Addressing the arguments

doi:10.1136/bmj.39374.421100.BE

BMJ 2007;335:841 (27 October), doi:10.1136/bmj.39374.421100.BE

Letters

Fluoridation

Addressing the arguments

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Cheng et al¹ are well placed to sound cautionary notes aboutfluoridation as two of the authors were involved in the onlyscientifically defensible assessment of the evidence so far.²I also served on the advisory panel to the York review, aftertwo years of parliamentary questioning of the rationale forfluoridation.

It is depressing then to see restatements of old positions,instead of engagement with their arguments. After 60 years weare still not clear about fluoridation's benefits, even lessclear about harms, and least clear about reductions in dentalhealth inequalities. York and the Medical Research Council³are not the only bodies to outline areas of needed research.Yet while government accepts this, fluoridation continues, newschemes are encouraged, and in the seven years since York onesmall and inconclusive study has been funded.⁴ This looks morelike lip service than commitment to good science. Can promotersof . . . [Full text of this article]