Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member Brian503a's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California or ground zero of the invasion
    Posts
    16,029

    Outsource U.S. food production

    http://morningsun.net/stories/081906/ag ... 9027.shtml

    Story last updated at 1:08 a.m. Saturday, August 19, 2006

    Outsource U.S. food production

    Have you checked where some of your fruits and vegetables are coming from lately - the country of origin?

    The next time you walk down the produce aisle, look at the stickers to see where which country these items come from. You're likely to see apples from Fuji or peppers from Mexico. Many of the fruits and vegetables in our supermarkets today are grown outside the United States.

    A chief reason is these products were not in season for U.S. growers.

    However, U.S. farmers continue to face competition from growers in Mexico, Central America and other countries around the world. This could be changed with visionary public policy.

    By assembling a well-thought-out, workable guest-worker program for agriculture, this nation's lawmakers can make sure those stickers you see on fruit and vegetables seasonally don't become a year-round occurrence.

    If this nation's farmers, ranchers, restaurateurs, etc. don't have a guest worker program, the Untied States will be forced to bring in more and more produce from outside our borders. In turn the money you fork over at the cash register at your local supermarket will increasingly be sent - billions of dollars - to farmers in other nations to grow the food we Americans eat here at home.

    How did we arrive at this predicament in the United States? Why do we have too few farm laborers? How can we solve this dilemma?

    Today, the demand for farm labor is one of the lowest in terms of labor in this country's history. This is mainly because of the productivity of American agriculture. Approximately 2 million workers come from farm families. Another 1 million are hired.

    While there are no concrete figures on it, at least one half or even more of agriculture's hired workers are not authorized to work in the United States. If there is a clamp down at the border without providing a legal channel for workers and employers, much of this country's labor supply could disappear.

    So why can't farmers and ranchers find people to help them?

    Visit with a farmer sometime, or better yet visit a farm or ranch. Work on farms and ranches is hard, hot work. This work doesn't appeal to most Americans today. While most ag producers are willing to pay higher wages than most service industries, most Americans would much prefer working in air conditioned buildings out of the dust and sun-scorched fields. Today, most people won't work on a farm or ranch at any wage.

    This country could easily lose one third of its fruit and vegetable production according to an American Farm Bureau Federation study. In today's era of ever increasing trade deficits, that could translate into a financial loss of between $5-9 billion annually for our country. The financial effects also would ripple across all sectors of American agriculture, with up to an additional $5 billion hit to net farm income here in the United States due to higher production and labor costs.

    Farmers and ranchers are not calling for wholesale amnesty any more than we want U.S. agriculture to hemorrhage to the tune of $9 billion a year.

    The answer can be found in a compromise between the House and Senate bills that will take into consideration a tightening of our borders, a crackdown on employers who flagrantly disobey the law and a mechanism to find workers for employers who cannot find adequate labor in the United States. This would mean temporary workers from outside our borders who are willing and able to participate in a lawful U.S. program.

    Like the work on an American farm and ranch striking a compromise on this issue isn't going to be easy. Still it's time for Congress to do what's in the interest of U.S. employers and workers - enact a comprehensive program that's right for border security and U.S. agriculture.

    John Schlageck has been writing about farming and ranching in Kansas for more than 25 years. He is the managing editor of "Kansas Living," a quarterly magazine dedicated to agriculture and rural life in Kansas.
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Senior Member nittygritty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    3,251
    Everything is getting outsourced in the United States, one of these days we will find ourselves obsolete.
    Build the dam fence post haste!

  3. #3
    Senior Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    5,262
    There really are people who would rather support American apples than American laborers.
    I support enforcement and see its lack as bad for the 3rd World as well. Remittances are now mostly spent on consumption not production assets. Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  4. #4
    Senior Member Virginiamama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    2,088
    In foreign countries they use pesticide that has been banned in the US and do not have the same enviromental rules as we do . In essence they can do what ever they please...

    http://www.towardsfreedom.com/RTPesticidesandOu.html

    Pesticides and Our Crops

    George Zuwala

    In today's society we hear often the term pesticides. What are pesticides? Pesticides are harmful chemicals that are sprayed on produce to prevent insects from destoying the crop. That seems kind of odd doesn't it? Putting harmful chemicals on food that we will eventually consume. Do they realize that if insects and bugs are running away from these deadly chemicals what the chemicals would do in our bodies. Pesticides are a big business and in theworld of greed - money seems to be the biggest motivating factor.

    How can we avoid the pesticide produce?

    Organic produce is the best produce to purchase. Specifically look for certified organic growers or better yet grow the fruits and vegetables yourself so you can be assured that your produce is safe.

    Of course in an imperfect world we can't always eat organic or have the good fortune of growing our own produce, so keeping that in mind, I have provided a list from the Environmental Working Group, compiled from FDA and EPA data.

    Enjoy or should I say avoid ...

    The 12 most contaminated
    Rank Crop Relative
    Toxicity
    1 Strawberries 189
    2 Bell Peppers (tie) 155
    2 Spinach (tie) 155
    4 Cherries (USA) 154
    5 Peaches 150
    6 Cantaloupe (Mexico) 142
    7 Celery 129
    8 Apples 124
    9 Apricots 123
    10 Green Beans 122
    11 Grapes (Chile) 118
    12 Cucumbers 117

    (Source: Environmental Working Group, compiled from FDA and EPA data)

    #1 Strawberries
    Strawberry growers everywhere use large amounts of pesticides, particularly fungicides. The end result is a popular fruit that contains a myriad of toxic chemicals. Of the 42 fruits and vegetables we examined, strawberries ranked first in combined contamination,with 189 out of 200 possible points.

    70% of the strawberry samples tested positive for one or more pesticides, and 36% contained two or more chemicals, including 19 samples with four pesticides, four samples with five, and one with six different pesticides. The FDA detected 30 different pesticides on strawberries, second only to apples with 36. More significant, however, is the toxicity of the pesticides detected and the percentage of the crop and levels at which they are found. Based on the results of 361 samples of strawberries by the FDA over a two year period:

    one in four strawberries contained captan, a probable human carcinogen

    one in four strawberries contained benomyl, a reproductive toxin and possible human carcinogen

    one in four strawberries contained vinclozolin, a fungicide that blocks the functioning of the male hormone androgen

    nearly one in five contained iprodione, a probable human carcinogen

    more than one in six contained endosulfan, and relative of DDT that mimics the hormone estrogen in the human body

    Strawberries had the highest average levels by far of pesticides that disrupt the endocrine system. The mean amount of endocrine disrupters was more than 20% higher than the next vegetable, spinach. The carcinogenic potency of the average residue on strawberries ranked seventh overall. The neurotoxic potency of the pesticides on strawberries was 15th out of the 42 produce items evaluated.



    #2 Bell Peppers (US and Mexico)
    Sweet peppers (or bell peppers) from the US and Mexico constitute approximately 98% of US sweet pepper consumption, and have a considerably worse pesticide profile than peppers from any other country.

    64% of the sweet pepper crop from the US and Mexico contained residues of at least one pesticide, and 36% contain two or more pesticides. Of the 393 samples taken between 1992 and 1993, 11 contained residues of five different pesticides and 3 samples had residues of six pesticides. In total, 26 pesticides were detected on US and Mexican sweet peppers.

    The neurotoxic potency of pesticide residues on US and Mexican sweet peppers was the highest of any crop tested - 65% higher than the potency for the next highest food. Methamidophos was found on 42% of the samples, acephate was found on 25%, carbaryl on 18%, and chlorpyrifos and dimethoate on 10%. Endocrine disrupters ranked 12th out of 42 crops tested, while the cancer potency of the average residue was relatively low at 32nd out of 42.



    #3 Spinach
    Spinach has residues of fewer pesticides than other crops in the list of the twelve most contaminated, but the concentrations for certain cancer-causing and endocrine disrupting chemicals are considerably higher than those for other produce. Just over 50% of the spinach samples tested positive for one of 17 different pesticides. 17% contained two to four pesticides.

    The most commonly detected pesticide on spinach was permethrin, a possible human carcinogen and endocrine disrupter. Permethrin was found in relatively large amounts, which helped make spinach second only to strawberries in the total mean residue of endocrine disrupters and reproductive toxins. The neurotoxic potency of the average residue, in contrast, was 28th out of the 42 crops tested.

    The cancer potency of the average total residue on spinach was the highest of any of the produce analyzed. And actual levels of carcinogens on spinach are likely to be higher than we estimated. One reason is that chlorothanonil, a probable human carcinogen, was found at relatively high levels on several spinach samples. The FDA, however, tested only 17 out of 189 samples for chlorothalonil. Because of our sample size requirement of 20 per pesticide/crop combination, these results were not included in the overall ranking.

    Spinach also had relatively high levels of DDT, which was found in 10% of 186 samples.



    #4 Cherries (United States)
    Cherries grown in the United States have a far different pesticide profile than those that are imported. While imported cherries are among the cleanest fruits and vegetables analyzed, US cherries are the fourth worst. The detections on domestic cherries reveal a panoply of pesticides - 26 different pesticides, more than three times the number found on imported cherries.

    71% of US - grown samples contained residues of one or more pesticides, compared with 35% of imported samples. More significantly, almost half of all US cherries are likely to contain multiple pesticide residues, whereas, in comparison, only 2% of imported cherries contained more than one pesticide. Up to five pesticides were found on single domestic cherry samples.

    Domestically grown cherries rank fourth in terms of cancer potency of the average residue, ninth in average amount of endocrine disrupters and reproductive toxins, and 14th in neurotoxic potency of the average residue.



    #5 Peaches
    The summer peach. So juicy, so tasty ... so full of pesticides. Peaches ranked high in each of the seven categories we examined. 71% of the peach crop sampled by the FDA tested positive for pesticides, fifth among the 42 fruits and vegetables analyzed. 32% of samples contained two or more pesticides, including six samples with five, two samples with six, and one peach sample with residues of seven pesticides, the highest multiple residue in a single sample found by the FDA over the two year testing period (along with two apple samples). In total, 26 different pesticides were found on peaches.

    Many of the most commonly detected chemicals are probable human carcinogens, most notably iprodione and captan. Peaches ranked sixth in cancer potency of the average residue, and eleventh for the average residue of endocrine disrupters and twelfth inpotency of the average neurotoxic residue.



    #6 Cantaloupe (Mexico)
    Nearly 15% of cantaloupes consumed each year in the United States come from Mexico. Compared to US grown cantaloupe, Mexico melons are much more contaminated with pesticides.

    76% of the samples tested positive for at least one pesticide, number three overall. And this may be an underestimate. 100% of 70 samples tested positive for chlorothalonil, a probable human carcinogen. These 70 samples, however, are just 40% of the 173 samples of cantaloupes from Mexico tested by the FDA during 1992-1993.

    48% of cantaloupes from Mexico tested positive for two or more pesticides, more than any other crop analyzed. Up to five different pesticides were found on single samples of cantaloupe from Mexico. In contrast, just 47% of cantaloupe grown in theUS contained any pesticide, and only 16% of domestic samples contained two or more pesticides.

    Cantaloupes from Mexico ranked number two for the neurotoxic potency of the average residue. The average residue of endocrine disrupters was 13th out of the 42crops analyzed, while the cancer potency of the average residue was 26th of 42 crops.



    #7 Celery
    Nearly every bite of celery we take is also a bite of pesticides. 81% of the 188 celery samples tested positive for pesticide residues, more than any other crop analyzed. And, an analysis of detection rates for some pesticides reveals that this figure may be too low. For example, 91 out of 94 (96%) of domestic and imported celery samples were positive for for the probable human carcinogen chlorothalonil. Overall, however, this amounted to about one half of the 182 samples of celery that were tested for pesticides by the FDA.

    FDA's lack of testing for some heavily used pesticides makes crops appear to have fewer pesticides on them than they actually do. Even with this caveat, 35% of celery samples contained residues of two or more pesticides, and up to five different pesticides were found on a single sample.

    Celery ranked third in the neurotoxic potency of the average residue, 14th in the cancer potency of the average residue, and 20th out of 42 for the average residue of endocrine disrupters.



    #8 Apples
    Apples are the quintessential American fruit. Apple pie, apple sauce, theapple of my eye, an apple a day keeps the doctor away. Apples also have more different pesticides on them than any other fruit or vegetable - 36 different pesticides according to FDA data - and morepesticides (7) found on a single sample than any other crop. 61% of apple samples tested positive for pesticides, and multiple pesticides on single samples are common. 33% of apple samples contained two or more pesticides, 18 samples had five, five had six, and two samples were contaminated with seven different pesticides.

    Of the thirty six pesticides detected on apples, eight are classified by the EPA as possible or probable human carcinogens, and 15 are neurotoxic organophosphate insecticides. Apples also contain a high concentration of endocrine disrupters. Apples ranked tenth in average residue of endocrine disrupting pesticides, 16th in the neurotoxic potency of the average residue, and 23rd in the cancer potency of the average residue.



    #9 Apricots
    Apricots contain consistently high levels of multiple pesticides, including carcinogens like captan on 35% of all samples. 64% of the FDA samples contained one or more pesticides, and 38% had two or three residues. Fourteen different pesticides were detected on apricots.

    Apricots ranked eighth out of 42 fruits and vegetables in average residue of endocrine disrupting pesticides, 19th in the neurotoxic potency of the average residue, and tenth in the cancer potency of the average residue.



    #10 Green Beans
    Twenty-three different pesticides were detected on green bean samples in 1992 and 1993. 18% of these samples had residues of more than one pesticide - up to four on a single sample. More than 13% of samples contained residues of three pesticides, and 28% of samples tested positive for chlorothalonil, a probable human carcinogen.

    Green beans ranked fifth out of 42 crops in the neurotoxic potency of the average residue, sixth in average residue of endocrine disrupting pesticides, and 19th in the cancer potency of the average residue.



    #11 Grapes (Chile)
    From January through April, 90% of the grapes eaten in the United States are from Chile, where growers use less sophisticated pest control techniques than grape growers in the United States. Consequently, a far higher percentage of Chilean crop tests positive for pesticides.

    According to the FDA, 79% of grapes grown in Chile contained pesticide residues in 1992 and 1993, the second highest of all 42 fruits and vegetables analyzed. 46% of the Chilean samples contained two or more pesticides, with up to six different pesticides found on a single sample of Chilean grapes. In contrast, only 17% of the US grapes contained detectable residues, and only 6% contained multiple residues. In total, seventeen different pesticides were found on the Chilean crop.

    The probable human carcinogens captan and iprodione were found on 64 and 28% of Chilean grape samples respectively, compared with 4-5% of all samples of domestically grown grapes, respectively. 27% of Chilean grapes contained the endocrine disrupting fungicide vinclozolin, compared to just one sample (less than one%) of grapes from the United States.

    The cancer potency of the average residue on Chilean grapes was 11th out of 42crops, and the average load of endocrine disrupting pesticides was 19th. The neurotoxic potency of the average residue was in the bottom third of all crops evaluated, at 30th.



    #12 Cucumbers
    Cucumbers complete the list of the twelve most contaminated due primarily to residues of a cancer causing insecticide, dieldrin, that was banned in the United States over 20 years ago. Even though dieldrin is not directly applied to the crop, it is persistent in the soil and is taken up by cucumbers. One out of every 14 cucumber samples from across the United States andMexico contained residues of this highly toxic compound. As a result, cucumbers ranked number two in cancer risk of all 42 crops evaluated.

    Most other results are in the middle of the pack. Cucumbers rank 23rd for residues of endocrine disrupting pesticides, and 22nd for neurotoxic potency of the average residue. 40% of cucumbers had detectable residues, according to the FDA, and12% of samples had two or more residues detected. Twenty different pesticides were found on cucumbers over the two year period from 1992 through 1993.

    George Zuwala
    BigG@towardsfreedom.com


    http://www.safe2use.com/ca-ipm/00-01-15a.htm

    Top 10 Pesticide Perils

    10) If you can smell pesticides, you have been exposed to measurable concentrations. Most pesticide exposures occur without peoples' knowledge or consent.

    9) It is virtually impossible to determine what you are being exposed to or predict potential adverse effects (on you, your loved ones, or your environment) because of poor (or no) public notifications following pesticide applications and failures to disclose secret ingredients on pesticide labels. Chemical companies and EPA like to call these unlisted ingredients "inert", so an unsuspecting public stays that way.

    EPA continues to allow more than 2000 secret "inert" ingredients in pesticides (most are never tested by EPA or evaluated for toxicity) -- even after a U.S. District Court ordered EPA must disclose what's in pesticides. Virtually all foods, medicines, personal hygiene, cleaning and household products list ALL ingredients on product labels. Why is EPA wasting valuable resources to protect and defend pesticide manufacturers' narrow interests? Ask them!!

    7) Pesticides do not stay where they are applied. They drift, runoff, volatilize for extended time periods, get tracked and are spread around by sweeping or mopping.

    6) Pesticides are harmful to many non-target organisms, including humans and other beneficial species. Pests quickly build up resistance. People do not. Pest resistance leads to more (and more deadly) pesticide exposures.

    5) Chemicals should never be your first defense against pests. Synthetic pesticides are not necessary over 90% of the time. Ineffectiveness leads to repeat exposures.

    4) EPA took many safer, more effective, natural pest control products off store shelves -- and keeps them off. Labels of common multi-purpose products (which already list ALL ingredients on product labels) are not allowed to include instructions how to use them as cost-effective alternatives to pesticides -- even if they contain nothing but natural ingredients with long histories of safe, widespread use and ready availability (like natural soaps, borax, boric acid, citrus oils, plants or plant extracts). Even beer and tobacco cannot be sold for pest control purposes, wear labels or attached pamphlets telling how to use them to kill certain pests -- without first registering them as pesticides.

    3) There is no reason to assume pesticides are safe. State and Federal governments do not actually test pesticides (or verify manufacturers' claims) to assure product safety before approving widespread public exposures. EPA allows several products (like Monsanto Roundup and Dow Dursban) to remain in widespread use long after manufacturer's were found submitting fraudulent animal tests or breaking laws requiring mandatory notifications of human health tragedies. Pesticides (like DDT, PCB's, Chlordane, Agent Orange...) are banned only AFTER prolonged and massive devastation to human health, non-target species, and the environment.

    Just because a pesticide's been banned does not mean you're safe! EPA allows continued manufacturing of banned pesticides (repeated worker exposures and on-going emissions), warehousing (without any special safeguards), transportation (without notifying motorists, law enforcement officials or emergency response teams) and sales to other countries (exposing the rest of the human race to unacceptable risks) -- before allowing banned pesticide residues back into the U.S. on imported fruits, meats and vegetables.
    2) Pesticides contaminate buildings and their occupants. EPA conducted the Non-Occupational Pesticide Exposure Study (NOPES) which focused primarily on indoor air. Of the 26 pesticides NOPES examined, 19 are neurotoxins, 18 may cause cancer, 15 are mutagens, 15 could cause birth defects and 19 can cause reproductive problems -- but allows on-going human exposures anyway! After four years of "leadership," EPA Director, Carol Browner continues to call herself "an environmentalist" and "a concerned mother."

    1) Pesticides do not simply "go away" after they're sprayed. Some degrade into other chemical compounds of equal, greater or undetermined toxicity. Some volatilize, are ingested or enter the atmosphere. Some (chlorinated) pesticides destroy the ozone layer. Others, like the banned-too-late pesticide chlordane, have half-lives of at least 20 years (which means you can expect pesticide traces to linger 40 years or more).


    http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/200 ... food_x.htm

    Posted 11/2/2005 2:15 PM

    New government-funded research adds to the concern. A study of children whose diets were changed from regular to organic found their pesticide levels plunged almost immediately. The amount of pesticide detected in the children remained imperceptible until their diets were switched back to conventional food.

    "We didn't expect that to drop in such dramatic fashion," said Emory University's Chensheng Lu, who led the Environmental Protection Agency-funded research. Lu's findings will be published in February in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

    Scientists are still trying to figure out how pesticides affect children, Lu said, but he notes that it took years to prove the health hazards of lead.


    The Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based advocacy group, has produced a guide to the pesticide levels in fruits and vegetables commonly sold in grocery stores, basing the findings on data from the Agriculture Department and Food and Drug Administration.

    The guide says the lowest pesticide levels are found in asparagus, avocados, bananas, broccoli, cauliflower, sweet corn, kiwi, mangos, onions, papaya, pineapples and sweet peas.

    The highest pesticide levels, meanwhile, are found in apples, bell peppers, celery, cherries, imported grapes, nectarines, peaches, pears, potatoes, red raspberries, spinach and strawberries.
    Equal rights for all, special privileges for none. Thomas Jefferson

  5. #5
    Senior Member Virginiamama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    2,088
    ALSO CHSECK THIS OUT...My Grandfather was a chemist he graduated from William and Mary he lobbied in Washington against floridating our water supply. He lost...
    http://www.rense.com/general3/fluo.htm


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rense.com
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------




    Fluoride - The Lunatic Drug
    From American Patriot Friends Network <apfn@apfn.org>
    From Shirley Carroll - thehavens@highland.net
    8-13-00


    SICKNESS CONTROL 101: FLUORIDE - THE LUNATIC DRUG

    "EARTH IS AN INSANE ASYLUM, TO WHICH THE OTHER PLANETS DEPORT THEIR LUNATICS." --Voltaire (Memnon the Philosopher).


    Controversial fluoride is one of the basic ingredients in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUoride).

    Sodium fluoride, a hazardous-waste by-product from the manufacture of aluminum, is a common ingredient in rat and cockroach poisons, anesthetics, hypnotics, psychiatric drugs, and military nerve gas. It`s historically been quite expensive to properly dispose of, until some aluminum industries with an overabundance of the stuff sold the public on the terrifically insane but highly profitable idea of buying it at a 20,000% markup, injecting it into our water supplies, and then DRINKING it.

    Yes, a 20,000% markup: Fluoride-- intended only for human consumption by people under 14 years of age--is injected into our drinking water supply at approx. 1 part-per-million (ppm), but since we only drink 1/2 of one percent of the total water supply, the rest literally goes down the drain as a free hazardous-waste disposal for the chemical industry, where we PAY them so that we can flush their expensive hazardous waste down our toilets. How many salesmen dream of such a deal? (Follow the money.)

    Independent scientific evidence repeatedly showing up over the past 50 years reveals that fluoride allegedly shortens our life span, promotes cancer and various mental disturbances, accelerates osteoporosis and broken hips in old folks, and makes us stupid, docile, and subservient, all in one package. There are reports of aluminum in the brain possibly being a causative factor in Alzheimer`s Disease, and evidence points towards fluoride`s strong affinity for aluminum and also its ability to "trick" the blood-brain barrier by looking like the hydrogen ion, and thus allowing chemical access to brain tissue.

    Scientists who have attempted to blow the whistle on this mega-bucks PR ploy have consistently been given a very unscientific Black-PR treatment, and thus their valid points disputing the current vested interests never arrive in the press. Follow the money to find the control. In 1952 the slick PR campaign which ramrodded the concept of fluoridation through via our Public Health departments and various dental organizations was likened to a highly-emotional "beer-salesman`s convention" instead of the objective scientific experiment which it should properly have been. It`s continued in that vein right up to present time. To illustrate the emotional vs. the scientific nature of this issue, just look at the response given by people (perhaps yourself included?) when the subject of fluoridation comes up. Ask yourself, "Is this response EMOTIONAL BLUSTER, or is it UNBIASED AND OPENLY- INTERESTED OBJECTIVITY?" There is a tremendous amount of emotional, highly unscientific know-it-all ! attached to fluoridation. Many truly independent (unattached to any vested-interest) scientists who`ve spent a large portion of their lives studying and working with this subject have been subjected to a surprising amount of uncalled-for and unfair character assassination from strong vested- interest groups who profit from the public`s ignorance as well as from their illnesses. (Follow the money.)

    Do you have diabetes or kidney disease? There are reportedly more than 11 million Americans with diabetes. Since many diabetics drink more liquids than other people, then according to the Physicians Desk Reference these 11 million Americans probably shouldn`t drink fluoridated water, because in doing so, they`ll receive an excessive dose of fluoride.

    Kidney disease, by definition, lowers the efficiency of the kidneys, which is your main route of fluoride elimination. --So those people with kidney disease also shouldn`t drink fluoridated water. Cases are on record (Annapolis, Maryland, 1979) where kidney patients on dialysis machines died, due to a fluoride overdose in the city water supply. Let`s begin at the beginning:

    The first occurrence of fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany`s Nazi prison camps. The Gestapo had little concern about fluoride`s supposed effect on children`s teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and force the people in their concentration camps into calm submission. (Ref. book: "The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben" by Joseph Borkin.)
    The following letter was received by the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee Wisconsin, on 2 October 1954, from Mr. Charles Perkins, a chemist:

    "I have your letter of September 29 asking for further documentation regarding a statement made in my book, The Truth About Water Fluoridation, to the effect that the idea of water fluoridation was brought to England from Russia by the Russian Communist Kreminoff. "In the 1930`s, Hitler and the German Nazi`s envisioned a world to be dominated and controlled by a Nazi philosophy of pan-Germanism. The German chemists worked out a very ingenious and far-reaching plan of mass-control which was submitted to and adopted by the German General Staff. This plan was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water supplies. By this method they could control the population in whole areas, reduce population by water medication that would produce sterility in women, and so on. In this scheme of mass-control, sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place. ...

    "Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual`s power to resist domination, by slowly poisoning and narcotizing a certain area of the brain, thus making him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him. [A convenient light lobotomy]

    "The real reason behind water fluoridation is not to benefit children`s teeth. If this were the real reason there are many ways in which it could be done that are much easier, cheaper, and far more effective. The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination and control and loss of liberty.

    "When the Nazis under Hitler decided to go into Poland, both the German General Staff and the Russian General Staff exchanged scientific and military ideas, plans, and personnel, and the scheme of mass control through water medication was seized upon by the Russian Communists because it fitted ideally into their plan to communize the world. ...

    "I was told of this entire scheme by a German chemist who was an official of the great IG Farben chemical industries and was also prominent in the Nazi movement at the time. I say this with all the earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years` research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorine--any person who drinks artificially fluorinated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person mentally or physically." CHARLES E. PERKINS, Chemist, 2 October 1954. __________________________

    Quoting Einstein`s nephew, Dr. E.H. Bronner (a chemist who had also been a prisoner of war during WWII) in a letter printed in The Catholic Mirror, Springfield, MA, January 1952:

    "It appears that the citizens of Massachusetts are among the `next` on the agenda of the water poisoners.

    "There is a sinister network of subversive agents, Godless `intellectual` parasites, working in our country today whose ramifications grow more extensive, more successful and more alarming each new year and whose true objective is to demoralize, paralyze and destroy our great Republic--from within if they can, according to their plan--for their own possession. "The tragic success they have already attained in their long siege to destroy the moral fiber of American life is now one of their most potent footholds towards their own ultimate victory over us.

    "Fluoridation of our community water systems can well become their most subtle weapon for our sure physical and mental deterioration. ...

    "As a research chemist of established standing, I built within the past 22 years, 3 American chemical plants and licensed 6 of my 53 patents. Based on my years of practical experience in the health-food and chemical field, let me warn: fluoridation of drinking water is criminal insanity, sure national suicide. Don`t do it.

    "Even in small quantities, sodium fluoride is a deadly poison to which no effective antidote has been found. Every exterminator knows that it is the most efficient rat-killer. ... Sodium fluoride is entirely different from organic calcium-fluoro-phosphate needed by our bodies and provided by nature, in God`s great providence and love, to build and strengthen our bones and our teeth. This organic calcium-fluoro-phosphate, derived from proper foods, is an edible organic salt, insoluble in water and assimilable by the human body, whereas the non-organic sodium fluoride used in fluoridating water is instant poison to the body and fully water soluble. The body refuses to assimilate it. "Careful, bonafide laboratory experimentation by conscientious, patriotic research chemists, and actual medical experience, have both revealed that instead of preserving or promoting `dental health,` fluoridated drinking water destroys teeth, before adulthood and after, by the destructive mottling and other pathological conditions it actually causes in them, and also creates many other very grave pathological conditions in the internal organisms of bodies consuming it. How can it be called a "health" plan? What`s behind it?

    "That any so-called "doctors" would persuade a civilized nation to add voluntarily a deadly poison to its drinking water systems is unbelievable. It is the height of criminal

    insanity. "No wonder Hitler and Stalin fully believed and agreed from 1939 to 1941 that, quoting from both Lenin`s Last Will and Hitler`s Mein Kampf:

    "America we shall demoralize, divide, and destroy from within." ...

    "Are our Civil Defense organizations and agencies awake to the perils of water poisoning by fluoridation? Its use has been recorded in other countries. Sodium fluoride water solutions are the cheapest and most effective rat killers known to chemists: colorless, odorless, tasteless; no antidote, no remedy, no hope: Instant and complete extermination of rats. ...

    "Fluoridation of water systems can be slow national suicide, or quick national liquidation. It is criminal insanity--treason!" Dr. E.H. Bronner, Mfg. Research Chemist, Los Angeles. _____

    Earliest available Russian fluoride evidence: (APFN NOTE: THIS INFO WAS FAXED VIA APFN IN 1993) http://enteract.com/~mgfree/Medical/Flu ... pathy.html

    "I, Oliver Kenneth Goff, was a member of the Communist Party and the Young Communist League, from May 2, 1936, to October 9, 1939. During this period of time, I operated under the alias of John Keats with number 18-B-2. My testimony before the Government is in Volume 9 of the Un-American Activities Report for 1939.

    "While a member of the Communist Party, I attended Communist training schools in New York and Wisconsin ... and we were trained in the revolutionary overthrow of the U.S. Government. "... We discussed quite thoroughly the fluoridation of water supplies and how we were using it in Russia as a tranquilizer in the prison camps. The leaders of our school felt that if it could be induced into the American water supply, it would bring about a spirit of lethargy in the nation, where it could keep the general public docile during a steady encroachment of Communism. We also discussed the fact that keeping a store of deadly fluoride near the water reservoir would be advantageous during the time of the revolution, as it would give us opportunity to dump this poison into the water supply and either kill off the populace or threaten them with liquidation, so that they would surrender to obtain fresh water.

    http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-sources.htm

    I. Current Sources of Fluoride (Back to top)

    Note: To find out how much fluoride is in the following products, click here.



    TOOTHPASTE
    For data on how much fluoride children ingest from toothpaste, click here .

    "Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from dentrifice alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion." - Levy SM, Guha-Chowdhury N. (1999). Total fluoride intake and implications for dietary fluoride supplementation. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59: 211-23.



    FLUORIDATED TAP WATER
    For data on the water fluoridation status of each state in the US, click here

    "Since [the 1940s], the percent of individuals consuming fluoridated water (in the US) has steadily increased. The increase in percentage of communities with fluoridated water has resulted in an increase in the mean content of fluoride not only in soft drinks and fruit juices, but in canned goods (notably soups), leading to increased intake of fluoride by individuals in communities with nonfluoridated water." - Fomon SJ, Ekstrand J, Ziegler EE. (2000). Fluoride intake and prevalence of dental fluorosis: trends in fluoride intake with special attention to infants. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 60(3):131-9.

    "Because the main component of most beverages is water, the fluoride content of these products closely parallels the fluoride content of water used in their processing." - Levy SM, Guha-Chowdhury N. (1999). Total fluoride intake and implications for dietary fluoride supplementation. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59: 211-23.

    "We cannot... ignore water fluoridation as a major source of ingested fluoride." - Heller KE, et al (1997). Dental Caries and Dental Fluorosis at Varying Water Fluoride Concentrations. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 57: 136-143.



    INFANT FORMULA
    For further information on fluoride exposure from infant formula, click here

    "[I]nfant formulas reconstituted with higher fluoride water can provide 100 to 200 times more fluoride than breastmilk, or cows milk." - Levy SM, Guha-Chowdhury N. (1999). Total fluoride intake and implications for dietary fluoride supplementation. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59: 211-23.

    "Our analysis shows that babies who are exclusively formula fed face the highest risk; in Boston, for example, more than 60 percent of the exclusively formula fed babies exceed the safe dose of fluoride on any given day." - Environmental Working Group, "EWG Analysis of Government Data Finds Babies Over-Exposed to Fluoride in Most Major U.S. Cities", March 22, 2006.

    "[M]ore than 50 percent of infants are currently formula fed by 1 month of age, and these infants are likely to be continuously exposed to high intakes of fluoride for 9 or 10 months - a circumstance quite rare in the 1960s and early 1970s." - Fomon SJ, Ekstrand J. (1999). Fluoride intake by infants. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59(4):229-34.

    "Fluoride is now introduced at a much earlier stage of human development than ever before and consequently alters the normal fluoride-pharmacokinetics in infants. But can one dramatically increase the normal fluoride-intake to infants and get away with it?" - Luke J. (1997). The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Surrey, Guildford. p. 176.

    "Parents should therefore be advised that they may be able to protect their children from dental fluorosis by breastfeeding their infant and by extending the duration for which they breastfeed. When infants are formula-fed, parents should be advised to reconstitute or dilute infant formula with deionized water (reverse osmosis, distilled, or low-fluoride bottled water) in order to reduce the amount of systemically ingested fluoride." - Brothwell D, Limeback H. (2003). Breastfeeding is protective against dental fluorosis in a nonfluoridated rural area of Ontario, Canada. Journal of Human Lactation 19: 386-90.

    “Breastfeeding of infants should be encouraged, both for the many documented, general health benefits and the relative protection against ingestion of excessive fluoride from high quantities of intake of fluoridated water used to reconstitute concentrated infant formula early in infancy.” - Levy SL, et al. (1995). Sources of fluoride intake in children. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 55: 39-52.



    PROCESSED CEREALS

    "[F]ood processing often concentrates fluoride, and foods processed with fluoridated water typically have higher fluoride concentrations than foods processed with non-fluoridated water... A study that found marked differences between cereaals processed in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas showed that cereals processed in a fluoridated area had fluoride concentrations ranging from 3.8 ppm to 6.3 ppm..." - Warren JJ, Levy SM. (2003). Current and future role of fluoride in nutrition. Dental Clinics of North America 47: 225-43.

    "[D]uring manufacturing, infant dry cereals are processed in a slurry and placed in a revolving drying drum. The water from the slurry evaporates, and the fluoride from the water remains in the cereal. Thus, the fluoride concentration of the water used during processing can substantially affect the final fluoride concentration... Infants who eat large quantities of dry infant cereals reconstituted with fluoridated water could ingest substantial quantities of fluoride from this source." - Heilman JR, et al. (1997). Fluoride concentrations of infant foods. Journal of the American Dental Association 128(7):857-63.



    JUICE
    For published data on fluoride levels in juice, click here

    "Our data suggest that young children who regularly or frequently drink substantial quantities of [juice] possibly should not receive dietary fluoride supplements, since they might be at increased risk of developing dental fluorosis." - Kiritsy MC, et al. (1996). Assessing fluoride concentrations of juices and juice-flavored drinks. Journal of the American Dental Association 127(7):895-902.



    SODA

    "Seventy-one percent of the [sodas] had fluoride levels exceeding 0.60 ppm, which is considered to contain sufficient fluoride so that dietary fluoride supplements are contraindicated."- Heilman JR, et al. (1999). Assessing fluoride levels of carbonated soft drinks. Journal of the American Dental Association 130(11):1593-9.

    "Schulz (1976) found that nearly all soft drinks then manufactured in optimally fluoridated Baltimore (1.10 ppm) had fluoride concentrations of 0.8 ppm or greater. Shannon (1977) tested soft drinks manufactured in Houston, Texas... He found that fluoride concentrations... closely matched the fluoride concentrations of the bottling plants' water supplies. This conclusion was also reached in other studies, including the authors' published and unpublished analyses of fluoride concentrations in 332 soft drink products." - Warren JJ, Levy SM. (1999). Systemic fluoride: Sources, amounts, and effects of ingestion. Dental Clinics of North America 43: 695-711.




    TEA
    For USDA data on fluoride levels in US tea, click here (pdf file).

    "Appropriate regulation of the fluoride content of tea commodities should be an urgent matter for public food safety policy." - Cao J, et al. (2004). Fluoride in newer tea commodities. Fluoride 37: 286-300.

    "Instant tea, one of the most popular drinks in the United States, may be a source of harmful levels of fluoride... The researchers found that some regular strength preparations contain as much as 6.5 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride, well over the 4 ppm maximum allowed in drinking water by the Environmental Protection Agency." - 'Potentially harmful fluoride levels found in some instant tea'', Washington University School of Medicine, January 25, 2005.

    "Another important source of fluoride ingestion is tea...[T]he fluoride content of tea has been found to range from 0.1 to 4.2 ppm fluoride, with an average of about 3 ppm." - Levy SM, Guha-Chowdhury N. (1999). Total fluoride intake and implications for dietary fluoride supplementation. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59: 211-23.

    "[M]ost of the iced teas studied contained considerable fluoride concentrations. If infants ingest larger amounts of them because of their sweet taste, there is a risk of uncontrolled overdosing as a result of additional fluoride intake from other sources at the same time. " - Behrendt A, Oberste V, Wetzel WE. (2002). Fluoride concentration and pH of iced tea products. Caries Research 36(6): 405-410.

    "The average fluoride concentration of infusions prepared from decaffeinated (green & black) tea in this study is 3.19 ppm and ranged from 1.01 to 5.20. This is unexpectedly higher than caffeinated tea and such a difference is statistically significant. If decaffeinated tea were prepared with optimally fluoridated water, the fluoride content would be increased by 1 ppm and would reach an average of 4.19 ppm." - Chan JT, Koh SH. (1996). Fluoride content in caffeinated, decaffeinated and herbal teas. Caries Research 30:88-92.



    WINE
    For USDA data on fluoride levels in Californian wines, click here.

    "[A]nalyses of nineteen California wines revealed fluoride concentrations ranging from 0.23 to 2.80 ppm (mean 1.02 ppm, with seven samples above the international limit of 1 ppm)." - Burgstahler AW, et al. (1997). Fluoride in California wines and raisins. Fluoride 30: 142-146.

    "Researchers from California State University in Fresno conducted a 5 year study (1990-1994) on vineyards throughout the San Joaquin Valley. They found that '[m]ultiple applications of Cryolite during the growing season significantly increase fluoride in wines.' Notably they found fluoride levels between 3 - 6 ppm in Zinfandel, Chardonnay, Cabernet Sauvignon, Chenin Blanc, Thompson Seedless, Barbera, Muscat Candi, Ruby Cabernet; and levels between 6 - <9 ppm in French Colombard and Zinfandel... At 6 ppm one glass of wine (175 ml) would have delivered as much fluoride as about a liter of optimally fluoridated water!" - Connett E, Connett P. (2001). Fluoride: The Hidden Poison in the National Organic Standards. Pesticides and You 21: 18-22.



    BEER

    "Beers brewed in locations with high fluoride water levels may contribute significantly to the daily fluoride intake, particularly in alcohol misusing subjects and this may contribute to alcohol-associated bone disease." - Warnakulasuriya S, et al. (2002). Fluoride content of alcoholic beverages. Clinica Chimica Acta 320: 1-4.

    "Soda pop and beer bottled with fluoridated water contain 0.7 to 1 ppm fluoride; consumption of these beverages is almost certainly more variable among individuals than consumption of water... If beer contains 0.7 ppm fluoride, heavy beer-drinkers may ingest more than 4 mg daily from beer alone." - Groth, E. (1973), Two Issues of Science and Public Policy: Air Pollution Control in the San Francisco Bay Area, and Fluoridation of Community Water Supplies. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, May 1973.



    MECHANICALLY DEBONED CHICKEN

    "[F]oods made with mechanically separated chicken have the potential to be a major contributor to total fluoride intake... Fluoride contributed by foods made with mechanically separated chicken could increase the risk of mild dental fluorosis for children less than eight years of age when combined with other sources of fluoride exposure." - Fein NJ, Cerklewski FL. (2001). Fluoride content of foods made with mechanically separated chicken. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry 49(9):4284-6.

    "[W]e found that infant foods containing chicken were high in fluoride. Thus, any infants who regularly eat more than a couple of ounces of infant foods containing high-fluoride-content chicken would be at elevated fluorosis risk." - Heilman JR, et al. (1997). Fluoride concentrations of infant foods. Journal of the American Dental Association 128(7):857-63.



    FISH/SEAFOOD

    "Food categories with the highest mean fluoride levels were fish [2.118 ppm], beverages [1.148 ppm], and soups [0.606 ppm]. Individual samples with the highest fluoride levels were tea [4.97 ppm], canned fish [4.57 ppm], shellfish [3.36 ppm], cooked veal [1.23 ppm], and cooked wheat cereal [1.02 ppm]." - Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (2001). Toxicological Profile for Fluorides: Draft Profile for Public Comment. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Public Health Service.



    TEFLON PANS

    "Teflon-lined cookware may contribute to the fluoride ingested by humans. Full and Parkins boiled fluoridated water at a moderate rate until a one-third or one-half reduction in volume was attained, then determined the fluoride content of the residual water... In Teflon-coated ware, the concentration of fluoride ion increased to nearly 3 ppm. This result requires confirmation; but, if it is correct, then the release of fluoride into foods during cooking in plastic-coated wares requires investigation." - Marier J, Rose D. (1977). Environmental Fluoride. National Research Council of Canada. Associate Committe on Scientific Criteria for Environmental Quality. NRCC No. 16081.



    FLUORIDATED SALT

    The use of fluoridated salt is becoming increasingly widespread across the globe. While the US & Canada do not yet have salt fluoridation programs, it is currently estimated that more people in the world are exposed to fluoridated salt than fluoridated water. Thus, this source of fluoride exposure is becoming increasingly important and insidious. Fluoridated salt usually contains about 250 ppm fluoride, which would result in a daily intake of 2.5 mg of fluoride per day for people consuming 10 grams of salt. Countries with extensive salt fluoridation programs include: Austria, Bolivia, Columbia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, France, Germany, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Switzerland, and Venezuela. To learn more, click here


    ANAESTHETICS (Enflurane, Isoflurane & Sevoflurane)

    "In the 1960s, the widespread use of the inhalational anaesthetic methoxyflurane was associated with a significant occurrence of postoperative renal dysfunction. This was attributed to hepatic biotransformation of methoxyflurane and subsequent release of inorganic fluoride ions into the circulation. Based upon the clinical experience with methoxyflurane, serum fluoride concentrations exceeding 50 mumol/l were considered to be nephrotoxic... Enflurane and even isoflurane may, when used during prolonged operations, also yield anorganic fluoride levels in excess of 50 mumol/l. " - Nuscheler M, et al. (1996). [Fluoride-induced nephrotoxicity: fact or fiction?]. Anaesthesist 45 Suppl 1:S32-40.

    "Sevoflurane administration can result in increased serum inorganic fluoride ion concentrations, which have been associated with inhibition of renal concentrating ability." - Goldberg ME, et al. (1996). Sevoflurane versus isoflurane for maintenance of anesthesia: are serum inorganic fluoride ion concentrations of concern? Anesthesia and Analgesia 82(6):1268-72.

    "[T]here were significant increases in the serum fluoride in group I (isoflurane) at 5, 10, 24 and 48 hours. The peak serum fluoride was 35.4 (8.5) µmol/L at 10 hours. Group S (sevoflurane) also showed similar significant increases in the serum fluoride concentration compared to baseline at all times of the study. The peak serum fluoride in the group S was 71.2 (19.3) µmol/L at 24 hours... After prolonged anaesthesia, metabolism of sevoflurane to inorganic fluoride is of a greater magnitude than that of isoflurane and exceeds the nephrotoxic threshold." - Abdel-Latif, MM, et al. (2003). Serum fluoride ion and renal function after prolonged sevoflurane or isoflurane anaesthesia. Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia 19: 79-83.



    CIGARETTES

    "Cigarettes may be another significant source of fluoride intake by humans." - Marier J, Rose D. (1977). Environmental Fluoride. National Research Council of Canada. Associate Committe on Scientific Criteria for Environmental Quality. NRCC No. 16081.

    II. Increase in fluoride exposure (Back to top)

    "Fluoride is a persistent bioaccumulator, and is entering into human food-and-beverage chains in increasing amounts." - Marier J, Rose D. (1977). Environmental Fluoride. National Research Council of Canada. Associate Committe on Scientific Criteria for Environmental Quality. NRCC No. 16081.

    "Based on this review, we conclude that fluoride intakes of infants and children have shown a rather steady increase since 1930, are likely to continue to increase, and will be associated with further increase in the prevalence of enamel fluorosis unless intervention measures are instituted." - Fomon SJ, Ekstrand J, Ziegler EE. (2000). Fluoride intake and prevalence of dental fluorosis: trends in fluoride intake with special attention to infants. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 60(3):131-9.

    "[T]he prevalence of dental fluorosis in the United States has increased during the last 30 years, both in communities with fluoridated water and in communities with nonfluoridated water." - Fomon SJ, Ekstrand J, Ziegler EE. (2000). Fluoride intake and prevalence of dental fluorosis: trends in fluoride intake with special attention to infants. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 60(3):131-9.

    "The increase in [dental fluorosis] suggests that the total systemic fluoride exposure for children during dental development has changed since the 1940s." - Pang D, et al. (1992). Fluoride intake from beverage consumption in a sample of North Carolina children. Journal of Dental Research 71: 1382-1388.

    "[A] few cases of more severe fluorosis can be found now in some communities. Because the prevalence of fluorosis is now higher than 50 years ago, we can conclude that fluoride availability... has increased in North American children." - Rozier RG. (1999). The prevalence and severity of enamel fluorosis in North American children. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59(4):239-46.

    III. Current dental fluorosis prevalence (Back to top)

    "The majority of children in this research study drank water witih the optimal fluoride level (0.7-1.2 ppm) and overall 34.5% had definitive fluorosis on at least two teeth. This result is generally consistent with most contemporary prevalence studies of fluorosis in North America." - Levy SM, Hong L, Warren JJ, Broffitt B. (2006). .Use of the fluorosis risk index in a cohort study: the Iowa fluoride study. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 66(2):92-6.

    "Current studies support the view that dental fluorosis has increased in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. North American studies suggest rates of 20 to 75% in the former and 12 to 45% in the latter." - Locker, D. (1999). Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation. An Update of the 1996 Federal-Provincial Sub-committee Report. Prepared for Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.

    "[S]everal reports of prevalence for mostly mild fluorosis are in the 20 percent to 80 percent range." - Levy SM, Guha-Chowdhury N. (1999). Total fluoride intake and implications for dietary fluoride supplementation. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59: 211-23.



    IV. Adding poison to the wound: EPA's fluoride pesticide tolerances (Back to top)

    Despite repeated warnings that humans, particularly children, are currently receiving too much fluoride from their diets (see section V), fluoride pesticides continue to be added to the food supply under extremely lax regulations from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    Currently, the main fluoride pesticide used in the US is cryolite (sodium aluminum fluoride). The EPA currently allows up to 7 ppm of fluoride on over 30 fruits and vegetables treated with cryolite. This 7 ppm fluoride tolerance applies to: apricots, beets, blackberries, broccoli, brussel sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, citrus fruits, collards, cranberries, cucumbers, eggplants, grapes, kale, lettuce, melons, nectarines, peaches, peppers, plums, pumpkins, radishes, raspberries, squash, strawberries, tomatoes and turnip.

    A 2 ppm standard has also been established for potatoes, which are second to grapes for total cryolite usage.

    The EPA's standard of 7 ppm for fluoride residues is over 5 times greater than the standard set by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1933. In 1933, the USDA established the maximum level for fluoride residues on fruits and vegetables at 1.2 ppm, which was the same standard the USDA established for arsenic. While arsenic pesticides have since been phased out of use in the US, fluoride pesticides remain.

    In fact, the current tolerance levels for fluoride pesticides could become even higher - if the US EPA, under intense pressure from DOW Chemical, approves sulfuryl fluoride as a replacement fumigant for methyl bromide.

    If EPA approves sulfuryl fluoride (an indoor fumigant that has never before been used on food) as the replacement for methyl bromide, there will be a substantial increase in the fluoride contamination of the food supply.

    In a recent petition (February 15, 2002) to the EPA, DOW Chemical asked for extremely high fluoride tolerances on a wide number of common foods, including, 98 ppm for wheat germ, 40 ppm for wheat bran, 31 ppm for rice bran, 30 ppm for a variety of nuts, 28 ppm for corn meal, 26 ppm for corn flour, 25 ppm for millet grain, 25 ppm for wild rice grain, 25 ppm for sorghum grain, 25 ppm for wheat grain, and 17 ppm for oat grain!

    V. Warnings & recommendations (from dental community) (Back to top)

    Minimize Ingested Fluoride

    "'In consideration of the currently understood mechanisms of cariostasis and fluorosis, our efforts should be focused on minimizing levels of ingested fluorides. The control of fluoride levels in infant formulas, the recent reductions in the fluoride supplement schedule, and the calls for lower fluoride pediatric toothpastes are all laudable efforts. We cannot, however, ignore water fluoridation as a major source of ingested fluoride." - Heller KE, et al (1997). Dental Caries and Dental Fluorosis at Varying Water Fluoride Concentrations. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 57: 136-143.

    Do Not Use Fluoridated Water to Reconstitute Infant Formula

    “When infants are formula-fed, parents should be advised to reconstitute or dilute infant formula with deionized water (reverse osmosis, distilled, or low-fluoride bottledwater) in order to reduce the amount of systemically ingested fluoride.” - Brothwell D, Limeback H. (2003). Breastfeeding is protective against dental fluorosis in a nonfluoridated rural area of Ontario, Canada. Journal of Human Lactation 19: 386-90.

    “[W]e recommend use of water with relatively low fluoride content (e.g. 0 to 0.3 ppm) as a diluent for infant formulas and recommend that no fluoride supplements be given to infants.” - Fomon SJ, Ekstrand J, Ziegler EE. (2000). Fluoride intake and prevalence of dental fluorosis: trends in fluoride intake with special attention to infants. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 60: 131-9.

    “Breastfeeding of infants should be encouraged, both for the many documented, general health benefits and the relative protection against ingestion of excessive fluoride from high quantities of intake of fluoridated water used to reconstitute concentrated infant formula early in infancy.” - Levy SL, et al. (1995). Sources of fluoride intake in children. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 55: 39-52.

    “Use of powder concentrate would be recommended only for those with low-fluoride water.” - Levy SL, et al. (1995). Sources of fluoride intake in children. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 55: 39-52.

    "to limit fluoride intakes to amounts <0.1 mg/kg/day, it is necessary to avoid use fo fluoridated water (around 1 ppm) to dilute powdered infant formulas." - Buzalaf MA, et al. (2001). Fluoride content of infant formulas prepared with deionized, bottled mineral and fluoridated drinking water. ASDC Journal of Dentistry for Children 68(1):37-41, 10.

    “Our results suggest that the fluoride contribution of water used to reconstitute formulas increases risk of fluorosis and could be an area for intervention... Supporting long-term lactation could be an important strategy to decrease fluorosis risk of primary teeth and early developing permanent teeth.” - Marshall TA, et al. (2004). Associations between Intakes of Fluoride from Beverages during Infancy and Dental Fluorosis of Primary Teeth. Journal of the American College of Nutrition 23:108-16.

    “The recommendation is that bottled or deionized water be used instead (of fluoridated water) to dilute the formula." - Ekstrand J. (1989). Fluoride intake in early infancy. Journal of Nutrition 119(Suppl 12):1856-60.

    Ingestion of Fluoride from Toothpaste should be Reduced

    "To reduce the risk of fluorosis, it has been suggested that use of higher concentration of fluoride dentrifices by preschool children be avoided, that only small quantities of paste be used under parental direction and supervision, that further development and testing of lower concentration fluoride dentrifices be encouraged, and that dentrifice tubes dispense smaller quantities so that inappropriate eating of fluoride dentrifice is avoided." - Levy SM, Guha-Chowdhury N. (1999). Total fluoride intake and implications for dietary fluoride supplementation. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59: 211-23.

    "WARNING: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately." - FDA Mandated Warning on Fluoride Toothpaste Labels Sold in U.S.

    Uniform Dosages Should be Reconsidered

    "[W]e recommend that uniform dosages of fluoride supplementation should be reconsidered... The FDA should examine the testing and labeling of [juices and sodas] with respect to fluoride concentration so that practictioners and consumers can make an informed choice. Thorough washing of grapes should occur to eliminate any insecticide contamination of the juice. Manufacturers and bottlers should identify sources of fluoride within their products, and when necessary reduce fluoride levels to age-appropriate levels, as recommended by the American Dental Association and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentists." - Stannard JG, et al. (1991). Fluoride levels and fluoride contamination of fruit juices. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry 16(1):38-40.

    Some Children Receive More Fluoride Than 'Optimum' from just One Source of Exposure

    "[I]n most reports, a smaller proportion of children, often 10 percent to 20 percent of the study population, received several times as much exposure as the mean. Because of this finding, most authors commented that some children in their studies probably ingested sufficient quantities of fluoride from only the single source or category being studied to exceed the 'optimal' fluoride intake and be at increased risks of dental fluorosis." - Levy SM, Guha-Chowdhury N. (1999). Total fluoride intake and implications for dietary fluoride supplementation. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59: 211-23.

    "Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from dentrifice alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion." - Levy SM, Guha-Chowdhury N. (1999). Total fluoride intake and implications for dietary fluoride supplementation. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59: 211-23.

    Greater Attention Needs to be Paid to Total Fluoride Exposure

    "When considering fluoride recommendations on a group basis, all major sources of fluoride ingestion, such as diet, dentrifice, and fluoride supplements, must be considered so that total daily intake of fluoride can be estimated. To this end, efforts should be renewed to determine and regularly monitor the fluoride levels of beverages and foods and have their fluoride levels made available to the profession and the public. If necessary, fluoride levels of infant formulas and other products should be modified. In addition, attempts must be made to avoid excessive ingestion of fluoride dentrifice and further investigate the cariostatic effect of lower fluoride concentration dentrifices." - Levy SM, Guha-Chowdhury N. (1999). Total fluoride intake and implications for dietary fluoride supplementation. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59: 211-23.

    "The amount of infant foods containing chicken consumed should be considered when assessing the total fluoride intake, as it could contribute a substantial amount of fluoride. Children who regularly consume quantities of infant foods containing chicken should also be monitored to make sure that they do not ingest too much fluoride from other sources such as fluoride dentrifice, dietary fluoride supplements or fluoridated water." - Heilman JR, et al. (1997). Fluoride concentrations of infant foods. Journal of the American Dental Association 128(7):857-63.

    "[W]e recommend that dentists who are considering prescribing dietary fluoride supplements for those with nonfluoridated water inquire about young children's fluoride exposure from all important sources, including dentrifice, infant formula (type, brand, and quantity), water (sources, quantities and filtration system) and beverages (including specific juices and juice-flavored drinks)." - Kiritsy MC, et al. (1996). Assessing fluoride concentrations of juices and juice-flavored drinks. Journal of the American Dental Association 127(7):895-902.

    VI. Current fluoridation policy outdated (Back to top)

    "The early recommendations concerning 'optimal levels' of fluoride in water have not been reviewed since [water fluoridation began], despite developments which could drastically alter the underlying assumption that fluoride intake from sources other than drinking water is relatively low. For example, as fluoridation has become widespread, more and more food processing plants have used fluoridated water, with generally unknown effects on the fluoride content of processed foods. Also, dehydrated and reconstituted food products, virtually unknown to consumers in the 1940s when most of the fluoride surveys were done, are today commonplace. As a result, although orange juice and potatoes are inherently poor sources of fluoride, this is no longer so if they have been concentrated and reconstituted with fluoridated water." - Prival M, Fisher F. (1974). Adding Fluorides to the Diet. Environment 16(5): 29-33.

    "Current standards for water fluoridation in the United States have stood since 1962. Many things have changed since then, however, and these data suggest that perhaps it is time to reconsider these standards." - Heller KE, et al (1997). Dental Caries and Dental Fluorosis at Varying Water Fluoride Concentrations. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 57: 136-143.

    VII. Complexities with prescribing fluoride in today's environment (Back to top)

    "[P]recisely estimating total fluoride intake is quite difficult in research studies and clearly not feasible in clinical practices." - Kiritsy MC, et al. (1996). Assessing fluoride concentrations of juices and juice-flavored drinks. Journal of the American Dental Association 127(7):895-902.

    "If fluoride supplements are to be used, then accurate information on not only fluoride content of the residential water source, but on background levels of fluoride intake from food and beverages, type of feeding, kind of water used in reconstituting foods and beverages, use of beverages versus water at home or at child care, the possibility of a diffusion effect, and the use and ingestion of dentrifice and even mouthrinses and gels may need to be considered in making recommendations for appropriate dosages of fluoride supplements in children. These complex sets of data are difficult to obtain even on a research basis, much less in daily dental and medical practice." - Levy SM, Guha-Chowdhury N. (1999). Total fluoride intake and implications for dietary fluoride supplementation. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59: 211-23.

    "With no fluoride levels marked on the soft drink products or easily available from the manufacturers, it is not possible for clinicians or consumers to directly estimate fluoride ingestion from carbonated beverages. Therefore, to reduce the risk of dental fluorosis, dental and medical practitioners should be cautious about prescribing dietary fluoride supplements to preschool-aged children in nonfluoridated areas who consume large quantities of carbonated soft drinks." - Heilman JR, et al. (1999). Assessing fluoride levels of carbonated soft drinks. Journal of the American Dental Association 130(11):1593-9.
    Equal rights for all, special privileges for none. Thomas Jefferson

  6. #6
    Senior Member jp_48504's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    19,168
    I always look at the food labels. I shop at the local farmers markets whenever I can. Try to find garlic that isn’t imported from CHINA. If I am in a store and I see produce from Mexico, Communist CHINA or another third World country. I will loudly say DISGUSTING, THATS FROM MEXICO (or Wherever) I'm Not Buying that! Other people who hear me will also walk away from it. One store turned a carte of cantaloupe around so that you couldn’t read the (MEXICO) Stamp on it. The produce didn’t have stickers on it.

    Speak loud and clear. Support Americans and America. BUY AMERICAN OR GO WITHOUT!

    BTW, In MEXICO and Other Countries, they are using human sludge also known as the stuff you flush down your toilets on their plants. Enjoy your imported produce. It wasn’t that long ago in Asheville North Carolina that people got Hepatitis from eating chives that hadn’t had all of the human waste washed off of it at a local restaurant. I mentioned that before last year. http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/n ... a-vital-to
    I stay current on Americans for Legal Immigration PAC's fight to Secure Our Border and Send Illegals Home via E-mail Alerts (CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •