Effects of ingested fluoride not within the purview of dentistry -
California Board of Dental Examiners

The California Board of Dental Examiners, in the following letter, states that the dental community has had no professional training on the subject of ingested fluoride (rather than topically-applied fluoride, such as toothpaste).

Dentists who are attempting to persuade opinion and speak in the capacity of a dental professional are acting beyond the scope of their profession to say ingested fluoride is "safe". It's the same as a podiatrist (foot doctor) giving his professional opinion on your upcoming heart surgery. He's simply not qualified to state a professional opinion since he has no training in this area.

Here's the letter;

December 21, 1999

David C. Kennedy, D.D.S.
Past President
International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology
2425 Third Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101

Dear Dr. Kennedy:

Recently, you wrote to the Board of Dental Examiners and asked for a yes or no answer to the following question:

"Is the determination of whether a specific individual, or subset of the population, is at any time suffering from, or will suffer from, adverse health effects outside of the oral cavity from ingested fluoride within the purview of dentistry?"

As we understand the question, the answer is no. As phrased, your question would appear to relate to a medical diagnosis.

I hope this adequately addresses your question.


Arlyce Ten Broeck
Assistant Executive Officer

cc: Georgetta Coleman, E.O.


Background and Commentary

The significance of this answer should be apparent to those individuals who have seen local dentists, as well as national spokespersons with dental licenses, offer their credentials as a dentist as proof that they possess expertise on the subject of whether adverse health effects do or do not occur, or may or may not occur, as a result of exposure to ingested fluoride.

Citizens for Safe Drinking Water and other groups throughout the nation have informed deliberative bodies such as city councils and water boards, as well as the media, of the fact that the dental community has had no professional training on the subject of ingested fluoride (rather than topically-applied fluoride, such as toothpaste), much less continuing education to keep the industry or its members abreast of new scientific studies and risk assessments.

This statement confirms that position and once again reinforces that the subject matter of fluoridation is rightfully one of the appropriate use of the public water supply, and the impact of mass medication on the entire body, rather than children's teeth and blanket denials of any possible adverse effects from uninformed special interests.

This letter from the Board of Dental Examiners follows on the heels of their December 3, 1999 hearing at which Citizens for Safe Drinking Water informed the Board that they should expect to see more consumer complaints from citizens against dentists who willingly use their professional standing to lend credibility to selling industrial hazardous waste fluoride while claiming that they are experts on the subject, when in fact they have no accreditated training or professional license to diagnose outside of the oral cavity.

The Board of Dental Examiners had previously disapproved continuing education credits for a symposium on the risk assessment of ingested fluoride on the grounds that the subject matter did not apply to the practice of dentistry.

Citizens for Safe Drinking Water has suggested that concerned citizens in other states write directly to their state's Board of Dental Examiners to request written confirmation to determine if their state also has limitations on the scope of a dentist's expertise.

In California, to register comments/complaints about the Board of Dental Examiners,

Contact: Jeff Green - Citizens for Safe Drinking Water
2425 Third Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101
(800) 728-3833
Email: greenjeff@home.com
Email: davidkennedy-dds@home.com