Council landmark is being recognised.
A pioneering move by Birmingham City Council 50 years ago transformed dental health across the city, dramatically reducing the levels of tooth decay among children.
And delegates at a conference to mark 50 years of water fluoridation heard how the benefits of the 1964 decision are still being felt throughout Birmingham.
Opening the event, Council leader Sir Albert Bore told Health professionals, academics, dental students and politicians: “The introduction of water fluoridation in Birmingham helped transform children’s dental health. Of all the major cities in Britain, Birmingham led the way. Successive generations of children have been the main beneficiaries.”
Following the pioneering decision, the dental benefits for the city were significant. Figures from the Birmingham community dental health services showed that between 1965 and 1981 extractions of deciduous (first) teeth in children aged under 15 dropped from 35,000 to just over 9,000, and extractions of permanent teeth fell from around 11,000 to 3,500.
Over the same period, general anaesthetics for tooth extractions in under-15s fell from 18,000 to 2,000, whilst emergency dental visits because of bad toothache dropped from around 10,250 to 1,500.
A study reported in the British Dental Journal in 1971 found that in the six years following the start of fluoridation in 1964 tooth decay levels among children in the fluoridated Birmingham suburb of Northfield dropped by 46%, compared with a fall of just 2% over the same period among children in (then) non-fluoridated Dudley. In 1986, Dudley introduced a fluoridation scheme of its own.
Echoing Sir Albert’s comments, Birmingham cabinet member for health and wellbeing Councillor John Cotton said that as the first major city in Britain to introduce a water fluoridation scheme, Birmingham was rightly proud of its pioneering role in this important field of public health.
Director of Public Health Dr Adrian Phillips added: “Water fluoridation has been shown to be a safe and effective way of tackling the burden of tooth decay. The evidence suggests that it benefits socially deprived children the most and thus reduces health inequalities.”
Professor Rod Griffiths, a former President of the Faculty of Public Health of the Royal Colleges of Physicians, said: “As West Midlands regional director of public health from 1992 to 2004, I was satisfied that water fluoridation did not cause harm and that, on the contrary, it went a long way towards giving poor kids rich kids’ teeth.”
Recent surveys of children’s oral health across English local authorities have found that:
5-year-olds in fluoridated Birmingham have, on average, 34% fewer teeth affected by decay than those in non-fluoridated Manchester;
2-year-olds in fluoridated Birmingham have around 42% fewer teeth affected by decay than those in non-fluoridated Manchester.
Children aged 0 to 19 in the mainly non-fluoridated North West of England are also reported to be several times more likely to have decayed teeth extracted under a general anaesthetic in hospital than those in the mainly fluoridated West Midlands.
Professor Damien Walmsley, professor of restorative dentistry at the University of Birmingham Dental School and scientific adviser to the British Dental Association, stressed that fluoridation had saved many thousands of teeth from having to be filled or extracted. He added: “It has changed the face of dentistry in this city.”
Birmingham dental practitioner and secretary of Birmingham Local Dental Committee Eddie Crouch commented: “Dentists who are practising in Birmingham today can only imagine the levels of tooth decay they would have encountered over the past 50 years if the City Council had not backed water fluoridation. It really makes a difference.”
What a load of onesided corporate propaganda with no attempt to indicate existence of alternative viewpoints.
“between 1965 and 1981 extractions of deciduous (first) teeth in children aged under 15 dropped from 35,000 to just over 9,000, and extractions of permanent teeth fell from around 11,000 to 3,500.”
“Over the same period, general anaesthetics for tooth extractions in under-15s fell from 18,000 to 2,000, whilst emergency dental visits because of bad toothache dropped from around 10,250 to 1,500.”
But why did you fail to mention that the worldwide data shows that equally great decreases occurred in non-fluoridated areas as well. Half of the truth is no better than a lie. And the dental lobby is very good at telling mega-porkies, see here: http://www.tinyurl.com/dentmerc .
“A study reported in the British Dental Journal in 1971 found that in the six years following the start of fluoridation in 1964 tooth decay levels among children in the fluoridated Birmingham suburb of Northfield dropped by 46%,….”
Again, that is just cherry-picking some evidence that’s convenient and pretending away the tons of study from around the world on this question and which fails to support the safety or effectiveness of this fascistic mass-medication. Another dental industry half-truth aka lie.
It is a criminal breach of drugs legislation to supply an unlicensed pharmaceutical. It is a criminal breach of water regs to supply water which has been shown to be harmful (by many studies rather than just local cherrypicking). It is a violation of the human right to not be mass-medicated. It appears that Sir Albert supports these criminal offences and this violation of basic right to decent water supply.
There is plenty of accurate non-propaganda available from for instance http://fluoridealert.org/ and http://fluoride.mercola.com/
It would be great if the council did something useful and honest for once and ridded Birmingham of this fascistic mass-pseudomedication and gave us pure unpolluted water instead. Though unfortunately they couldn’t claim to be pioneers as many other cities and countries have already rejected this scam into the bin of pseudoscience where it belongs.
Senior dental academics and public health professionals were hard-sold fluoridation during a visit to the USA in the mid 1950s. US public health commissioners at the time, some sponsored or otherwise beholden to The Aluminium Company of America (Alamcan) and the Sugar Institute (Buhl) Foundation, saw fluoridation as a way to get rid of a serious toxic nuisance without being sued for water pollution. Marketing was, after all, invented in the USA.
These worthy Britons were taken in, trialed fluoridation in the UK and introduced it in Birmingham and rather half-heartedly on Tyneside. They encouraged the introduction of fluoride at huge concentrations into toothpaste and other dental toiletries.
A systematic scientific review of fluoridation in 2000 by the NHS Centre for Research and Dissemination found, broadly, that fluoridation of water did about as much harm to teeth as good. Government spokesmen expressed themselves as disappointed with this result, but still judged the policy worth while.
Several serious flaws in the research base to that date were highlighted in the review for future attention. One, the distinction between natural and artificial water fluoridation, was tackled by the University of Newcastle in such an incompetent way that this author felt obliged to accuse the group concerned of scientific mismanagement. No satisfactory answers were received to the detailed questions raised.
Meanwhile data from the UK Diet and Nutrition Study of the same period, covering urinary fluoride output and water fluoride content in 1400 individuals, showed that in fluoridated areas most citizens are (thanks presumably to fluoride from other sources) consuming more fluoride than the UK public health authorities suggest is safe.
The history of fluoridation in Britain is nearly over. It will end with the careers of those senior officials and academics who nailed the fluoridation banner to their masts 50 years ago, and now dare not admit an error. They were party to the 2000 review, and they know that no further fluoridation schemes will be introduced in this country.
Whilst alert for rearguard actions, I am content to minimise my own fluoride consumption – which is easily done – and allow those who were misled, and then misled us all, to retire from the scene with a little dignity.