Communities throughout Canada and the US add fluoride to their
drinking water supplies to prevent dental cavities. As we've
before, some opponents claim that the risk of adverse health
effects outweighs the public health benefits of fluoridation. A
recent report by the U.S. Public Health Service (US
PHS) recommends an optimum fluoride
concentration at the low end of the previously recommended range in
order to reduce dental fluorosis. They did not find a link between
fluoridation and any other adverse health impacts.
The US PHS recommended that the concentration of fluoride
should be decreased to 0.7 mg/L. Health Canada's Fluoride
Expert Panel also recommended a 0.7 mg/L fluoride
concentration in its 2008 report. Both found that at this
concentration the risk of fluorosis – mottling of the tooth enamel
– would be limited while still providing protection from
cavities. The previous 1962 US PHS guidelines recommended a
range between 0.7 mg/L and 1.2 mg/L, depending on the outdoor air
The change is based on new data showing:
an increased prevalence of dental fluorosis in the US;
there is no connection between children's water intake
and outdoor air temperature; and
the contribution of fluoride in drinking water to total
The US PHS reviewed public comments raising concerns about
the impact of fluoridation on bone fractures and skeletal
fluorosis, carcinogenity, IQ and other neurological effects,
endocrine disruption and other issues. For most concerns, it
found that there was no evidence of a connection. For other
concerns, such as the risk of skeletal fluorosis, it found that 0.7
mg/L was well below the concentration that could cause an adverse
Although the US PHA has recommended a reduction, opponents of
fluoridation are unlikely to find much support for their cause in
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
There is often debate during negotiations for joint venture and services agreements about the scope of the exclusion clause. Should liability include or be limited to "gross negligence", "wilful misconduct", or both? In addition to the differing levels of immunity that can be chosen, the parties can manage the likelihood of protracted litigation by clearly defining the chosen liability firewall. Through the use of contractual definitions for these terms, liability clauses provide a mechanism to
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).