There is no evidence that the Kellogg Foundation funded the Grand Rapids fluoridation project. Although the foundation was suggested as a source to cover the costs of sodium fluoride and feed equipment, the U.S. Public Health Service ultimately covered the costs. Incidental expenses at the water filtration plant were paid by the city (McClure, 1970).
In Philip Jay’s 1967 letter to Frank McClure - which Neurath cites as evidence that Kellogg's initially funded the project - Emory Morris agreed only to try to secure funds after reviewing a proposal for a possible fluoridation project in either Grand Rapids or Muskegon. That is not evidence that the Kellogg Foundation funded the Grand Rapids project; it did not.
What is clear is that the Kellogg Foundation was behind the salt fluoridation measures implemented in South America.
Blaming “Big Sugar” for fluoridation efforts certainly oversimplifies the history. While the sugar industry clearly helped shape fluoride science to its advantage, the larger story is a convergence of industrial, professional, and governmental interests that began earlier and extended far beyond sugar.
Organized dentistry, seeking legitimacy, was the central driving force behind fluoridation and remains so to this day.
PFPC Canada: Thank you for sharing your research. I'll attempt to verify whether the sugar industry provided any funding for the Grand Rapids trial. This short post is obviously only about one facet of a complex history of fluoridation.
Thank you for this and the previous piece. Might you also write about where the fluoride that's used preventatively comes from? I found Christopher Bryson's book The Flouride Deception (2004) enlightening.
The insight and perspectives presented here are invaluable. What adds to the refractive nature of these issues is the ultimately dividing population abiding in the “go-along-to get-along” approach to work and life. And that leads to the simple resolve of, “let’s-just-agree-to-disagree.” Too often that is the quickest and easiest answer, instead of at least agreeing to dig in and seek the most moral and sustainable of truths, and then advocating and applying them to construct the most responsible outcomes to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
John: The nation’s regulatory systems are skewed toward protecting industry’s profits rather than the public’s health. It’s an odd and troubling reality—one that surprises many people, though few understand just how deep those imbalances run. Equally troubling is that most scientists and physicians haven’t stopped to consider how deeply we’ve bought into this system—and how our insistence on conclusive proof often delays the very protections meant to prevent harm.
Thank you Bruce. And furthering the enlightenment, it’s not just protecting profits rather than public health, it’s the greater concern for protecting reputations rather than public health, part and parcel to protecting the status quo, obsolete as they both may be. After 16 years of activism to end fluoridation, I’m seeing those entrenchments as being our greatest obstacles.
John: I expect that’s part of it. I remember feeling uneasy the first time I read an article suggesting that latent tuberculosis—an old infection that can reactivate when the immune system weakens—might not be as much of a concern as we believed. I had treated dozens, maybe hundreds of people with isoniazid. None had any serious complications, as far as I know, and most experts still recognize latent TB as real. Still, reading that paper was unsettling. Bruce
More thanks, Bruce, for adding this other dimension to my understanding of the issue, one which I had not previously given due consideration, but which in hindsight now deserves important recognition. It may even contribute more to the obstruction from a wider population group than the other parts. Coming to terms with a possibility like the one you found unsettling I realize can be a formidable challenge.
Some fluoridationists may simply be too lazy to do their homework, but as we saw at that FDA meeting on supplements, the dental and medical fluoridationists are not ignorant of the harm. They are either willfully blind to it or dishonest in their fluoride promotion for what I have to assume are personal reasons. Either they are protecting their egos or paychecks.
Maggie: When I found that even low levels of lead in children’s blood were harmful, many of my colleagues in pediatrics and public health dismissed or downplayed the evidence—often without taking the time to review it. I don’t fault them for being busy; we all have our own work to do. But as scientists, physicians, and public health leaders, we have a responsibility not to offer opinions unless we’ve done our homework. Once the Centers for Disease Control acknowledged that no safe level of lead could be identified, those same voices began calling for urgent action. Unfortunately, many harms fall through the cracks because federal agencies wait for definitive proof—while the public, in turn, waits for those same agencies to act. That delay, repeated across chemicals like lead and fluoride, is how preventable damage becomes permanent.
Understood, and agree that no one, credentialed or not, should argue for or against a health intervention without having done their due diligence. The difference here is that dentists in particular profit from the fluoride mythology. The in-office fluoride treatments and cosmetic dentistry for dental fluorosis add hundreds of thousands of dollars to their annual income. It's not just the ADA, which is a consumer group for the benefit of its dentist members (not patients), who is biased. The AAP receives funding to promote fluoridation; this pediatrician group are astroturfers. Plus, there are Pharma and Insurance profiteers involved. This isn't the same thing as casual dismissal because of busy schedules. This is an orchestrated and sophisticated campaign to continue poisoning consumers because it is profitable.
If the doctors and dentists at the American Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, International Academy of Biological Dentistry and Medicine, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, and International College of Integrative Medicine can figure it out and publish position papers or webpages opposing fluoridation, there is no excuse for any dental or medical professional to continue to cling to marketing rhetoric. In other words, they deserved to be faulted.
There is no evidence that the Kellogg Foundation funded the Grand Rapids fluoridation project. Although the foundation was suggested as a source to cover the costs of sodium fluoride and feed equipment, the U.S. Public Health Service ultimately covered the costs. Incidental expenses at the water filtration plant were paid by the city (McClure, 1970).
[https://poisonfluoride.com/dir/wp-content/uploads/McClure-Grand-Rapids-Extract-from-22Victory22.pdf]
In Philip Jay’s 1967 letter to Frank McClure - which Neurath cites as evidence that Kellogg's initially funded the project - Emory Morris agreed only to try to secure funds after reviewing a proposal for a possible fluoridation project in either Grand Rapids or Muskegon. That is not evidence that the Kellogg Foundation funded the Grand Rapids project; it did not.
[https://poisonfluoride.com/dir/wp-content/uploads/Jay-to-McClure-re-Grand-Rapids-Peter-Meiers.pdf]
What is clear is that the Kellogg Foundation was behind the salt fluoridation measures implemented in South America.
Blaming “Big Sugar” for fluoridation efforts certainly oversimplifies the history. While the sugar industry clearly helped shape fluoride science to its advantage, the larger story is a convergence of industrial, professional, and governmental interests that began earlier and extended far beyond sugar.
Organized dentistry, seeking legitimacy, was the central driving force behind fluoridation and remains so to this day.
PFPC Canada: Thank you for sharing your research. I'll attempt to verify whether the sugar industry provided any funding for the Grand Rapids trial. This short post is obviously only about one facet of a complex history of fluoridation.
Thank you for this and the previous piece. Might you also write about where the fluoride that's used preventatively comes from? I found Christopher Bryson's book The Flouride Deception (2004) enlightening.
A Valencia: Thank you. I won't be able to write about the sources of fluoride used in fluoridation soon, but I will add it to the list. Bruce
The insight and perspectives presented here are invaluable. What adds to the refractive nature of these issues is the ultimately dividing population abiding in the “go-along-to get-along” approach to work and life. And that leads to the simple resolve of, “let’s-just-agree-to-disagree.” Too often that is the quickest and easiest answer, instead of at least agreeing to dig in and seek the most moral and sustainable of truths, and then advocating and applying them to construct the most responsible outcomes to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
Oops- refractory, not refractive.
John: The nation’s regulatory systems are skewed toward protecting industry’s profits rather than the public’s health. It’s an odd and troubling reality—one that surprises many people, though few understand just how deep those imbalances run. Equally troubling is that most scientists and physicians haven’t stopped to consider how deeply we’ve bought into this system—and how our insistence on conclusive proof often delays the very protections meant to prevent harm.
Thank you Bruce. And furthering the enlightenment, it’s not just protecting profits rather than public health, it’s the greater concern for protecting reputations rather than public health, part and parcel to protecting the status quo, obsolete as they both may be. After 16 years of activism to end fluoridation, I’m seeing those entrenchments as being our greatest obstacles.
John: I expect that’s part of it. I remember feeling uneasy the first time I read an article suggesting that latent tuberculosis—an old infection that can reactivate when the immune system weakens—might not be as much of a concern as we believed. I had treated dozens, maybe hundreds of people with isoniazid. None had any serious complications, as far as I know, and most experts still recognize latent TB as real. Still, reading that paper was unsettling. Bruce
More thanks, Bruce, for adding this other dimension to my understanding of the issue, one which I had not previously given due consideration, but which in hindsight now deserves important recognition. It may even contribute more to the obstruction from a wider population group than the other parts. Coming to terms with a possibility like the one you found unsettling I realize can be a formidable challenge.
Some fluoridationists may simply be too lazy to do their homework, but as we saw at that FDA meeting on supplements, the dental and medical fluoridationists are not ignorant of the harm. They are either willfully blind to it or dishonest in their fluoride promotion for what I have to assume are personal reasons. Either they are protecting their egos or paychecks.
Maggie: When I found that even low levels of lead in children’s blood were harmful, many of my colleagues in pediatrics and public health dismissed or downplayed the evidence—often without taking the time to review it. I don’t fault them for being busy; we all have our own work to do. But as scientists, physicians, and public health leaders, we have a responsibility not to offer opinions unless we’ve done our homework. Once the Centers for Disease Control acknowledged that no safe level of lead could be identified, those same voices began calling for urgent action. Unfortunately, many harms fall through the cracks because federal agencies wait for definitive proof—while the public, in turn, waits for those same agencies to act. That delay, repeated across chemicals like lead and fluoride, is how preventable damage becomes permanent.
Understood, and agree that no one, credentialed or not, should argue for or against a health intervention without having done their due diligence. The difference here is that dentists in particular profit from the fluoride mythology. The in-office fluoride treatments and cosmetic dentistry for dental fluorosis add hundreds of thousands of dollars to their annual income. It's not just the ADA, which is a consumer group for the benefit of its dentist members (not patients), who is biased. The AAP receives funding to promote fluoridation; this pediatrician group are astroturfers. Plus, there are Pharma and Insurance profiteers involved. This isn't the same thing as casual dismissal because of busy schedules. This is an orchestrated and sophisticated campaign to continue poisoning consumers because it is profitable.
If the doctors and dentists at the American Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, International Academy of Biological Dentistry and Medicine, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, and International College of Integrative Medicine can figure it out and publish position papers or webpages opposing fluoridation, there is no excuse for any dental or medical professional to continue to cling to marketing rhetoric. In other words, they deserved to be faulted.