Archive | Science RSS feed for this section

Pakistan fends off cultivation of GM corn: Jan. – May 2019

30 May

 JANUARY

The News reported that the Pakistan Agriculture Research Council (PARC) called a meeting of Variety Evaluation Committee (VAC) to seek approval for the commercial farming of genetically modified corn varieties developed by multinational seed companies.

The Federal Minister for National Food Security Sahibzada Mehboob Sultan asked for a cancellation of meeting, saying that this was due to the request of Faisalabad Agriculture University as its team was not ready to show up.

Some stakeholders in the seed business strongly opposed the introduction of genetically modified corn’s commercial cultivation for several reasons:

  • it would increase the cost of farming for farmers due to high royalty fees,
  • it would lead to contamination of local germplasm, particularly in maize, which is a wind pollinated crop,
  • it would have an adverse effect on the investment in locally developed hybrid varieties and discourage local production and research and development in seed business and
  • Pakistan would not be able to export GM products to a wide range of GM-free regions and countries.

They said Pakistan’s per hectare production of corn was already showing an upward trend and with five tons per hectare output of corn hybrids, Pakistan was already ahead of several countries that allowed genetically modified corn. “We are sufficiently meeting our needs of corn through local production and there is no need to experiment with genetically modified organisms, which have several proven issues,” sources said.

FEBRUARY

The Technology Times reported that Pakistan Kissan Mazdoor Tehreek (PKMT) – an alliance of small and landless farmers including women farmers – fully support the position of the Ministry of National Food Security & Research which has distanced itself from going ahead with approval of genetically modified maize in Pakistan by intervening to cancel the VAV meeting in January. PKMT reiterates their demand for a moratorium on genetically modified seeds and foods in the country as it violates farmers’ collective rights to seed.

They stress that the recent lawsuit against Monsanto won by a USA citizen suffering from cancer due to the company’s herbicide Roundup Ready clearly shows the critical health hazard to Pakistani famers who will be forced to use the herbicide along with GM seeds and add that in India, Monsanto’s Bt Cotton has failed drastically; and the story is no different in Pakistan.

For many years, they add, ‘the company’ (Monsanto?) has been lobbying for commercial use of GM maize; which – if approved – will cross-pollinate and rapidly destroy the local maize seed varieties.  Pakistan’s per hectare production of maize was already showing an upward trend that is already ahead of many countries that are using genetically modified maize.

The News reports that – despite strong opposition from farmers, local seed companies, officials and experts of agriculture – multinational companies have increased efforts to get genetically modified (GM) maize registered at the Variety Evaluation Committee (VEC) and start its production in the country.

MARCH

In order to create awareness among journalists about science-related communication, the Lahore chapter of Pakistan Biotechnology Information Center and The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) organised a one-day workshop at the Forman Christian College University (FCCU) Lahore on March 3, 2019.

Pakistan Today reports that, during the workshop, Malaysian Biotechnology Information Center (MABIC) Executive Director Dr Mahaletchumy Arujanan gave a brief presentation on biotechnology, Genetic Modification (GM) Technology and the industrial challenges.

FCCU Dean of Postgraduate studies Dr Kauser A Malik told the audience of science writers and journalists that they could play an important role in informing the public about scientific and technological developments by bridging the gap between the common person and scientist, ensuring the ‘formulation of appropriate government policies conducive to the development of science in the country’.

APRIL

Business Recorder published an interview in two parts with a team from CropLife Pakistan Association, an association of multi-national biotech firms working on seed technology in the country, currently advocating the introduction of Genetically Modified seeds, specifically GM maize. Part 1 – focussing on developing an understanding of the science behind GMOs – may be read here. A few days later the second part was published, focussing on the environmental safety and regulatory aspects.

MAY

Representatives of seed companies warned that Pakistan will not be able to export its products to many regions and countries in Europe and Africa. A case in point follows:

Bulgaria, which told the European Union in 2015 that it was to ban the cultivation of crops with genetically modified organisms (GMOs), attended the second meeting of Pakistan-Bulgaria Inter-Ministerial Commission. On Monday 20th May, the Bulgarian Minister for Economy, Liliya Ivanove Ivanove, stated that Bulgaria is looking forward to extensive cooperation in the field of agriculture including sustainable imports of cotton and rice from Pakistan.

But USDA is undeterred: Dawn reports that the Foreign Agricultural Service of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) said future collaborative projects between the US and Pakistan include using American GM soybean feed in poultry, fish farming and dairy industries, introducing genetically-engineered maize and working with various government departments to develop uniform food safety standards.

 

 

 

o

 

Advertisements

Pesticide use: the tide appears to be turning

14 May

Bayer, the German company which bought the US agrochemical firm Monsanto, acquired its lucrative portfolio of pesticides and genetically modified seeds – and more than 13,000 pending cases relating to glyphosate sold under the brand name Roundup. At its annual meeting in Bonn last month, in an unprecedented revolt, more than 55% of shareholders declared they had no confidence in management. The ongoing fall in its share prices has accelerated. (Reuters 14.5.19).

Prof. Ian Boyd, chief scientific adviser to the UK government points out that regulators around the world have falsely assumed it is safe to use pesticides at industrial scales across landscapes, that other research in 2017 showed farmers could slash their pesticide use without losses and quoted a UNGA report denouncing the “myth” that pesticides are necessary to feed the world.

Recent reports in the BMJ, the International Journal of Epidemiology and the European Food Safety Authority, add weight to Professor Boyd’s stance

Prenatal and infant exposure to ambient pesticides and autism spectrum disorder in children: population based case-control study, BMJ, 20 March 2019 (open access) notes that common pesticides have been previously shown to cause neurodevelopmental impairment in experimental research and environmental exposures during early brain development are suspected to increase risk of autism spectrum disorders in children. The study’s findings suggest that an offspring’s risk of autism spectrum disorder increases following prenatal exposure to ambient pesticides (including glyphosate, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and permethrin) within 2000 m of their mother’s residence during pregnancy, compared with offspring of women from the same agricultural region without such exposure. Infant exposure could further increase risks for autism spectrum disorder with comorbid intellectual disability.

• In February, researchers at the University of Washington (UW) published a new scientific analysis of glyphosate (PDF) (right), the active ingredient in Monsanto-owned Bayer’s Roundup, the world’s most popular weedkiller. They concluded that evidence supports a “compelling link” between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), a type of blood cancer.
• Glyphosate exposure increases cancer risk up to 41% according to a study published in the IInternational Journal of Epidemiology (March). Observations in this analysis of >300 000 farmers and agricultural workers from France, Norway, and the USA, included elevations in risks of non-Hodgkin lymphoid malignancies (NHL) overall in association with the organophosphate insecticide terbufos, of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) with the pyrethroid insecticide deltamethrin and of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with the organophosphorus herbicide glyphosate.

• More transparency sought: an EU court ruled on 7 March that the EU Food Safety Authority (EFSA) should publicise studies about Monsanto’s glyphosate weedkiller. The General Court’s statement said that it annulled decisions by the EU food watch agency “refusing access to the toxicity and carcinogenicity studies on the active substance glyphosate”.

• On March 29th – after safety officials reported human health and environmental concerns – EU states voted for a ban of chlorothalonil, a fungicide, after a review by the European Food Safety Authority was unable to exclude the possibility its breakdown products, cause damage to DNA. EFSA also said “a high risk to amphibians and fish was identified for all representative uses”. Recent research further identified chlorothalonil and other fungicides as the strongest factor linked to steep declines in bumblebees.

Reuters reports that a California jury found on Monday that Monsanto’s Roundup likely caused a couple’s cancer and awarded them a staggering $2.055 billion in damages, in a third consecutive Roundup trial loss for the Bayer-owned unit. In one trial last August, a US court in California awarded damages and costs against Monsanto to 46-year-old park worker Dewayne Johnson, who was diagnosed with cancer after using the chemical.

But there’s still way to go; Monsanto – apparently undaunted – offers another  product, said to have less damage potential

Monsanto is reformulating its dicamba pesticide which tended to drift and earlier damaged millions of acres of crops and wild trees in 2017.

Farmers in 25 states had submitted more than 2,700 claims to state agricultural agencies that year and it was banned in the state of Arkansas last year, where almost 900,000 acres of crop damage (above) were reported. Monsanto unsuccessfully sued the state in an effort to stop the ban.

A lower volatility formulation, M1768, ‘a product with less potential to volatilize and move off the target area’ has been approved by the EPA for use until 2020 – on corn, wheat, cotton, soybeans and other crops – though it has not been evaluated by experts independent of Monsanto. It was obliged by the American government’s Environmental Protection Agency to agree to registration and labelling changes for the 2018 growing season, including making these products restricted-use and requiring record-keeping and additional measures to prevent spray drift.

 

 

 

o

MMR: why not allow the single vaccine option, in use elsewhere and widely accepted in ‘60s & ‘70s Britain?

30 Apr

 

As Dr Michael Jarmulowicz (FRCPath, MBBS) wrote in the BMJ:

“What I find puzzling is the adamant refusal of the authorities to facilitate the availability of the single measles vaccine, to the point that the Department of Health has banned its use within the NHS. How does this fit with the growing acceptance of patient autonomy and patient
choice? . . .

“Other countries with equivalent medical and ethical standards make them freely available.”

Other countries with equivalent medical and ethical standards do indeed make single vaccines freely available – indeed, Japan, a country with an excellent child health record, completely stopped using the MMR vaccine in 1993 after 1.8 million children had been given two types of MMR and a record number developed non-viral meningitis and other adverse reactions

The Merck measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine is a mixture of live weakened viruses of the three diseases. The first dose is generally given to children around 9 to 15 months of age and a second dose at 15 months to 6 years of age, with at least 4 weeks between the doses, according to PubMed (US government document – though the country’s National Center for Biotechnology Information (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) states that the vaccine is only licensed for use in children who are 12 months old.

The scientific argument for immunising infants against measles is to establish a good herd immunity, protecting unvaccinated babies, children and adults who could not be given the vaccination.

Doctors and parents are urged to acquire and carefully read the information leaflets relating to whatever vaccine they are considering and an online search of medical journals finds material which would make a thoughtful parent pause before agreeing to have their baby injected with the MMR vaccine.

The World Health Organisation (a UN affiliated body) reports that Live Attenuated Vaccines (LAVs) raise some general safety and stability concerns and lists six. A snapshot of the measles section follows:

Mass measles immunization campaigns – reporting and investigating adverse events following Immunization – notes that seizure risk is age-dependent, and lower for children over six years, who are unlikely to have febrile seizures. Allergies (especially to gelatine) and general illhealth is a contraindication to vaccination with MMR vaccine.

The most common programme error is an infection as a result of non-sterile injection. The infection can manifest as a local reaction (e.g., suppuration, abscess), systemic effect (e.g., sepsis or toxic shock syndrome), or blood-borne virus infection (e.g., HIV, hepatitis B).

Establishing a profitable monopoly

In the U.S. more than a million dollars has been paid in compensation over the last ten years to parents alleging their children were harmed by the MMR jab, Merck and Co USA. Despite this, the manufacturers of Mumpsvax (Jeryl Lynn strain) announced in January 2010 that it would no longer provide mumps vaccines as single doses. The single dose rubella vaccine has also been halted. Single measles vaccines and a combined measles/rubella vaccine are still available.

Prolonged legal action in its tenth year against Merck, the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine.

The Wall St Journal and many other news outlets have reported that Stephen A. Krahling and Joan A. Wlochowski, former Merck virologists, filed a lawsuit in 2010, accusing the drug maker of falsifying data about its mumps vaccine. The case has not yet been settled nine years later and the virologists complain that the company is not making some documents available to the court.

Single vaccines are used privately in Britain

Although separate vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella are now unlicensed in Britain, it is not illegal for doctors and clinics to import the vaccines as long as they inform the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) that they are bringing the vaccine into the country.

Dr Richard Halvorsen, a GP with over 20 years’ experience and the author of OK Vaccines: Making the Right Choice for Your Child (2017), has written widely on the subject. He runs an immunisation service in Britain that offers parents a choice of buying single and small combination vaccines which includes the single measles and measles/rubella vaccines.

Should not all parents have the right to request the single vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella under the NHS system?

 

 

 

o

Is Cornell’s Alliance for Science ‘brainwashing Indian scientists, farmers, decision-makers’ or ‘captivating the world’?

13 Apr

o

A Cambridge reader has drawn attention to the activities of the Cornell Alliance for Science, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It was set up in 2014 todepolarize the charged debatearound genetically modified foods (GMOs) by adding “a stronger voice for science”.

https://blogs.cornell.edu/onehealth/2017/09/15/gates-grant-seeds-cornell-alliance-for-science-10m-campaign/

To this end Rob Horsch, who worked for Monsanto for 25 years before moving to the Gates Foundation, was appointed as Deputy Director of the Cornell Alliance.

For four years he led the foundation’s agricultural research and development strategies which are said to have relentlessly promoted the use of GMOs and agrichemicals in Africa despite the opposition of Africa-based groups and social movements, who have voiced many concerns about genetically engineered crops. Assisting them in this work are 24 of their 27 ‘2018 Global Partners’ from African countries. Has Africa even greater cause for concern?

Strengthening public relations – aka propaganda?

Mr Horsch has been succeeded by Vanessa Greenlee who has a master’s degree in curriculum and instruction. She ‘ensures team coordination to reach organizational goals’ and has ‘a passion for finding consensus through conflict’.

U.S. Right to Know, a nonprofit public interest, consumer and public health research group working for transparency and accountability in the nation’s food system, describes the Cornell Alliance for Science as a public relations campaign to promote genetically engineered foods and pesticides. The examples in their fact sheet show that the group:

  • misleads the public with inaccurate information about science;
  • elevates unreliable messengers who make false and unscientific claims; and,
  • partners with front groups that have worked with the tobacco industry or chemical industries to manufacture doubt about science that raises health concerns.

Shaping India’s agricultural future 

The India-based Cornell Sathguru Foundation for Development, established in 1994, is said to promote access to scientific innovation as a means of enhancing food security, improving environmental sustainability and raising the quality of life globally. A search, however, reveals little reward for its efforts.

One of the few entries found relates to a course funded by the US Department for Agriculture involving American and India students. No publications were reported during this period and the outcome was that Cornell was seeking funds to continue this work. Its genetic modification proposals have not been successful, apart from India’s now failing Bt Cotton sector.

On April 8th 2019, Joan Conrow, the managing editor of the Cornell Alliance for Science, published an article – Shaping India’s agricultural future – about a course held in February featuring ‘international and Indian experts in gene editing, science communications and the regulatory framework that governs the technology in India’. Matthew Willmann, director of Cornell’s Plant Transformation Facility, lectured on the latest advances in plant gene editing, often called CRISPR.

Dr Sarah Evanega, director of the Cornell Alliance for Science, who moderated the subsequent discussion, said hopefully “It was extremely rewarding to participate in an informed, civil conversation about a controversial topic that has captivated the world. India is clearly preparing to take its rightful place on the world stage of agricultural innovation.”

Genetic modification of agricultural seeds isn’t in the interest of the planet or its inhabitants”

This reflection preceded many points raised in Dr. David Perlmutters dialogue with Dr Evanaga last year. A few are summarised here:

  • Genetically modified (GM) crops are associated with an increased use of chemicals, like glyphosate, that are toxic to the environment and to humans. These chemicals not only contaminate our food and water supplies, but they also compromise soil quality and are actually associated with increased disease susceptibility in crops.
  • This ultimately leads to an increase in the use of pesticides and further disrupts ecosystems. And yet, despite these drawbacks, we haven’t seen increased yield potential of GM crops, although that has always been one of the promises of GM seeds.
  • The various toxic herbicides that are liberally applied to GM crops are having a devastating effect. In terms of the nutritional quality of conventional versus GM food, it’s important to understand that mineral content is, to a significant degree, dependent on the various soil-based microorganisms. When the soil is treated with glyphosate, as is so often the case with GM crops, it deprives the plant of its mineral absorption ability.
  • Whenever harmful chemicals like glyphosate are introduced into an ecosystem, this disrupts the natural processes that keep our environment healthy.
  • The USDA Pesticide Data Program reported in 2015 that 85% of crops had pesticide residues. These chemicals are also contaminating the supplies for other organisms in the surrounding environment.
  • GM seeds now account for more than 50% of global glyphosate usage.
  • These chemicals are harming the soil. the various organisms living in the soil act to protect plants and make them more disease resistant. Destroying these protective organisms with the use of these chemicals weakens the plants’ natural defence mechanisms and, therefore, will require the use of even more pesticides and other chemicals

Dr Perlmutter ends by saying that the argument that we need GMO food to feed the entire world population is absurd. GM crops have actually not increased the yield of any major commercialized food source (link leads to the report on the right) and concludes that traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering ‘hands down’. In fact, soy — the most widely grown genetically modified crop — has actually experienced reduced yields. The promise of increased yield potentials with GM crops is one that we have not realized.

 

 

 

 

o

Report research results separately to ensure new medicines are safe and effective for both sexes

19 Mar

“Women are not small men,” said Jeanine Roeters van Lennep. of the Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam (right):

“There are biological differences in hormones and body composition. Women have smaller kidneys so it’s more difficult to clear medication. They have a different fat and water composition.”

A study published in February showed that trials were more likely to report results for women separately if they had a female lead author, with only one in three papers reporting results separately. The Lancet, which published that research, is one of the few major journals that tell researchers to analyse separately.

Research on drugs withdrawn from the market published by the United States General Accounting Office found that eight out of ten drugs withdrawn from the market between 1997 and 2001, after approval in the US, turned out to have higher health risks for women.

One example was Posicor, which was approved for the treatment of hypertension and angina and slowed or stopped the heart rate in otherwise healthy people, especially elderly women, and interacted with 26 different drugs.

Cholesterol-lowering statins are Britain’s most commonly prescribed medicine but in 45 trials Dr van Lennep analysed, 82% of those studied were men and only five trials made data available on men and women separately. This meant that there was not enough data to show statins prevented heart attacks, strokes and deaths in women with an acceptable number of side-effects, unlike for men.

She said it was probable that statins did work for women, with previous studies suggesting a similar benefit for both sexes, and is not advising women prescribed them to stop. However, she argues, doctors cannot be certain because of sexism which is largely unconscious:

“It’s shocking. Men forget to do sex-specific analysis, to be really polite about it. If 50% of the population is female you can’t just say it’s an optional extra. It’s a blind spot because right now the triallists are generally men. I don’t think it’s malice that they don’t want to perform this analysis; they just really don’t think about it . . . We think journals should make it compulsory to report results for men and women separately.”

A Times article summarises the problem: doctors argue that an absence of women in clinical trials and failure to report results by sex have resulted in an evidence gap that is likely to be hampering treatment. They insist that medical journals should force researchers to report results for men and women separately to be sure that new medicines are safe and effective for both sexes.

 

 

 

o

Mass-medication 3: is compulsory fortification of all flour with folic acid imminent?

17 Oct

The Guardian reports that senior government sources say compulsory fortification of all flour with folic acid will be introduced within weeks.  

Theresa May, who was opposed to the measure, has been persuaded to back a plan to add folate supplement to food after a campaign to reduce the number of babies born in the UK with the neural tube defect (NTD). The Independent adds that the Department of Health and Social Care said the proposal is still being considered.

Two years ago, when the second reading of the above bill was debated, Lord Prior quoted from a report by the UK government’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN):

“The fortification of white bread flour with folic acid should be introduced only if it is accompanied by a number of preconditions: for example, action to reduce folic acid intakes from voluntary fortified foods, to ensure that individuals do not substantially exceed their safe maximum daily intake of folic acid . . . It also told us that there is inconclusive evidence on several possible adverse health effects of the mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid. For example, for people aged 65 and over, folate fortification of flour may result in cases of vitamin B12 deficiency not being diagnosed and treated”.

Clinical Education reports that Dr Edward Reynolds from King’s College, London has researched this matter, reviewing the literature from the 1940’s. He maintains that the recommended current upper limit of folate -1 mg – is too high.

In the 2016 debate, however, Lord Prior said the dangers of over-medication are small: “The issue is one of balancing the scientific and medical arguments with issues around choice and whether or not it is right to medicate the entire population for the benefit of a fairly small part of it”.

All women are recommended by the NHS to take a daily supplement of 400 micrograms of folic acid while they’re trying to get pregnant and during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, when the baby’s spine is developing. The BDA asserts that very few women take this advice and according to research published in a 2015 paper in the British Medical Journal, the prevalence of NTD pregnancies was 1.28 per 1000 total births.

A reader comments on the Independent article: “70 million people to be mass-medicated for the sake of 1000 women… well that makes sense doesn’t it?”

 

 

 

o

Mass-medication 2: the prevention element – a potential revenue stream?

23 Sep

As Andrew Miles, senior UK vice-president of GlaxoSmithKline observed cryptically in the Financial Times recently, “As much as people might think that the prevention element may not be a revenue stream for the company, it provides phenomenal insights.”

In July, the journal Science Translational Medicine published a report of the trial at Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research in Massachusetts into a treatment, administered as two daily pills. A Times article noted that it was found to cut the number of infections in older people. Stephen Evans, the professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said that the study was only an incremental improvement on the treatments already available and there are unanswered questions about the possible side-effects of the drugs.

Mass medication is an iatrogenic catastrophe

In June, this view was expressed in a BMJ article by James Le Fanu, retired GP and journalist. He wrote that ‘profligate’ prescribing has brought a hidden epidemic of side effects and no benefit to most individuals. There is no drug or procedure with its “chance of good” that may not harm some. The more doctors do, the greater that risk. Over the past 20 years there has been:

  • a dizzying fourfold rise in prescriptions for diabetes treatments,
  • sevenfold for antihypertensives,
  • and 20-fold for the cholesterol lowering statins.
  • Meanwhile the number of people taking five or more different drugs has quadrupled to include almost half of those aged 65 or over.

He continues: “The consequences of this massive upswing in prescribing? A hidden epidemic of immiserating symptoms such as fatigue, muscular aches and pains, insomnia, and general decrepitude, a 75% rise in emergency admissions to hospital for adverse drug reactions (an additional 30 000 a year) …

Proposals have been made in the past for mass or even universal medication by aspirin and statins

The NHS now concludes that the risk of side effects (particularly the risk of bleeding) outweighs the benefit of preventing blood clots. It has long been known that the pills carry a risk of gastro-intestinal bleeding. But a new University of Oxford study, published in The Lancet, suggests that the danger increases far more sharply with age than was thought, according to Professor Peter Rothwell, lead author. A Telegraph artlcle reports on his 2017 findings, adding that taking a daily aspirin is more dangerous than was thought, causing more than 3,000 deaths a year.

Britain is already the “statins capital” of Europe

The UK has the second highest prescribing levels in the Western world, with aggressive prescribing of the medication by GPs, whose pay is linked to take-up of the pills.

In 2014 it was reported that twelve million people (one in four adults) would be told to take statins under controversial new NHS guidelines. Draft proposals from health watchdogs were that the vast majority of men aged over 50 and most women over the age of 60 are likely to be advised to take the drugs to guard against strokes and heart disease. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) had cut the “risk threshold” for such drugs in half and experts said that the number of patients advised to take the drugs is likely to rise from seven million to 12 million.

And current medical guidance says that anyone with a 20% risk of developing cardiovascular disease within 10 years should be offered statins.

Almost all men over 60 and all women over 75 in England qualify for statin prescriptions under guidelines adopted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in 2014, a 2017analysis shows – see BMJ.

However, some health experts have questioned the industry forces behind these studies. The first recommendation was put out in 2013 by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA).  CNN reports that a number of experts who worked on the ACC/AHA guidelines had financial links to drug companies, which they disclosed publicly. No conflicts of interests were reported by the authors of the United States Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, but nearly all of the trials they included in their analysis were sponsored by industry, according to Dr Rita Redberg, who stressed this point in a January 2017 editorial in the journal she oversees. “The ACC did not follow its own conflict of interest guidelines“..

Fluoridation – or any practice that uses the public water supply as a vehicle to deliver medicine – violates medical ethics in several important ways:

  • It deprives the individual of his or her right to informed consent to medication.
  • It is approved and delivered by people without medical qualifications.
  • It is delivered to everyone regardless of age, health or nutritional status, without individual oversight by a doctor and without control of dose.
  • The safety of fluoridated water has never been demonstrated by randomized controlled trials–the gold standard study now generally required before a drug can enter the market.

Fluoridating water is a form of mass medication and most western European nations have rejected the practice — because, in their view, the public water supply is not an appropriate place to be adding drugs.

Who profits from all these instances of largescale medication?

 

 

 

o

 

 

o