by Brandon Turbeville

February 2011

from ActivistPost Website









Part 1

February 3, 2011






In a previous article, I wrote about the global implications of Codex Alimentarius.


I discussed in some detail the oppressive standards recommended by BfR (German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment - Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung), which have largely been included in the Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements.


However, there is one more provision included in the risk assessment process that even many critics of Codex are unaware of. This is the goal to not only treat nutrients as toxins, but treat toxins as nutrients.

At first, this is not readily apparent. A closer look at the risk assessment provided by BfR provides one with a glimmer of what might one day be a completely Orwellian policy toward vitamins, minerals, and toxins.

The fact that researchers have the audacity to claim that vital minerals like Iron should not be consumed in measurements above 0 mg is disturbing enough. However, there is one more substance added to the findings and, more alarmingly, listed as a mineral that should be just as frightening. That substance is the very toxic chemical known as fluoride.[1]

This chemical poison is listed only in the “moderately high-risk” level of risk categories.[2]


Yet the reality is that fluoride is a very dangerous chemical with serious risks of harm to both health and the environment. In truth, there are actually two different forms of what is called fluoride - calcium fluoride and sodium fluoride.

Calcium fluoride appears naturally and is confined, for the most part, to underground water sources and, in some instances, seawater. [3] In this form it is relatively benign, but prolonged exposure has been linked to skeletal and dental fluorosis. [4]

However, sodium fluoride, the form of fluoride that is added to most municipal water supplies, food, and drink, is a very dangerous and toxic chemical.


It does not occur naturally and is not even one distinct substance. Rather, it is a conglomeration of many different chemicals that is given the name of sodium fluoride and paraded as a health benefit. It is essentially a mix of waste products from the nuclear, aluminum, and fertilizer industries.


It is also used for rat poison and pesticides.[5]

The results of having water supplies contaminated with fluoride reads like a laundry list of health problems:

  • cancer

  • genetic DNA damage

  • obesity

  • thyroid disruption

  • reduced IQ

  • lethargy

  • chronic fatigue

  • inability to focus

  • Alzheimer’s disease

  • accelerated aging

  • sleep disruption

  • brain disorders

  • calcification of the pineal gland, etc.

Interestingly enough, sodium fluoride also causes dental fluorosis, a yellowing and hardening of the teeth that causes teeth to break and wear down.


This is quite ironic considering that the ADA promotes fluoride as an additive that prevents decay and promotes healthy teeth.[6]

The distinction in BfR’s results between calcium fluoride and sodium fluoride is not readily made and, as is so often the case, the devil is in the details. Throughout the published study, all forms of fluoride are constantly referred to simply as "fluoride" with no delineation as to which form is being discussed, except by contextualization and observation.

Occasionally, a specific form will be mentioned but, for the most part, the umbrella term “fluoride” is sufficient for the purpose of these researchers. This is how the toxin comes to be classified as a mineral and henceforth a nutrient.

This is also where the nutrient group methodology comes into play. Sodium fluoride could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered to be a mineral or nutrient on its own. However, by using the nutrient group approach, which lumps all forms of the substance tested into one category, it slips under the radar.[7]

Indeed, in the section which discusses the sources of fluoride intake BfR states,

“Fluoride is taken up from solid foods, drinking water, mineral water, black tea, fluoride-containing toothpaste, dental care products, fluoridised table salt and, eventually, from fluoride-containing medicinal products.” [8]

There is clearly no distinction here between the different forms of fluoride.

For example, the form of fluoride contained in mineral water (unless sodium fluoride was added) is calcium fluoride, while the fluoride contained in toothpaste is sodium fluoride. Yet there is no distinction given between the two.


While BfR does admit potential danger in the use of fluoride, by using the nutrient group approach fluoride is still categorized as a nutrient, thus allowing one foot through the door.

BfR is obviously aware of at least some dangers of fluoride, such as dental and skeletal fluorosis, as well as the more serious health problems. The report states,

“There are reports of acute fluoride intoxications in people caused by accidents, attempted suicide, or erroneous fluoridation of drinking water. The symptoms are nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea, heavy salivation, cardiac arrest, cramps and coma.


Severe hypocalcaemias were observed. An amount of 5-10 g fluoride has been calculated as the ‘certainly lethal dose’ = CLD for adults.” [9]

Bad as they are, these conditions are only a few of the adverse effects related to fluoride.


It would seem logical then to place very high restrictions on the amounts of fluoride meant for consumption and subsequently a recommendation for zero intake. Yet BfR comes to a startling and self-contradicting conclusion.

Even after discussing the dangers of fluoride throughout the study, as well as the fact that it is present in many drinking water supplies in the world (especially the United States), “medicinal” products, and other sources, the same strict standards of risk assessment and the Global Expectable Average Daily Diet evidently do not apply.


If they were, then Americans would probably be in the red in terms of dietary intake of fluoride.

BfR admits,

“This leaves no scope for a safe maximum dose of fluoride in food supplements. BfR believes that a maximum dose for fluoride of zero in food supplements is the only safe management option.”[10]

Yet in its final analysis, it determines that the Recommended Daily Intake be established at 3.8/3.1 (m/f) for adults and 3.2/2.9 (m/f) for children.[11]


So while limits are set on the amount of fluoride in food supplements, it is still concluded that individuals need a certain amount of fluoride in their diet and toxic fluoride is still considered a nutrient.




[1] “ Use of Vitamins in Foods: Toxicological and nutritional-physiological aspects,”Domke, A., Grosklaus R., Niemann B., Przyrembel H., Richter K., Schimdt E., WeiBenborn B., Worner B., Ziegenhagen R., Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, BfR, p. 18-23, 2005.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Fassa, Paul. “How To Detox Fluorides From Your Body,” Natural News, July 13, 2009. P.1
[4] Fassa, Paul. “A Fluoride-Free Pineal Gland is More Important than Ever,” Natural News, June 2, 2009. 
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] In truth, even Calcium Fluoride should not be considered a nutrient as there is not enough evidence to show that is vital, or even positively linked, to human life and health. Fassa, Paul. “How To Detox Fluorides From Your Body,” Natural News, July 13, 2009. P.1
[8] Use of Vitamins in Foods: Toxicological and nutritional-physiological aspects.” Domke, A., Grosklaus R., Niemann B., Przyrembel H., Richter K., Schimdt E., WeiBenborn B., Worner B., Ziegenhagen R., Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, BfR, p. 230, 2005
[9] Ibid. p. 234
[10] Ibid p. 235
[11] Ibid p. 23






Part 2

February 8, 2011







In the previous Part 1, I discussed the BfR Recommended Daily Intake levels of fluoride and limits placed on fluoride in food supplements.


This is a very important distinction and there are some things that should be noted.


  • First, the Maximum Permitted Level set for fluoride by BfR’s risk assessment deals only with the amount of fluoride to food supplements.


    It does not deal with the fluoridation of water supplies, the application of fluoride dental treatments, toothpaste, and the utterly ridiculous practice of giving fluoride tablets for “medicinal” purposes.

    These guidelines would only apply to food supplements that contain fluoride which are unlikely to ever be marketed to anyone seriously knowledgeable and concerned about their health.


    Certainly, the natural health industry is not beset by requests for fluoride supplements. So it is important to understand what is happening here. There is regulation of fluoride in an area that, for all intents and purposes, it does not exist.

    In the areas where fluoride dominates, such as the aforementioned “medicinal” purposes, drinking water, toothpaste, and other dental treatments, there is no regulation by Codex.


    In fact, not only is there no regulation, the toxin has now been considered a mineral and a nutrient complete with an RDA (recommended daily allowance) to encourage daily intake.


  • Second, through the flawed process of risk assessment and the Global Expectable Average Daily Diet, BfR is able to set the maximum permitted levels for true nutrients like Iron, Copper, and Manganese at 0 and the Recommended Daily Intake at very low levels for food supplements.


    BfR is able to do precisely the same thing with fluoride in an area where it has no impact to begin with - thereby lowering the amount of fluoride considered in the GEADD and still allowing fluoride to be considered a nutrient. This because fluoride is not as heavily consumed in food or as a food supplement as it is in its other forms.


    Therefore, it largely avoids the clutches of the GEADD.


  • Third, BfR is completely aware of at least some of the many adverse effects of fluoride, as well as the environment in which it is created.


    As quoted above, the BfR report clearly documents that the Institute knows of fluoride intoxication with serious and even fatal side effects. Hence, the creation of the Certainly Lethal Dose (CLD) of 5-10g.


    Yet, animal tests also revealed “a possible carcinogenic effect” [1] and “kidney damage.” [2]


    However, the claim is made that such a reaction does not occur in other species. BfR also claims that the most serious effects are limited to the skeleton and teeth.[3]

    Although ignoring such conditions as liver and kidney damage, weakened immune system, cancer, symptoms akin to fibromyalgia, lower IQ's, and Alzheimer’s disease, BfR is still forced to admit the existence of at least some adverse effects. [4]


    It is truly hard to believe that such extensive and widely-known research can simply fly under the radar of scientists like those conducting the risk assessment experiments. It is also interesting to note that BfR does not mention long-term studies for the adverse effects of fluoride.


    Rather, it mentions only that the consumption of the chemical at one time. Not only that, but the distinction is not made between calcium and sodium fluoride, once again blurring the lines between the two. Based on the rest of the risk assessment conducted by BfR, it is not hard to believe that only calcium fluoride might have been tested, yet sodium fluoride was still included in the results.


    While there is no direct evidence to prove that this is the case, there is without a doubt legitimate cause for speculation based on the results of the study BfR has presented.

    Furthermore, if there is any doubt as to whether or not BfR combines calcium fluoride and sodium fluoride it is erased when BfR attempts to address the issue of skeletal fluorosis.


    Here the report states,

“Crippling bone fluorosis is mainly observed in tropical areas with a high natural content of fluoride in drinking water or high fluoride exposure from industrial plants.” [5]

This not only demonstrates the blurring of the lines between calcium and sodium fluoride, but also the prior knowledge by BfR and, subsequently, Codex that one form of fluoride is actually toxic waste.


It is important to understand that Codex now recognizes industrial waste as a nutrient.

  • Lastly, besides the obvious lunacy of labeling a toxic substance as a nutrient, BfR admits that there is no known benefit to consumption of fluoride.


    This is yet another obvious reason that fluoride cannot be considered a nutrient, even in calcium fluoride form.

The study directly admits,

“Since fluoride is not essential to man, requirements cannot be defined. A recommended intake can only be indicated with a view to its favorable impact on dental health.


WHO notes that there are no proven clinical symptoms of fluoride deficiency in man and there are no diagnostic parameters which correlate with a fluoride deficiency.” [6]

Even BfR itself must concede that there is no nutritional benefit to consuming fluoride (even in its natural form) and there are no known problems associated with lack of fluoride in the diet.[7]


Of course, the study refers to the dental health benefits provided by consumption of the chemical, but, as mentioned earlier, these so-called benefits are virtually non-existent.


In the face of this, BfR and Codex still conduct science that is nothing more than poorly performed magic tricks, and they continue to ask the rest of us to engage in mental gymnastics, while believing that toxic waste is a nutrient.



[1] Ibid. p. 232
[2] Ibid p. 234
[3] Ibid.
[4] Fassa, Paul. “How To Detox Fluorides From Your Body,” Natural News, July 13, 2009. P.1
[5] Use of Vitamins in Foods: Toxicological and nutritional-physiological aspects,”Domke, A., Grosklaus R., Niemann B., Przyrembel H., Richter K., Schimdt E., WeiBenborn B., Worner B., Ziegenhagen R., Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, BfR, p. 230, 2005
[6] Ibid p.229
[7] Ibid. p. 229