FLUORIDATION: FOLLOW THE MONEY
By Carol Kopf, Media Director, Fluoride Action Network 24 Dec. 2013
Multi-billion dollar international conglomerates, which benefit from tooth decay and fluoride sales,
pour money into organized dentistry which is behind virtually every fluoridation initiative.
The American Dental Association (ADA), many of its over 250 constituent state and city
associations are benefactors along with other fluoridation-promoting dental groups and schools.
Dentists, inside and outside of government and industry, seem to have vast amounts of money and
influence to promote fluoridation. Where does it come from?
The ADA and the ADA Foundation received over $28 million from pharmaceutical companies,
dental equipment manufacturers and insurance companies, from 2006 – 2009, according to a
January 20, 2010, letter from the ADA’s Chief Financial Officer to U.S. Senator Charles Grassley.
Grassley wants more accountability and transparency between the ADA and industry. The ADA
didn’t comply with Grassley’s request to publish its corporate funders on its website. However,
Grassley listed them on his own website:
Fluoride-selling pharmaceutical giants listed include: Colgate, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson &
Johnson, Procter & Gamble, Pfizer, and others.
ADA’s Seal of Acceptance
Several companies on Grassley’s list paid a “Seal Program Maintenance Fee,” totaling $574,000 for
four years (2006-2009).
The ADA requires a one-time, non-refundable submission fee before reviewing over-the-counter
products ($14,500 per product). If given the ADA’s Seal of Acceptance, they are required to pay an
annual maintenance fee of $3,500 per product, according to Jan Lord, Manager, Acceptance
Program, ADA’s Council on Scientific Affairs.
Approximately, 260 items appear on the ADA’s current Accepted “Shopping List.” A large number
are fluoride products.
More Legal Financial Exchanges between the ADA and Industry
Sometimes the ADA joins into “Cause-Related-Marketing” with for-profit companies. The ADA
gives an example: the William Wrigley Company agreed to donate a percentage of its ADA
Accepted chewing gum products to the ADA’s Give Kids A Smile program, according to Guidelines
Governing the American Dental Association’s Corporate Relationships.
Wrigley paid the ADA $36,000 to review some of Wrigley’s sugar-free chewing gum studies to get
the ADA’s Seal of Acceptance, according to CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta. Gupta writes, “The ADA
stands by its seal and told us any company can apply for the seal, as long as the company pays for
Johnson & Johnson gave $900,000 to fund the ADA’s annual session’s distinguished speaker series
In 2007, Barbara Walters and Lance Armstrong Headlined the ADA’s Distinguished Speaker Series.
Many prominent journalists and politicians have been paid to speak at ADA conventions. In 2013
former President Bill Clinton was the main event. Some might say it’s a good way to buy influence.
Colgate funds the ADA research institute newly renamed after dentist Anthony R. Volpe, who
recently retired as Vice President of Clinical Research and Scientific Affairs at Colgate-Palmolive
Colgate’s Volpe and a Henry Schein, Inc. representative serve on the Board of Directors of Forsyth
Institute which bills itself as “the only independent research institute in America specializing in oral
health and its impact on overall wellness.” The Forsyth Institute is where Dr. Phyllis Mullenix
performed research that found fluoride can cause brain deficits in rodents. Mullenix was fired for
publishing her results in a peer-reviewed, respected journal (1), against the orders of her Forsyth
boss, as explained in the first chapter of Chris Bryson’s “The Fluoride Deception.”
Members of the dental industry are on Boards of Directors for Dental Schools, other fluoridation
promoting groups such as the Children’s Dental Health Project, Oral Health America, Dental
product manufacturers are even Friends of the National Institutes of Dental Research.
At the forefront of most fluoridation initiatives are well-meaning but mis-guided dentists who fail to
read the literature and are fueled only by the endorsements of dentists at the CDC’s Oral Health
Division, or endorsements by dental organizations, or endorsements lobbied by dentists or from
other groups and associations. Industry-funded dental groups even lobbied the Surgeon General
until she finally caved in and endorsed fluoridation.
Dental Schools are corporation-subsidized
Henry Schein, Inc., the largest distributor of healthcare products and services to office-based
practitioners gave the New York University Dental School a six figure gift in 2000 and a million
dollars the year before.
The New York University Donor Honor Roll reveals that Colgate-Palmolive Company and Nobel
Biocare USA, Inc gave from $1 to 4$ million (2011-2012).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
If a community elects to stop fluoridation, invariably a dentist and his posse shows up intimidating
legislators into re-starting fluoridation. As ammunition, they state: “CDC has recognized water
fluoridation as one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.”
That statement may sound impressive. However, it has been promoted by the CDC’s Oral Health
Division, who are paid to promote fluoridation. The CDC also says, “It is not CDC’s task to
determine what levels of fluoride in water are safe.” (see 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: http://
The CDC’s Oral Health Division may be a stepping stone into a more lucrative career promoting
fluoridation for outside interests. When forced to defend fluoridation with words and not hide
behind catch-phrases and government credentials, two former CDC Oral Health Division Directors
a) Dentist William Kohn, former director of the CDC’s Division of Oral Health until Feb 2011 –
Now with Delta Dental, a dental “insurance” company that strongly supports fluoridation
financially, Kohn does a poor job of convincing anyone to endorse fluoridation in a series of Delta
Dental YouTube videos. I’ll bet he makes way more money in his new job.
b) Dentist William Mass, CDC’s previous Oral Health Director retired January 2010 from the CDC.
But, In 2009, Dr. Maas was assigned by CDC to serve as an advisor to the Pew Children’s Dental
Campaign. Maas was equally impotent when asked to defend fluoridation before a county
legislature in 2013 in his new job for the billion-dollar Pew Foundation’s (renamed) Dental Policy
group. Under his guidance, Pew fluoridation initiatives in Portland, Oregon and Wichita, Kansas
failed when voters rejected fluoridation 60% to 40% despite the vast amount of money spent trying
to convince them to swallow the fluoride.
Dentists Doing Very Well, Thank You, Despite Fluoridation
Fluoridation hasn’t hurt dentistry’s bottom line at all. In fact, dentistry is big business today despite
7 decades of water fluoridation and a glut of fluoridated dental products. Americans spent about
$108 billion on dentists in 2011, an inflation-adjusted increase from $64 billion in 1996, according
to the General Accounting Office. But a dental crisis still exists.
Since fluoridation doesn’t reduce tooth decay, whose best interests are served by protecting
The Global Toothpaste Market is expected to reach $12.6 billion by 2015, according Global
Industry Analysts, Inc.
And, as you know, toothpaste isn’t the only fluoridated dental product on the market.
The global dental equipment market is predicted to exhibit a compound annual growth rate of 9% to
reach over $13 billion by 2016.
Cosmetic dentistry continues to surge with an annual U.S. expenditure of $2.75 billion.
Fluoridation has created a lucrative new market for cosmetic dentistry. Fluoride-overdose
symptoms, dental fluorosis (discolored teeth) has increased in incidence and severity over the years.
WebMD writes, “Although fluorosis is not a disease, its effects can by psychologically distressing
and difficult to treat. Parental vigilance can play an important role in preventing fluorosis.”
Sales of fluoride varnish are soaring as organized dentistry lobbied legislators to increase, require or
allow their use among more practitioners – even though the varnish contains a hugely toxic 22,600
parts per million fluoride and has never been FDA approved for cavity reduction or safety tested.
Money is Power
Why does the ADA need so much money? Money is power in American politics. The ADA’s
Political Action Committee is considered a Heavy Hitter by the Center for Responsive Politics.
In the last cycle, the ADA gave Congressional representatives $302,500 and Senators $48,500.
It seems that organized dentistry lobbies mostly for laws that benefit their member dentists. Some
legislation masquerades as a public benefit. Fluoridation wears such a mask.
The New York State Dental Association brags about its legislative victories on its website.
The New York Times reported about the NY Dental Association’s political clout and sleazy
politicking, in 2008.
The Greater New York Dental Meeting which is billed as the largest dental conference in the
country generates millions of dollars. Exhibitors look like a who’s who in the dental industry.
Healthy Diets Make Healthy Teeth without Fluoride
Even the ADA admits good dental health begins in the womb. It’s important for pregnant women to
receive sufficient amounts of tooth-building nutrients, including calcium, protein, phosphorous and
vitamins A, C and D But dentists are mostly focused on fluoride, a drug with adverse side effects,
that is not even essential for healthy teeth.
But there’s no money in selling nutrients and healthy eating.
So it’s not surprising that the U.S. is experiencing a tooth decay epidemic along with a fluorideoverdose
epidemic. Up to 60% of adolescents have dental fluorosis. Yet 51% of them have tooth
Who’s in Charge?
The CDC is not responsible for fluoridation safety. The FDA regulates fluoride as a drug for topical
application and considers ingested fluoride such as fluoride supplements, an unapproved drug. The
EPA regulates fluoride in water supplies as a contaminant. Organized dentistry, fueled by corporate
cash, protects fluoride’s image and promotes fluoridation.
So Why Fluoridation?
The dental crisis America faces today is because dentistry has become a luxury service that most
Americans can’t afford. 80% of dentists refuse to accept Medicaid patients, 130 million lack dental
insurance. Many with dental insurance can’t afford dentistry’s high out of pocket fees. The answer
is simple – legalize Dental Therapists in the US as they have been for decades in other first world
countries. They just need 2 or 3 years training to do simple dentistry. They will go into mouths and
areas dentists refuse to go. Studies show they are highly effective and more affordable.
However, organization dentistry, with its pockets full of corporate cash, lobby long and hard to keep
affordable dentistry an oxymoron in the US. Dentists lobby against dental therapists because, some
say, they infringe upon dentists lucrative monopoly.
1. Mullenix PJ, Denbesten PK, Schunior A, Kernan WJ. 1996. Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in
Rats. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1995 Mar-Apr;17(2):169-77.
You can find this document FLUORIDATION – FOLLOW THE MONEY on FIA website >
REPORT Brief Overview: http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/briefoverview-
Some Health Effects: http://fluorideinformationaustralia.wordpress.com/health-effects/
FIREWATER FILM https://www.facebook.com/firewaterfilm
The study also found that fluoride does not eliminate tooth decay, citing dietary sugars as the
primary cause. People living in areas with fluoridated water and/or using fluoride toothpaste still got
Australia wide in dental crisis after widespread fluoridation in every State, first commencing
Beaconsfield, Tasmania in 1953 – likewise USA in dental crisis after widespread `fluoridation` first
beginning in 1945 Grand Rapids Michigan
The only answer EVER was to provide access to affordable dental health care services for all the
population, not the disposal of hazardous waste pollutants fluorosilicic acid/silicofluorides and cocontaminants
of lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, thallium, berrylium, etc., (known as water
fluoridation); into our drinking water supplies and hence also the contamination of our food chain
and using the populations` kidneys as hazardous waste disposal/filtration units.
The mandatory systemic fluoridation of drinking water supplies violates each of these stated principles as
outlined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is now scientifically accepted that infants are
the most at risk from the toxic effects of fluoride. Water Fluoridation discriminates against subsections of the
population in particular young children. Water fluoridation is not in the best interest of every child and the
state has a right not to inhibit their neurological development by introducing a known neurotoxin into their
food supply. Water Fluoridation does not recognize the role of the family in the protection of the child and
the right of parents to safeguard their children from exposure to known toxins.