Well done, Bruce and Chris. Amazing work and confirms what we discussed in public health half a century ago.
Chemistry is not always the best way to treat or cover up our excesses and poor habits. Most of us love sugar and celebration with sweet foods become daily habits and customs.
USA government support of the sugar industry is between $1.4 and $4 billion a year, depending on how much is included.
Then add the treatment costs for increases in sugar related disease and that number more than doubles.
Never let a rational thought stand in the way of a lucrative sale or our bad habits.
Bill: Thank you. Chris Neurath did an exceptional and meticulous job pulling together the historical evidence and providing the context. My brother and I relied on Chris's article to make the timeline. Your calculations show how much we subsidize the sugar industry along with the cost and burden of whatever death and destruction results. Bruce
There have been estimates of the economic costs of chronic diseases caused by sugar consumption. One study estimated $10 billion/year in the US and another that it is $2.5 billion/year for Canada. Another study found for dental disease alone the global cost is about $40 billion/year. These all may be underestimates.
I think it is worth comparing them to estimates of the economic costs of other public health problems in the US:
1.) smoking: $150 billion/year due to medical costs and lost earnings
2.) lead exposure for the generation born 1950-1980: $200 billion/year in lost earnings
3.) water fluoridation: $100 billion/year due to lost earnings from reduced IQ
Documentation for these three costs can be found in my paper.
The most recent Cochrane review of water fluoridation found that it no longer provides any meaningful reduction of cavities.
A rather amazing conclusion is that in solely economic terms, stopping fluoridation in the US might produce more savings than lowering sugar consumption. Also, that stopping fluoridation might save as much as cutting smoking in half. Furthermore, since lead exposure is an order of magnitude lower today than between 1950-1980, stopping fluoridation might save more money than eliminating most of today's lead exposures.
In my research on the sugar industry's role in promoting fluoridation I was surprised to find so many close connections between the sugar industry and the tobacco industry, as well as the cooperation the sugar industry got from the dental establishment.
The huge economic costs of all these harms pales compared to the human suffering.
Thank you, Bruce, for gathering so many detailed facts and summarizing them for us in such an easy-to-understand graphic format. I am grateful to see so many specific detailed facts. As a member of the general public, I am not a scientist. I have glanced at articles through the years and got an inkling that something was amiss, but the extent of the deception by corporations and scientists is truly appalling. Thank you for being our interpreter and sharing your knowledge.
Carole: Most scientists were misled like the rest of us; only a few deceived knowingly. We’ve seen the pattern before—lead, then sugar, then tobacco. And while everyone knows Big Tobacco’s lies, few realize tobacco learned its tricks from sugar. Until we rein in the massive power of big corporations, we will fail to protect the public from the growing litany of toxic chemicals—lead, asbestos, PFAS, atrazine, paraquat, plastics, and more.
This is one step in the process. Then assume all chemicals are toxic until proven they are not—not allowing usage until proof of non-toxicity. Then what to do with the thousands of chemicals already in use in products? Then how to not take years to test each individual chemical? My brain reels at night under the enormity of the task ahead. But at least we are each continuing with our part toward the resolution of this dilemma...one article at a time, one research study at a time...but we do know what we all want...we have a goal. Thank you for inspiring me to continue.
"but the extent of the deception by corporations and scientists is truly appalling".
The above extract is very relative to todays "happenings" and yet its not being spoken of.
AUstralia used to have limits on which company and their assets exceeded a certain value and they were NOT given permission to do a takeover. And a company from outside Australia was looked at very closely.
When was that legislation umm...... removed from the books?
Geoff: Thank you for your comment. I am not an expert in caries. The reference to topical benefit is from RCTs of using fluoride toothpaste. Do you disagree with those trials? If so, why?
Colgate researchers have stated quite clearly that there is no benefit adding Fluoride to Tooth Mousse. A serious slip that does not receive much attention. The so-called RCTs should be re-examined. Looking at the atomic level, F- ion can't penetrate the Hydroxyapatite crystal. There is no signifcant difference been solubility of teeth with an atomic layer of F and normal teeth as soon as an acid drink such as fruit juice enters the mouth. The main reason we must destroy the topical "benefit" myth is the immediate systemic poisoning when Fluoride passes the oral tissues leading to lifelong bioaccumulation and brain damage.
Geoff: There is no SD between solubility of teeth with an atomic layer of F and normal teeth.
Me: you prove this paper DOI 0.5395/JKACD.2011.36.4.290 in your link as evidence. That's an in vitro study on a FluorProtector at 1000 ppm -quite useless. But F varnish is 23,600 ppm and is effective in high risk people.
I agree that saving maybe one surface from dental decay in permanent teeth in every 4th person is NOT worth the harm from ingestion of fluoride. Fluoride in water is useless and harmful.
Fluoride in toothpaste might help kids who abuse sugar, but not much.
Fluoride treatment at the dentist does not work on people (kids, adults, elderly) who are at low risk for dental decay. It's marginally beneficial on high rick populations.
Fluoride needs to be banned from oral care products for kids due to its neurotoxicity, potential for causing dental damage to permanent teeth (dental fluorosis - you used my pictures in your link), thyroid damage, pineal gland damage, and bone fragility, especially in post menopausal women.
Dr. Limeback’s call to ban fluoride in children’s products reeks of hypocrisy. For years he has endorsed Scotland’s Childsmile program, which subjects children as young as two to fluoride varnish and to twice-daily brushing with toothpaste containing 1,000 to 1,450 ppm fluoride in a "spit-don’t-rinse" regimen. He even urged universal adoption of the program. It’s hard to take him seriously.
No. This is a double standard all too frequently seen among anti-fluoridationists. He attacks fluoride in water while endorsing Childsmile. As others have pointed out, that’s like saying lead is only a problem in gasoline but fine in paint. He backed Childsmile through December 2024, was called out for it, and then blocked me on X. The thread is still visible.
The link to the 2011 Buzalaf et al. paper provided by Hardy did not work for me. However she published a paper with Fluoride promoter Gary Whitford in that year where they state "In adults, approximately 50% of an absorbed amount of fluoride will become associated with
calcified tissues (mainly bone), where 99% of fluoride in the body is found [7]. However, fluoride is not irreversibly bound to bone and can
be released back into plasma when plasma fluoride levels fall."
The keyword they don't use, because of their limited chemistry knowledge, is "adsorbed".
They emphasize the role of HF in entering cells.
Fluoride Intake, Metabolism and Toxicity
Buzalaf MAR (ed): Fluoride and the Oral Environment.
James: Chris Neurath’s article is a masterclass in investigative scholarship—detailed, meticulously researched, and eye-opening. It not only uncovers forgotten history but also challenges us to rethink what we thought we knew about fluoridation and the sugar industry’s influence.
Well done, Bruce and Chris. Amazing work and confirms what we discussed in public health half a century ago.
Chemistry is not always the best way to treat or cover up our excesses and poor habits. Most of us love sugar and celebration with sweet foods become daily habits and customs.
USA government support of the sugar industry is between $1.4 and $4 billion a year, depending on how much is included.
Then add the treatment costs for increases in sugar related disease and that number more than doubles.
Never let a rational thought stand in the way of a lucrative sale or our bad habits.
Bill: Thank you. Chris Neurath did an exceptional and meticulous job pulling together the historical evidence and providing the context. My brother and I relied on Chris's article to make the timeline. Your calculations show how much we subsidize the sugar industry along with the cost and burden of whatever death and destruction results. Bruce
Bill and Bruce:
There have been estimates of the economic costs of chronic diseases caused by sugar consumption. One study estimated $10 billion/year in the US and another that it is $2.5 billion/year for Canada. Another study found for dental disease alone the global cost is about $40 billion/year. These all may be underestimates.
I think it is worth comparing them to estimates of the economic costs of other public health problems in the US:
1.) smoking: $150 billion/year due to medical costs and lost earnings
2.) lead exposure for the generation born 1950-1980: $200 billion/year in lost earnings
3.) water fluoridation: $100 billion/year due to lost earnings from reduced IQ
Documentation for these three costs can be found in my paper.
The most recent Cochrane review of water fluoridation found that it no longer provides any meaningful reduction of cavities.
A rather amazing conclusion is that in solely economic terms, stopping fluoridation in the US might produce more savings than lowering sugar consumption. Also, that stopping fluoridation might save as much as cutting smoking in half. Furthermore, since lead exposure is an order of magnitude lower today than between 1950-1980, stopping fluoridation might save more money than eliminating most of today's lead exposures.
In my research on the sugar industry's role in promoting fluoridation I was surprised to find so many close connections between the sugar industry and the tobacco industry, as well as the cooperation the sugar industry got from the dental establishment.
The huge economic costs of all these harms pales compared to the human suffering.
Thank you, Bruce, for gathering so many detailed facts and summarizing them for us in such an easy-to-understand graphic format. I am grateful to see so many specific detailed facts. As a member of the general public, I am not a scientist. I have glanced at articles through the years and got an inkling that something was amiss, but the extent of the deception by corporations and scientists is truly appalling. Thank you for being our interpreter and sharing your knowledge.
Carole: Most scientists were misled like the rest of us; only a few deceived knowingly. We’ve seen the pattern before—lead, then sugar, then tobacco. And while everyone knows Big Tobacco’s lies, few realize tobacco learned its tricks from sugar. Until we rein in the massive power of big corporations, we will fail to protect the public from the growing litany of toxic chemicals—lead, asbestos, PFAS, atrazine, paraquat, plastics, and more.
This is one step in the process. Then assume all chemicals are toxic until proven they are not—not allowing usage until proof of non-toxicity. Then what to do with the thousands of chemicals already in use in products? Then how to not take years to test each individual chemical? My brain reels at night under the enormity of the task ahead. But at least we are each continuing with our part toward the resolution of this dilemma...one article at a time, one research study at a time...but we do know what we all want...we have a goal. Thank you for inspiring me to continue.
"but the extent of the deception by corporations and scientists is truly appalling".
The above extract is very relative to todays "happenings" and yet its not being spoken of.
AUstralia used to have limits on which company and their assets exceeded a certain value and they were NOT given permission to do a takeover. And a company from outside Australia was looked at very closely.
When was that legislation umm...... removed from the books?
Nice timeline, but there is no topical benefit from Fluoride
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/fluoride-myths-unlearning-gospel
Geoff: Thank you for your comment. I am not an expert in caries. The reference to topical benefit is from RCTs of using fluoride toothpaste. Do you disagree with those trials? If so, why?
Colgate researchers have stated quite clearly that there is no benefit adding Fluoride to Tooth Mousse. A serious slip that does not receive much attention. The so-called RCTs should be re-examined. Looking at the atomic level, F- ion can't penetrate the Hydroxyapatite crystal. There is no signifcant difference been solubility of teeth with an atomic layer of F and normal teeth as soon as an acid drink such as fruit juice enters the mouth. The main reason we must destroy the topical "benefit" myth is the immediate systemic poisoning when Fluoride passes the oral tissues leading to lifelong bioaccumulation and brain damage.
Geoff: "Colgate researchers have stated quite clearly that there is no benefit adding Fluoride to Tooth Mousse".
Me: Quite complex. Does not mean that fluoride is ineffective topically.
Geoff: "Fluoride can't penetrate the hydroxyapatite crystal."
Me: Not true. Read my text; the chapter on fluoride.... or even this abstract. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21701194/.
Geoff: There is no SD between solubility of teeth with an atomic layer of F and normal teeth.
Me: you prove this paper DOI 0.5395/JKACD.2011.36.4.290 in your link as evidence. That's an in vitro study on a FluorProtector at 1000 ppm -quite useless. But F varnish is 23,600 ppm and is effective in high risk people.
I agree that saving maybe one surface from dental decay in permanent teeth in every 4th person is NOT worth the harm from ingestion of fluoride. Fluoride in water is useless and harmful.
Fluoride in toothpaste might help kids who abuse sugar, but not much.
Fluoride treatment at the dentist does not work on people (kids, adults, elderly) who are at low risk for dental decay. It's marginally beneficial on high rick populations.
Fluoride needs to be banned from oral care products for kids due to its neurotoxicity, potential for causing dental damage to permanent teeth (dental fluorosis - you used my pictures in your link), thyroid damage, pineal gland damage, and bone fragility, especially in post menopausal women.
Dr. Limeback’s call to ban fluoride in children’s products reeks of hypocrisy. For years he has endorsed Scotland’s Childsmile program, which subjects children as young as two to fluoride varnish and to twice-daily brushing with toothpaste containing 1,000 to 1,450 ppm fluoride in a "spit-don’t-rinse" regimen. He even urged universal adoption of the program. It’s hard to take him seriously.
Brian: I take it you’re asking Dr. Limeback whether he still endorses Scotland’s Childsmile program—and, if so, why.
No. This is a double standard all too frequently seen among anti-fluoridationists. He attacks fluoride in water while endorsing Childsmile. As others have pointed out, that’s like saying lead is only a problem in gasoline but fine in paint. He backed Childsmile through December 2024, was called out for it, and then blocked me on X. The thread is still visible.
Hardy: Thank you for your comments and sharing your expertise.
The link to the 2011 Buzalaf et al. paper provided by Hardy did not work for me. However she published a paper with Fluoride promoter Gary Whitford in that year where they state "In adults, approximately 50% of an absorbed amount of fluoride will become associated with
calcified tissues (mainly bone), where 99% of fluoride in the body is found [7]. However, fluoride is not irreversibly bound to bone and can
be released back into plasma when plasma fluoride levels fall."
The keyword they don't use, because of their limited chemistry knowledge, is "adsorbed".
They emphasize the role of HF in entering cells.
Fluoride Intake, Metabolism and Toxicity
Buzalaf MAR (ed): Fluoride and the Oral Environment.
Monogr Oral Sci. Basel, Karger, 2011, vol 22, pp 20–36
On varnish, you might like to look at 2014 Brazilian research
Thiago Saads CARVALHO, Bianca Glerean PETERS, Daniela RIOS, Ana Carolina MAGALHÃES, Fabio Correia SAMPAIO, Marília Afonso Rabelo BUZALAF, Marcelo José Strazzeri BÖNECKER
Fluoride varnishes with calcium glycerophosphate: fluoride release
and effect on in vitro enamel demineralization
DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2015.vol29.0092
"The present study shows that (1) the addition of
CaGP to F varnishes significantly increased F release,
but (2) these varnishes did not have a greater preventive
effect against in vitro enamel demineralization using
the present experimental model."
Excellent work, Bruce.
James: Chris Neurath’s article is a masterclass in investigative scholarship—detailed, meticulously researched, and eye-opening. It not only uncovers forgotten history but also challenges us to rethink what we thought we knew about fluoridation and the sugar industry’s influence.
wow.
Laura: Another example—like your work on gun control—of how powerful industries shape public policy at the expense of public health.
Yes thank you again