RICHARD G. FOULKES, B.A., M.D. P.O. Box 278 Abbotsford, n.

c, Canada, V2S 4N9 Telephone 604 850 3171 November 9, 1998

Dear Ken; You asked me to tell you about the events that led me from being a promoter of fluoridation to one who is involved in trying to persuade others to condemn the practice. I shall relate the events and the lessons that I have learned from them. This story may be of help to others. In December, 1973, I presented a report to the people and Government of British Columbia (Canada) entitled Health Security for British Columbians (2 volumes). I had been appointed by the provincial Cabinet in 1972 "to study and report on the entire health care system of the province and to make reconunendations that could lead to its rationalization". My official title was "Special Consultant to the Minister of Health". I was appointed to this position as a result of my standing in the health services conununity as a physician and as the administrator of one of the province's largest and most active general hospitals, as a participant in various committees dealing with health policy and because of numerous published articles on the delivery of health services. I had also been in rural general medical practice prior to entering the health care administration field which some felt gave me a unique perspective. My report was a review of the entire health care system of the province and presented the government with a total of264 reconunendations. One of these (reconunendation 245) advocated that the government consider the mandatory fluoridation of public water supplies. The decision to make this recommendation was based on the acceptance of the advice of the Division of Preventive Dentistry of the B.C. Health Branch, the College of Dental Surgeons of B.C., the Faculty of Dentistry at the University of British Columbia and other organizations involved in dentistry and public health nationally. I assumed that those presenting the case for fluoridation had examined all sides of the issue. Looking back, with the benefit of hindsight, I know now that this assumption was naive - and incorrect. For the past 7 years (to 1998) I have reviewed all of the pertinent published papers, articles and reports concerning fluoride and fluoridation. I have attended international conferences on fluoride in Japan, China, Hungary and the United States. In addition, I have published articles and written letters urging the end of fluoridation on the basis of evidence that the practice is not only ineffective but also unsafe. The 59 references that were presented to me in 1972 by the promoters to make their case for the effectiveness and safety of fluoridation were, I was soon to discover, selective and one-sided Not one of the references included studies that were extant at that time that threw doubt on the effectiveness of fluoridation. There was no reference to studies that

/- L

Chronology 2

Page-2

Foulkes

showed that the experimental trials commenced in 1945 were largely invalidated. With regard to safety, there was no reference to studies reported to 1972 on the toxic effect of fluoride on animals, plants and humans. There was no mention of the concerns regarding the safety of fluoridation that had been expressed by the World Health Organization (WHO 1970) and by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS 1971). Both of these organizations agreed on the need for further research. Why was this not passed on to me? Finally, there was no discussion that the chemical that was being used in B.C. for fluoridation at that time and proposed for the future to provide fluoride ion was not a pharmaceutical grade product but an industrial toxic waste. From 1972 to the present, much has been published that has shown conclusively that the systemic use of fluoride (i.e., water fluoridation) is not effective in the reduction/prevention of dental caries but is associated with many serious health effects resulting from sensitivity and from chronic accumulation in populations ingesting fluoride over a long period of time. Fluoridation has also been shown to be a threat to the environment, including the marine and fresh water ecosystems. In spite of this contrary evidence, the effectiveness and safety of fluoridation is promoted with a zeal that approaches fanaticism and with the support of Governments in Canada, U.S.A., Australia, Ireland (Southern), New Zealand and the Ll.K. Was my recommendation in 1973 accepted? No. Fortunately for-the people of British Columbia, the politicians to whom I reported were more in tune with the feelings of the voting public who had strongly defeated fluoridation in the major population areas of Greater Vancouver and the capitol city of Victoria. British Columbia is the least fluoridated province in Canada and the few fluoridated communities, still carrying out the process, are decreasing in numbers every year. There is a lesson to be learned from this incident. All of us must abandon our dependence on authority. We must recognize that we are all vulnerable to propaganda and to the adoption of a mind set that is not based on evidence. We must question those who offer a panacea whether it be to abolish tooth decay or some other affliction. And, never assume that what we are told is the truth until both sides of controversial issues are properly examined.

Richard G. Foulkes, B.A., M.D.

/- 3