Codex Alimentarius Loves Toxic Fluoride, Part 1
Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
In the previous article, I wrote about the global implications of Codex Alimentarius. I discussed in some detail the oppressive standards recommended by BfR, which have largely been included in the Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements. However, there is one more provision included in the risk assessment process that even many critics of Codex are unaware of. This is the goal to not only treat nutrients as toxins, but treat toxins as nutrients.
At first, this is not readily apparent. A closer look at the risk assessment provided by BfR provides one with a glimmer of what might one day be a completely Orwellian policy toward vitamins, minerals, and toxins.
The fact that researchers have the audacity to claim that vital minerals like Iron should not be consumed in measurements above 0 mg is disturbing enough. However, there is one more substance added to the findings and, more alarmingly, listed as a mineral that should be just as frightening. That substance is the very toxic chemical known as fluoride.[1]
This chemical poison is listed only in the “moderately high-risk” level of risk categories.[2] Yet the reality is that fluoride is a very dangerous chemical with serious risks of harm to both health and the environment. In truth, there are actually two different forms of what is called fluoride – calcium fluoride and sodium fluoride.
Calcium fluoride appears naturally and is confined, for the most part, to underground water sources and, in some instances, seawater. [3] In this form it is relatively benign, but prolonged exposure has been linked to skeletal and dental fluorosis. [4]
However, sodium fluoride, the form of fluoride that is added to most municipal water supplies, food, and drink, is a very dangerous and toxic chemical. It does not occur naturally and is not even one distinct substance. Rather, it is a conglomeration of many different chemicals that is given the name of sodium fluoride and paraded as a health benefit. It is essentially a mix of waste products from the nuclear, aluminum, and fertilizer industries. It is also used for rat poison and pesticides.[5]
The results of having water supplies contaminated with fluoride reads like a laundry list of health problems: cancer, genetic DNA damage, obesity, thyroid disruption, reduced IQ, lethargy, chronic fatigue, inability to focus, Alzheimer’s disease, accelerated aging, sleep disruption, brain disorders, calcification of the pineal gland, etc. Interestingly enough, sodium fluoride also causes dental fluorosis, a yellowing and hardening of the teeth that causes teeth to break and wear down. This is quite ironic considering that the ADA promotes fluoride as an additive that prevents decay and promotes healthy teeth.[6]
The distinction in BfR’s results between calcium fluoride and sodium fluoride is not readily made and, as is so often the case, the devil is in the details. Throughout the published study, all forms of fluoride are constantly referred to simply as “fluoride” with no delineation as to which form is being discussed, except by contextualization and observation.
Occasionally, a specific form will be mentioned but, for the most part, the umbrella term “fluoride” is sufficient for the purpose of these researchers. This is how the toxin comes to be classified as a mineral and henceforth a nutrient.
This is also where the nutrient group methodology comes into play. Sodium fluoride could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered to be a mineral or nutrient on its own. However, by using the nutrient group approach, which lumps all forms of the substance tested into one category, it slips under the radar.[7]
Indeed, in the section which discusses the sources of fluoride intake BfR states, “Fluoride is taken up from solid foods, drinking water, mineral water, black tea, fluoride-containing toothpaste, dental care products, fluoridised table salt and, eventually, from fluoride-containing medicinal products.”[8] There is clearly no distinction here between the different forms of fluoride.
For example, the form of fluoride contained in mineral water (unless sodium fluoride was added) is calcium fluoride, while the fluoride contained in toothpaste is sodium fluoride. Yet there is no distinction given between the two. While BfR does admit potential danger in the use of fluoride, by using the nutrient group approach fluoride is still categorized as a nutrient, thus allowing one foot through the door.
BfR is obviously aware of at least some dangers of fluoride, such as dental and skeletal fluorosis, as well as the more serious health problems. The report states, “There are reports of acute fluoride intoxications in people caused by accidents, attempted suicide, or erroneous fluoridation of drinking water. The symptoms are nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea, heavy salivation, cardiac arrest, cramps and coma. Severe hypocalcaemias were observed. An amount of 5-10 g fluoride has been calculated as the ‘certainly lethal dose’ = CLD for adults.”[9]
Bad as they are, these conditions are only a few of the adverse effects related to fluoride. It would seem logical then to place very high restrictions on the amounts of fluoride meant for consumption and subsequently a recommendation for zero intake. Yet BfR comes to a startling and self-contradicting conclusion.
Even after discussing the dangers of fluoride throughout the study, as well as the fact that it is present in many drinking water supplies in the world (especially the United States), “medicinal” products, and other sources, the same strict standards of risk assessment and the Global Expectable Average Daily Diet evidently do not apply. If they were, then Americans would probably be in the red in terms of dietary intake of fluoride.
BfR admits, “This leaves no scope for a safe maximum dose of fluoride in food supplements. BfR believes that a maximum dose for fluoride of zero in food supplements is the only safe management option.”[10]
Yet in its final analysis, it determines that the Recommended Daily Intake be established at 3.8/3.1 (m/f) for adults and 3.2/2.9 (m/f) for children.[11] So while limits are set on the amount of fluoride in food supplements, it is still concluded that individuals need a certain amount of fluoride in their diet and toxic fluoride is still considered a nutrient.
Notes:
[1] “ Use of Vitamins in Foods: Toxicological and nutritional-physiological aspects,”Domke, A., Grosklaus R., Niemann B., Przyrembel H., Richter K., Schimdt E., WeiBenborn B., Worner B., Ziegenhagen R., Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, BfR, p. 18-23, 2005.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Fassa, Paul. “How To Detox Fluorides From Your Body,” Natural News, July 13, 2009. P.1 http://www.naturalnews.com/026605_fluoride_fluorides_detox.html Accessed May 24, 2010.
[4] Fassa, Paul. “A Fluoride-Free Pineal Gland is More Important than Ever,” Natural News, June 2, 2009. http://www.naturalnews.com/026364_fluoride_pineal_gland_sodium.html Accessed May 24, 2010.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] In truth, even Calcium Fluoride should not be considered a nutrient as there is not enough evidence to show that is vital, or even positively linked, to human life and health. Fassa, Paul. “How To Detox Fluorides From Your Body,” Natural News, July 13, 2009. P.1 http://www.naturalnews.com/026605_fluoride_fluorides_detox.html
[8] Use of Vitamins in Foods: Toxicological and nutritional-physiological aspects.” Domke, A., Grosklaus R., Niemann B., Przyrembel H., Richter K., Schimdt E., WeiBenborn B., Worner B., Ziegenhagen R., Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, BfR, p. 230, 2005
[9] Ibid. p. 234
[10] Ibid p. 235
[11] Ibid p. 23
Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University where he earned the Pee Dee Electric Scholar’s Award as an undergraduate. He has had numerous articles published dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, and civil liberties. He also the author of Codex Alimentarius – The End of Health Freedom
No comments:
Post a Comment