Chocolate Toothpaste… The Natural Alternative to Fluoride?

Theodent™ Toothpaste with Rennou™-- a Natural Alternative to Fluoride

If you were told you could brush your teeth with chocolate, would you do it? What if you were told that it was a natural alternative to fluoride? Well, we are not quite to that point yet, but we’re getting close: a new toothpaste purports to strengthen tooth enamel naturally by using — what else? — an extract from cocoa.

Theodent™ toothpaste claims to increase “the size of the surface unit crystals of your enamel by four times. Larger unit crystals make your teeth less susceptible to bacterial acid de-mineralization and keep your teeth healthy and robust.” (http://www.theodent.com/faq.html)

Research on the extract has been ongoing since the 1980′s, when clinical studies discovered a cocoa extract was beneficial in fighting cavities. It became more publicized when Arman Sadeghpour used the research as part of his doctoral thesis at Tulane University. Sadeghpour compared the effects of cocoa extract and fluoride on tooth enamel, discovering that cocoa extract can strengthen and enlarge the crystals that make up the tooth, resulting in stronger enamel.

Now Theodent™ toothpaste, utilizing a proprietary blend of the cocoa extract, is coming to the market. It will first be available on their website (http://www.theodent.com/) and at select Whole Foods locations. The toothpaste doesn’t actually taste like chocolate; it is mint-flavored. But developers hope to expand the Theodent line to include dental floss, mouthwash and, yes, a chocolate-flavored, sugar-free toothpaste for children.

What’s our take? I’m always willing to try new natural toothpastes. To be honest, it’s very difficult to make an effective natural toothpaste that is right for everyone (just look at some of the research we’ve done: What’s the Best Toothpaste?). We will be getting a few bottles soon and I will do some biocompatibility testing to see how this new “chocolate” toothpaste works with the majority of our patients. Stay tuned for  follow-up article on Theodent™ in the not-too-distant future.

The Top Story Today in Tampa… not what you think

I’m in Tampa, Florida today for a conference and had some shocking news when I woke up. The news? Pinellas County (St. Petersburg, Clearwater, etc.) is REMOVING fluoride from it’s water.

The really shocking thing? This news story was AHEAD of the death of the venerable Steve Jobs in this morning’s paper(s).

While the battle over fluoride is beginning and/or raging in many municipalities around the country, the fact that Pinellas County — of all places, not the stereotype for alternative health by most measures — is big news, even if it wasn’t affected for health reasons (more on that, below).

Here’s a link to just one of the headline stories (I have so far seen it on the cover of three major papers): http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/article1195449.ece

Here’s another shocker: Who was the organization that stopped the fluoridation and affected this headline change in policy? Not the IAOMT, not the Fluoride Action Network, not the IABDM… nope, it’s none of the above. Instead, it was the Tea Party. Yes, the conservative political group affected the change to end fluoridation in Pinellas County.

I won’t say too much else except this: Read some of the quotes in the articles, as they are classic of mainstream thinking. Here’s a sampling:

• “I think the tea party has engulfed themselves or surrounded themselves with conspiracy theorists,”
• “I think it’s embarrassing and shortsighted,”

Oh, and what spawned the change? Well, it certainly wasn’t the health effects. Nope, it was the government’s use of taxpayer money. Oh well… at least it’s a start!

Dr. Mercola on the Dangers of Fluoridated Toothpaste

Regular readers of our website, along with our patients, are well aware of the dangers of ingested fluoride. Less frequently we discuss the downsides to topical fluoride (like what you find in most toothpaste). Research that’s been done is spotty at best, but for the most part, research has shown that large doses of topical fluoride MAY have a positive effect on decay. Of course, at those large doses, fluoride is toxic (as Dr. Mercola points out, even the toothpaste label says it’s toxic).

Without too much preamble, here is Dr. Mercola’s video. I maintain that the potential benefits of topical fluoride do not out weigh the potential dangers. Especially when there are plenty of other products out there that can do the same thing without the same risk… why take that chance?

PS: We recently had a weighty discussion on this topic over at Dangers of Topical Fluoride — Discussion. Check it out in the comments section at the bottom.

US State Department Endorses Amalgam Phase-Down at UNEP Conference

U.S. government calls for the phase-out of amalgam!

In an extraordinary development that will change the global debate about amalgam, the United States government has announced that it supports a “phase down, with the goal of eventual phase out by all Parties, of mercury amalgam.”  This statement – a radical reversal of its former position that “any change toward the use of dental amalgam is likely to result in positive public health outcomes” –  is part of the U.S. government’s submission for the upcoming third round of negotiations for the world mercury treaty.*

 While couched in diplomatic hedging – remember it is still early in the negotiations – this new U.S. position makes three significant breakthroughs for the mercury-free dentistry movement:

1.       The U.S. calls for the phase-out of amalgam ultimately and recommends actions to “phase down” its use immediately.  Incredibly, the government adopted three actions that the World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry and Consumers for Dental Choice 
          proposed at the negotiating session in Chiba, Japan.  Our key ally, The Mercury Policy Project, laid the groundwork for this success at a World Health Organization meeting in 2009!

 2.       The U.S. speaks up for protecting children and the unborn from amalgam, recommending that the nations “educate patients and parents in order to protect children and fetuses.”

 3.       The U.S. stands up for the human right of every patient and parent to make educated decisions about amalgam.

What does this mean?  Our position – advocating the phase-out of amalgam – is now the mainstream because the U.S. government supports it.  Who is the outlier now?  It’s the pro-mercury faction, represented by the World Dental Federation and the American Dental Association.  With the U.S. continuing its leadership role in this treaty, we will broadcast the U.S. position to other governments around the world, encouraging them to support amalgam “phase downs” leading to phase-outs not only globally, but within each of their countries.

We applaud the U.S. government.  But tough work lies ahead.  For example, we must demonstrate to the world that the available alternatives – such as composites and the adhesive materials used in atraumatic restorative treatment (“ART”) – can cost less than amalgam and will increase access to dental care particularly in developing countries.

 For now though, let’s mark this watershed in the mercury-free dentistry movement: the debate has shifted from “whether to end amalgam” to “how to end amalgam.”

Charles G. Brown
National Counsel, Consumers for Dental Choice
President, World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry
5 April 2011

FAN-Australia Drops a Bombshell on Fluoridation

Media Release: Brisbane, Australia 4 April  2011

 Merilyn Haines, the director of the newly formed group FAN-Australia (Fluoride Action Network Australia), has found some startling statistics buried deep in official research material by ARCPOH (The Australian Research Centre Population Oral Health at the Adelaide Dental School) that could scuttle the water fluoridation program once and for all.

 Haines has found in the ARCPOH statistics that the permanent teeth of children in largely unfluoridated  (<5% before 2009) Queensland were erupting on average two years earlier than the children in the rest of Australia, which is largely fluoridated (see the figure below). A two-year delay would negate all the small reductions in tooth decay claimed by dental researchers since 1990. In other words fluoridation doesn’t work. Any difference in tooth decay claimed to be due to fluoride is simply an artifact of the delayed eruption caused by fluoride.

According to Professor Paul Connett, director of the Fluoride Action Network, who is currently on a fluoride-tour of New Zealand, “Critics of fluoridation, like Dr. Hardy Limeback in Toronto, have long pointed out that any reduced tooth decay touted by promoters could easily be accounted for by the delayed eruption of the teeth. Even when this argument received strong experimental support from Komarek et al. in 2005, this has still has been ignored by those promoting fluoridation. But they cannot ignore it any longer: the figures of the dental department research team most associated with the promotion of fluoridation in Australia (and beyond) demonstrate that this delay is real.”

Less teeth erupted for any given age would mean less surfaces available for tooth decay to have taken place. A delayed eruption of one – two years would account for the small reductions claimed in ALL the US and Australian studies published since 1990 (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990; Slade et al., 1996; Spencer et al., 1996; Armfield et al., 2009; Armfield, 2010). These studies have found reductions ranging from 0.12 of one permanent tooth surfaces saved in Western Australia (Spencer et al., 1996) to 0.6 permanent tooth surface saved in the largest survey ever conducted in the US (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990). This is not very much when you consider that there are five surfaces to the chewing teeth and four to the cutting teeth, and by the time all the child’s teeth have erupted there are a total of 128 tooth surfaces. One tooth surface saved amounts to less than 1% of all the surfaces in a child’s mouth. Now even this small benefit has evaporated.

 More on the history

In 1999, the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia’s peak Medical Research body, stated that, “evidence exists that tooth eruption is delayed in fluoridated areas. It has been suggested that a proper comparison of caries rates should involve children one year older in fluoridated areas than in non- fluoridated areas.”

 In 2000, the York Review pointed out that none of the studies that they had reviewed had controlled for “the number of erupted teeth per child” (McDonagh et al., 2000, p.24).

 In 2005, Komarek et al.  did control for eruption of teeth and reported no difference in decay between children living in Belgium receiving fluoride supplements (and those who weren’t) that was relatable to fluoride exposure (as measured by the severity of dental fluorosis).

 In 2009, Peiris et al. reported that children in largely fluoridated Australia had a delay in “dental age” of 0.82 years compared to children in largely unfluoridated UK. However, the authors did not discuss the possible reasons for this delay and the number of children involved in the study (about 80 in each country) was not very large.

 2011. Now the bombshell – the delay has been found and it is in the official statistics.   ARCPOH has failed to respond to several inquiries on this matter.  According to Haines, “Surely, this must end water fluoridation. If it doesn’t work what’s the point of putting this toxic substance into the drinking water and what reason can they possibly have for forcing it on people who don’t want it?”

 However, this isn’t just about teeth. The finding could be even more significant than that. If fluoride causes a delayed eruption of the teeth then the most likely mechanism for doing so is fluoride’s ability to lower thyroid function (see chapter 8 in the 2006 National Research Council review, “Fluoride in Drinking Water.” According to Connett,   “Lowered thyroid function in infants would mean slower growth of their tissues and could explain the 24 studies that have found an association between lowered IQ in children and exposure to moderate levels of fluoride in China, India, Iran and Mexico.”

 It also raises the possibility that millions of people in fluoridated countries suffering from hypothyroidism have had this condition caused, or exacerbated, by exposure to fluoridated water.  Haines’ asks “If ingesting fluoride delays tooth eruption for 1 to 2 years what other effects is it having on our bodies?”

 Meanwhile, if swallowing fluoride does not reduce tooth decay, why would any reasonable person, decision maker or regulatory official continue to sanction adding fluoride to the public water supply? 

  Source – Published and unpublished data from 2003- 2004 Australian Child Dental Health Surveys
Media Release sent by Queenslanders For Safe Water on behalf of Fluoride Action Network Australia Inc.