Water fluoridation: It really is this simple

Abstract

(RSNZ), and the Ministry of Health, to review the scientific evidence for and against the efficacy and safety of fluoridation of public water supplies. After discussion between the parties, it was agreed that the Office of the PMCSA and the RSNZ would establish a panel to undertake a review. This review would adhere strictly to the scientific issues of safety and efficacy (or otherwise), but take into account the various concerns that have been raised in the public domain about the science and safety of fluoride. It would not consider the ethical and philosophical issues that have surrounded fluoridation and influenced legal proceedings lately. The Prime Minister gave his consent for the Office of the PMCSA to be involved and funding was provided by Councils through your office and by the Ministry of Health.We are pleased to advise the report is being delivered on the timetable agreed. ProcessGiven this is inevitably an issue that arouses passions and argument, we summarise in some detail the process used.As this was the first formal scientific review conducted jointly between the Office of PMCSA and the Royal Society a memorandum of understanding for the process was developed and has been followed.The essence of the process was that the PMCSA appointed an experienced literature researcher to undertake the primary research and literature reviews. Following an initial scoping that included an extensive reading of the literature (informal, grey and peer reviewed) on the subject, a draft table of contents was agreed between the PMCSA and the President of the RSNZ. The RSNZ then appointed a panel of appropriate experts across the relevant disciplines that was approved by the PMCSA.A member of civil society with expertise in local body issues, Ms Kerry Prendergast, was invited to be an observer to the panel and to be included in the discussions and drafting to be sure that it met local body needs. The scientific writer then produced an early partial draft of the report that was presented to a meeting of the expert panel, and their input was sought both as to framing and interpretation of the literature. The panel paid particular attention to the claims that fluoride had adverse effects on brain development, on the risks of cancer, musculoskeletal and hormonal disorders -being the major areas where claims about potential harms have been made. Over the following weeks, the panel members joined in an iterative process with the scientific writer to develop the report. In its advanced form all the members of the panel, together with the PMCSA and the President of the RSNZ, agreed via email exchange on the final wording of the report and its executive summary. In this form it was sent out for international peer review by appropriate scientific experts in Australia, UK and Ireland. Following their suggestions (which were minor and did not affect the panel's conclusions), the report and executive summary were returned to the panel for comment. Findings and recommendationsThe report and its executive summary are very clear i...