The Major Fluoride Risk Study You Never Heard Of

Rick North

A few weeks ago, Willamette Week’s lead story, “What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You,” featured Project Censored, highlighting important stories the media didn’t cover.

The headline lends itself perfectly to another story ignored by U.S. newspapers: higher fluoride levels in pregnant women have been linked to lower IQ’s in their children. The levels were well within the range of American women drinking fluoridated water.

This was the finding of a major international study published last month, funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health and led by the University of Toronto school of public health.

The study, one of the most robust ever conducted on fluoride’s risks, followed mother-child pairs in Mexico City for over 12 years. For every 0.5 part per million increase in prenatal exposure, children lost 2.5 – 3 IQ points. While noting the study didn’t prove fluoridation lowered children’s IQ’s and more research was needed, the authors cited its strong methodology, including taking into account a dozen possible confounding factors, which didn’t affect the results.

As detailed in my Lund Report article, the latest study continues the trend of nearly 200 others in just the past ten years on fluoride’s neurotoxicity. Almost all found fluoride harmed the brain, many at levels at or slightly higher than water fluoridation.

There’s no doubt ingested fluoride is neurotoxic. The only questions are the dose, when and how often the exposure occurs, and which individuals – born and unborn - are more susceptible to its toxicity. Once fluoride is added to drinking water, there’s no control over any of these.

Last year, the Fluoride Action Network, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Food and Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association and several others petitioned the EPA to ban fluoridation chemicals based on their neurotoxicity.

Despite the significant, one-sided scientific evidence, the EPA denied the petition, saying it wasn’t conclusive. In response, the organizations filed a lawsuit in federal court, where a decision on the EPA’s motion to dismiss the case is due in a few months.

The American Dental Association, the leading pro-fluoridation group, claimed that the study doesn’t apply to fluoridated water in the U.S. Lead author Dr. Howard Hu saw it differently, asserting “This is a very rigorous epidemiology study. You just can’t deny it. It’s directly related to whether fluoride is a risk for the neurodevelopment of children. So, to say it has no relevance to the folks in the U.S. seems disingenuous.”

Many others unaffiliated with the study agreed with Hu, including Dr. Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, who said “we should pay attention to this” Dr. Leonardo Trasande, a pediatrician at NYU, stated it “raises serious concerns about fluoride supplementation in water."

CNN, Newsweek, Medical News Today, Medical Express and even the Reader’s Digest covered the story, as did many media outlets In Canada.

In light of these developments, I asked the four largest general audience newspapers in Portland, the Oregonian, Portland Tribune, Willamette Week and Portland Mercury, to do the same. I thought this would be newsworthy, especially considering Portland’s 2012-13 rip-roaring fluoridation battle that generated hundreds of articles and major TV and radio coverage.

Local editors felt differently. All four declined or didn’t return messages.

Perhaps unpleasant memories were part of the reason. All had concluded the practice was safe and wrote pro-fluoridation editorials, but Portlanders emphatically rejected it 61% - 39%.

A Harvard review had just been published finding children, mostly in China, exposed to higher fluoride levels had lower IQ’s in 26 out of 27 studies. World-renowned scientist Philippe Grandjean, one of the co-authors, said that while the study wasn’t conclusive and more research was needed, “Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain.” But Willamette Week and the Mercury concluded it had no relevance to fluoridation.

The Oregonian was especially dismissive, unleashing seven editorials, plus an editorial cartoon depicting fluoridation opponents as a toothless rabble in front of city hall. It branded claims that fluoridation could harm kids’ brains, lower IQ’s and cause other health problems as “crackpottery.” (I didn’t even know such a word existed.)

Today, it’s interesting what the Oregonian does think is newsworthy. Recent health articles covered early detection of ovarian cancer, standing desks that helped students lose weight and how staying away from cell phones helps decision-making.

These stories all had merit – they’re relevant and interesting. So was another recommending that parents take their babies to a dentist. This begs two questions:

Isn’t preventing the potential loss of a child’s intelligence as newsworthy as preventing a cavity?

Even more important, pregnant women drinking fluoridated water are, in effect, part of a continuing experiment testing the risk of brain damage in their children – without their consent. How is this ethical?

It’s a big experiment. Although most countries reject fluoridation, nearly 75% of the U.S. population has it, including 38 towns in Oregon, Albany, Beaverton, Corvallis and Salem among them.

How many studies showing serious harm will it take before the sacred cow of fluoridation is put out to pasture for good?

I don’t know, but one thing’s for sure – you have to know about them first.

NOTE: For further information on fluoride and neurotoxicity, compare the websites of the two leading organizations on opposite sides of the issue.

The American Dental Association’s “premier resource on community water fluoridation” is Fluoridation Facts. Its section on neurotoxicity is less than one page, mainly dealing with one study from 1995. The few citations are all more than 20 years old.

Fluoride Action Network has dozens of articles, videos and an interview with the very scientist who did the study cited by ADA. Its research section for professionals, one of the largest depositories in the world, has abstracts of 368 studies on neurotoxicity alone.

You can decide for yourself which organization has more knowledge and credibility on the subject.

By Rick North Oct. 27, 2017  comments

Climate Champions Don't Permit Dirty Fracked Gas Terminals

Nicholas Caleb

Without action on the Jordan Cove Project, Governor Brown’s climate grandstanding is little more than an attempt to win environmental credibility without having to make a hard decision that might cost her some political points with large corporate donors and the building and construction trades. The climate doesn't care about the politics of triangulation, horse-trading, or campaign contributions.  

Photo Credit: Rick Rappaport

Submitted by Sarah Westover, a Jackson County resident and No LNG Campaign Organizer at Rogue Climate, and Nicholas Caleb, born and raised in Klamath Falls and the staff attorney at the Center for Sustainable Economy.

The climate movement in Oregon has achieved incredible things in recent years. We’ve beaten back environmentally disastrous fossil fuel infrastructure projects, said no to new fossil fuel infrastructure in our communities, persuaded Portland General Electric to suspend plans for dirty fracked gas power plants, sued the federal government for its role in allowing and permitting climate change causing activities, and have started the process of transitioning our cities to a 100% renewable energy powered economy. Despite this progress won by the thousands of Oregon residents deeply engaged in the struggle to protect our state, region, and planet, we still have incredible difficulty getting Oregon Democrats to act on climate with anywhere near the urgency that is required. Even those who deploy some of the strongest rhetoric on climate simply cannot bring themselves to do what is necessary when presented with difficult decisions.

For example, Governor Kate Brown still refuses to take a position on the Jordan Cove fracked gas export terminal and Pacific Connector Pipeline that, if constructed, would become one of the largest sources of climate pollution in the State of Oregon. After two prior attempts were denied by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), this never-ending nightmare of a project is back. This time, it is at the top of Donald Trump’s list of carbon-intensive dirty energy projects and will likely be reviewed by Trump's own appointed FERC commissioners, should they be confirmed by the Senate. As someone who has recently claimed to be committed to climate action after President Trump declared the United States would not uphold its obligations under the Paris Accords, Brown’s refusal to take a position on one of Trump’s top three dirty energy projects is outrageous.

By Nicholas Caleb July 31, 2017  comments

Ethanol ain't all it's cracked up to be!

By Bob Rees of Milwaukie, OR. Bob is the Executive Director of the Association of Northwest Steelheaders, 6th generation Oregonian, and a 26 year professional fishing guide.

Across the country, fishing may be seen as a relaxing hobby. But as we know it in Oregon and Clackamas County, it’s a way of life. The Northwest Steelheaders work to protect responsible and enjoyable sport angling with good access to healthy, abundant and sustainable fisheries in the Northwest’s healthy watersheds.

But Big Ethanol and their champions in the Corn Belt continue to come up with new ways to try and subsidize/mandate the use of corn based ethanol in our fuel that threaten fisheries and anglers. A new bill was recently introduced in front of Senator Merkley in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that would violate Clean Air Act rules to allow the sale of fuel with 15% ethanol (E15) year-round. Pushing more E15 fuel onto the market may be a favor to the ethanol lobby, but it will jeopardize our natural environment, the livelihoods of sport fishers and the safety of consumers throughout Oregon. Thankfully, this bill, S.517 did not advance, but we know Big Ethanol will be back and we should all be aware of what their attempts could mean for us all.

A tax credit for BS and six other Oregon tax policy changes you may have missed

Chuck Sheketoff

Tax policy took center stage in the 2017 legislative session. From a corporate tax reform proposal that fizzled, to a successful effort to protect health care coverage with health provider taxes, to a far-reaching transportation package mainly paid for by an increase in the gas tax. And that’s not all. While less notable, the legislature enacted further changes to our tax system.

Here are seven stories about Oregon tax policy you probably did not read about in the newspaper:

1. The Con-way corporate minimum tax loophole won’t be coming back from the dead

Not long ago, some profitable corporations were getting away with paying less than the corporate minimum tax, even zero in some cases. These corporations were exploiting a tax loophole created by an Oregon Supreme Court ruling in a lawsuit brought by Con-way, Inc., which held that the trucking giant could use a tax credit to eliminate its minimum tax liability. The 2015 legislature put a stop to this end run around the corporate minimum tax, but only temporarily. The legislature placed a six-year “sunset” — expiration date — on the closing of the loophole, meaning that the Con-way loophole would return from the dead in 2021. But in the just-concluded session, the legislature got rid of the sunset, meaning the Con-way tax loophole is closed for good.

2. Legislature improved how Oregon taxes corporations that sell services

While an effort to overhaul Oregon’s corporate income tax system failed, the legislature did tweak how the state taxes multi-state C-corporations that sell services. Previously, Oregon taxed C-corporations providing services based on where they had the largest share of production costs. Moving forward, Oregon will tax them based on how much they sell in Oregon. The need for this tax change was identified in a 2011 legislative study with input from the business community, which argued it would be more fair and make Oregon more competitive. In addition to improving our tax system, the change is slated to result in a small (about 2 percent, or $5 million) increase corporate tax revenues each year.

3. Putting expiration dates on tax subsidies proved to be a smart approach

This legislative session reminded us that placing sunsets on tax subsidies and loopholes is a smart, fiscally prudent mechanism (the Con-way loophole sunset discussed above was an odd egg; it was an expiration date on a fix to a loophole problem). Over the years, lawmakers have stuffed the Oregon tax code with all manner of subsidies and loopholes. Fortunately, the legislature has also placed sunsets on many of them (though not all). Of the 16 tax subsidies scheduled to sunset, the legislature let all but a handful expire, and pared back several of those which remained. By letting these tax subsidies expire, the legislature avoided over $30 million in costs that would have been paid for by cuts to essential services such as education and assistance for Oregon’s most vulnerable children in the upcoming budget period.

4. Many, not all, rich “rural” doctors no longer qualify for taxpayer subsidies

Every year, no matter how rich they are, doctors and other medical providers who work in “rural” areas — defined as at least 10 miles from a major population center — have been able to claim a tax credit potentially worth up to $5,000, effectively exempting from taxation their last $50,000 in income . The credit has proven itself ineffective. While an effort in 2013 to reform this subsidy for wealthy doctors failed, in the just-concluded session, the legislature put some limits in place. Medical providers making more than $300,000 a year will no longer qualify for the credit, unless they are general surgeons or provide obstetrical services. Also, those claiming the credit cannot do so for more than 10 tax years in their lifetime.

5. If you deal in tons of BS there is a tax credit for you

While the legislature let expire a tax credit for biomass, it preserved the portion of the credit for those who produce and collect “bovine manure” for use in biofuel. In other words, a tax credit for bullshit, at $3.50 per wet ton.

6. The legislature could have just named it the “Special Klamath County Tax Break”

The legislature created a new “Employee Training Tax Credit” for counties that meet a lengthy list of criteria. Some of the requirements are having a population between 60,000 and 80,000, having an armed forces base employing at least 750 people, and having “an agreement with an institute of higher education to coordinate efforts to promote enterprise throughout the county.” Only one county meets the criteria: Klamath.

7. The legislature proved it can’t go a session without creating a new tax subsidy for the well off, no matter how hard it is to balance the budget

By creating the bovine manure tax credit and the employee training tax credit, the legislature passed an opportunity to go through an odd-numbered year "long" session without creating a new tax break.

They can try again in two years, I suppose.

Chuck Sheketoff is the executive director of the Oregon Center for Public Policy. You can sign up to receive email notification of OCPP materials at www.ocpp.org.

By Chuck Sheketoff July 21, 2017  comments

Get on with it, Oregon Senate majority: end the “suits and scrubs” giveaway

Chuck Sheketoff

As the legislative session winds down, the Oregon Senate has an opportunity to correct a serious tax injustice from a few years back, while also helping preserve services that protect the most vulnerable Oregonians. With a simple majority vote, the Senate can and should cut the tax break for “suits and scrubs.”

In 2013, the legislature approved a tax code change that reduced the tax rate some business owners pay on profits passed through to their personal income tax. Back then, the Oregon Center for Public Policy warned this tax giveaway would disproportionately benefit wealthy business owners, not the archetypical small business owner.

Our prediction came to pass. Analysis by the Oregon Legislative Revenue Office shows over two-thirds of the tax cut went to taxpayers who earned more than half-a-million dollars in 2015.

Senator Mark Hass — who voted for it back in 2013 but has, commendably, come around to recognizing its flaws — has aptly dubbed it the “suits and scrubs” tax break. It’s the doctors, accountants, and lawyers, not the coffee shop owner or the barber down the street, who are reaping the benefits of the tax cut. Think of it this way: as a result of the suits and scrubs tax break, a well-heeled lawyer pays a lower tax rate than his paralegal.

While the better approach would be — as Governor Kate Brown proposed in her budget plan — to scrap the tax break all together and save $282 million in the upcoming budget period, the House Revenue Committee chose instead to scale it back. As amended, House Bill 2060 would limit the tax break to seven economic sectors and businesses with 10 or more employees. The bill would exclude accountants, lawyers, and doctors. It saves almost $200 million in the upcoming budget period. Those funds would fill in some of the remaining budget gap and thus avoid deeper cuts to essential services.

Now Oregonians await action in the Oregon Senate, where HB 2060 appears stalled.

If leaders of the Oregon Senate are concerned whether a simple majority suffices to enact this bill, they can put aside those concerns. An Oregon Supreme Court case in 2015 set the stage for a simple majority of the legislature to pare back the suits and scrubs giveaway. Recently, when House Speaker Tina Kotek asked the legislature’s lawyers whether HB 2060 is a bill for raising revenue requiring a supermajority, Legislative Counsel unequivocally said “no.” If that’s not enough to alleviate their concerns, they should amend the bill to provide a short timeframe for filing a lawsuit challenging the lack of a supermajority and to provide for expedited review by the Oregon Supreme Court if such a suit is filed.

In short, there is no procedural hurdle preventing a majority of the Oregon Senate from ending this tax giveaway.

For the many Oregonians who hoped to see our state finally make a serious investment in our schools and essential services, this legislative session is coming to a bitter end. Instead of seeing a game-changing revenue package, Oregonians are left with insufficient revenue, an inadequately funded education system, and painful cuts to essential services for the most vulnerable in society.

While scaling back the suits and scrubs tax giveaway won’t deliver game-changing revenue, it would, in small but important ways, mitigate the pain many Oregonians who rely on essential services will feel. It doesn’t require a supermajority, as a tax reform package would have.

The Senate majority needs to get on with it and cut the suits and scrubs giveaway and enact HB 2060.

Chuck Sheketoff is the executive director of the Oregon Center for Public Policy. You can sign up to receive email notification of OCPP materials at www.ocpp.org.

By Chuck Sheketoff June 29, 2017  comments