campaigner with VOICE, an Irish environmental and consumer group, has been pointing out that fluoride is really a medicine, not a food, and he has challenged the EU Commission on this point.
See EU pharma sector reform must start in Ireland in the Irish Medical News.
Pocock put together the reasons and arguments why fluoride should not have been approved as a nutrient to be added to food supplements. His notes are in the attached Word document (Fluoride Defence).
Another flaw that should invalidate the EFSA's opinion of fluoride as a viable nutrient source is that there apparently has been a contrasting opinion of another EU Committee that should have been taken into account. This was pointed out in email correspondence as follows:
Regulation 178/2002/EC, the “EFSA” and General Food Law Regulation, Article 30: “Diverging Scientific Opinions” says:
“1. The Authority shall exercise vigilance in order to identify at an early stage any potential source of divergence between its scientific opinions and the scientific opinions issued by other bodies carrying out similar tasks.”
2. ... etc.”
If it can be established that other “EFSA”-type authoritative bodies “carrying out similar tasks”, published limitative opinions on fluoride, were not taken into consideration by EFSA, then,
1) these bodies should be informed,
2) the relevant Member State should be informed,
3) it should be made known to the EU Commission hat EFSA violated Art.30 of Regulation 178/2002/EC, and
4) EFSA should be forced to re-assess its Opinion in accordance with Art. 30’s paragraphs 2, 3 and 4.
All in all, a distinct double standard seems to pervade EU health authorities in their attempt to regulate supplements for "consumer protection"...
These opinions appear to be in stark contrast with the over-cautious evaluation of vital nutrients (vitamins and minerals) in progress. A scientific dossier proving the safety of those nutrient sources is required before EFSA will consent to their use in supplements, and limiting dosages are being considered to make sure there is not a shadow of a possibility of an 'adverse effect'.
The Alliance for Natural Health (ANH) published a critical review of the EFSA opinion under the title EFSA—are you trying to poison us? which was subsequently taken up by Nutraingredients.
EFSA felt moved to defend their position in another article on the Nutraingredients site: EFSA defends independence against ‘toxic toothpaste’ attack
Of the particular sodium monofluorophosphate opinion, the EFSA spokesperson observed, by way of clarification: “The opinion to which you refer was an evaluation of the safety of sodium monofluorophosphate added for nutritional purposes as a source of fluoride in food supplements and on bioavailability of fluoride from this source. The safety of fluoride itself was outside the remit of the Panel.”
Yet, fluoride is NOT an essential nutrient and has known toxicity at very low dosages. Both these facts should act as red flags, impeding the approval of fluoride compounds in nutritional supplements.
Robert Pocock, an anti-fluoridation campaigner with VOICE, an Irish environmental and consumer group, has been pointing out that fluoride is really a medicine, not a food, and he has challenged the EU Commission on this point.
See EU pharma sector reform must start in Ireland in the Irish Medical News.
Pocock put together the reasons and arguments why fluoride should not have been approved as a nutrient to be added to food supplements. His notes are in the attached Word document (Fluoride Defence).
Another flaw that should invalidate the EFSA's opinion of fluoride as a viable nutrient source is that there apparently has been a contrasting opinion of another EU Committee that should have been taken into account. This was pointed out in email correspondence as follows:
Regulation 178/2002/EC, the “EFSA” and General Food Law Regulation, Article 30: “Diverging Scientific Opinions” says:
“1. The Authority shall exercise vigilance in order to identify at an early stage any potential source of divergence between its scientific opinions and the scientific opinions issued by other bodies carrying out similar tasks.”
2. ... etc.”
If it can be established that other “EFSA”-type authoritative bodies “carrying out similar tasks”, published limitative opinions on fluoride, were not taken into consideration by EFSA, then,
1) these bodies should be informed,
2) the relevant Member State should be informed,
3) it should be made known to the EU Commission hat EFSA violated Art.30 of Regulation 178/2002/EC, and
4) EFSA should be forced to re-assess its Opinion in accordance with Art. 30’s paragraphs 2, 3 and 4.
All in all, a distinct double standard seems to pervade EU health authorities in their attempt to regulate supplements for "consumer protection"...
- Attachments:
-
-
EFSA_Defence.doc, 26 KB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Northerntracey on -
OMG if this isn't evidence they're trying to poison us then what is? They're having trouble poisoning us enmasse so now they target the people 'in the know' by poisoning OUR supplements! Jeez! Are we really that dumb? They obviously think we are!!!
-
Permalink Reply by Sepp on -
Well, most health conscious people know about fluoride and avoid it like the plague. What the EFSA decision will do is allow the pharmaceutical manufacturers to catch those that are unaware. "Here, take this nice complete vitamin and mineral supplement with fluoride - it's good for your teeth", and believe me, many will fall for that.
So it is indeed up to us to stop that nonsense, or rather, to improve our collective knowledge of what are vital nutrients and what are poisons and whether to consume them or not. It's all about freedom of choice, and we can only choose if we know the details... and have some healthy skepticism for what comes from those "scientific" committees.
Another issue where EFSA is helping industry rather than people's health or the environment is the evaluation of GM maize. EFSA's experts are doing their best to make little of any scientific study results that show genetically modified crops have negative effects on the health of those who consume them. Incredible but true.
See: Greenpeace calls on Commission to shut down EFSA GMO panel
http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/press-releases2/Shut...
-
Permalink Reply by Sepp on
-
Latest: The Alliance for Natural Health has written and published an open letter to EFSA concerning its opinion of sodium monofluorophosphate, challenging the idea that fluoride is a nutrient that should be in supplements, and challenging the scientific evaluation of its safety for human consumption, which ANH says is based on a radically different set of criteria than those used to evaluate the clearly beneficial nutrients such as vitamins... double standard.
ANH Open Letter to the European Food Safety Authority
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on -
Thank you for your excellent articles and in depth analysis of health issues. It is my recollection according to research in New Zealand where socialized dentistry has been available for years, the addition of flouride to reduce the high numbers of carries, tooth decay, experienced by New Zealanders occurred with devastating results. Approximately 20 years or so later there appeared a rash of hip fractures that stunned the medical practitioners. After a lengthy study and statistical analysis a direct relationship between hip fractures and the addition of flouride to the diet was discovered. Apparently, the flouride hardened the bones to the point where they no longer were regenerating bone, instead they had become thin and brittle. This study was published in the International Clinical Nutrition Review in Sydney, Australia.
-
Permalink Reply by Sepp on
-
Great information Michael,
you wouldn't have a link, by any chance, to that study you can share with us?
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on
-
Hello Sepp,
The Journal is out of print, fortunately the copy is still in my library. The International Clinical Nutrition Review was published quarterly in Sydney, Australia until October 2002. In the April 1990, Volume 10, Number 2 an Editorial by Robert A. Buist, Ph. D was presented.- "A Reappraisal of Water Flouridation" p.290 It was followed by two major articles on flouridation by Mark Diesendorf, Ph. D. "Have the Benefits of Water Flouridation Been Overestimated?" pp.292-303 and "The Health Hazards of Flouridation: A Re-examination" pp.304 -321. A devastating science based research against the public use of flouride added to drinking water.
It's possible to copy these pages into a PDF file if you wish. Thanks again for your excellent forum.
About
Random stuff
Therapy for the Soul
____
Free Hugs Campaign
____
Stroke of Insight
____
The Story of Stuff
____
A Million Hearts
____
Our Deepest Fear
____
Mouseland
____
Free Hugs Campaign
____
Stroke of Insight
____
The Story of Stuff
____
A Million Hearts
____
Our Deepest Fear
____
Mouseland
On Facebook:
© 2009 Created by Sepp on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
