Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Health Risks from Water Fluoridation are not just in RFK’s Head

Published

7 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Lee Harding

“There is evidence that fluoride exposure has been associated with the diseases [and] disorders that RFK listed, but with caveats”

Water fluoridation has returned to the forefront of public policy debates thanks to environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Kennedy is expected to have a role in the Department of Health and Human Services, giving his opinion more weight than ever.

In a post to X, Kennedy wrote, “On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water. Fluoride is an industrial waste associated with arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, IQ loss, neurodevelopmental disorders, and thyroid disease.”

The post links to a High Wire video interview with lawyer Michael Connett, lead attorney in a successful case against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Last September, Obama-appointed District Court Judge Edward Chen sided with Connett and mandated the EPA to more strictly regulate water fluoridation.

Chen’s ruling states, “In all, there is substantial and scientifically credible evidence establishing that fluoride poses a risk to human health; it is associated with a reduction in the IQ of children and is hazardous at dosages that are far too close to fluoride levels in the drinking water…”

Fluoride is a poisonous industrial byproduct, handled in its pure form by people in hazmat suits. Dealing with sodium fluoroacetate was an expense for the Aluminum Company of America before Edward Bernays helped turn it into a profitable venture. In the 1940s, Bernays, the father of modern public relations and nephew of psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, used mass psychology and public health advocates to have fluoride put in drinking water. Fluoridation opponents were dismissed as kooks ever after.

The toxicology adage “The dose makes the poison” applies. Chemicals, including drugs, can benefit health in some respects but undermine it in others. Unfortunately, recent analysis suggests the “side effects” of fluoridation may outweigh its alleged benefits.

A recent analysis by Cochrane Reviews said water fluoridation may provide a slight dental benefit, but less so since the mid 70’s when manufacturers commonly added fluoride to toothpaste. Fluoride reverses or stops early tooth decay by remineralizing teeth, making them stronger. It also reduces bacteria’s ability to make acids that cause decay.

Fluoride capsules have little effect on teeth, which suggests its main positive effect is topical (meaning by direct contact). An obvious question follows: if fluoride of roughly one part per million passing over the teeth before swallowing, what is its effect during digestion or bodily storage? After all half of fluoride is passed through urine, while the remainder is stored in the body.

In 2020 The Institute of Technology and Business in the Czech Republic made a six-article issue dedicated to the mechanisms of fluoride toxicity. One explained in the abstract that “fluoride is an enzymatic poison, inducing oxidative stress, hormonal disruptions, and neurotoxicity.” The toxic effects were magnified when trace amounts of aluminum were present, and “might contribute to unexpected epidemics in the future.”

Sleeplessness, hypothyroidism, and autism to conditions linked to fluoride consumption, whether through natural sources or water fluoridation. The risks were found through statistical studies comparing health issues in water fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas, biochemical analysis, and human and animal studies.

“We concur with the conclusions of many authors over the world that fluoride neurotoxicity is a serious risk associated with elevated fluoride exposure… […] Fluoride toxicity is a slow, hidden process. Evolving evidence should inspire scientists and health authorities to re-evaluate claims about the safety of fluoride…”

In 2019, researchers from Canadian and U.S. universities tested over 500 Canadian women throughout their pregnancies for fluoride levels in their urine. Their study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), found that for each milligram of fluoride per litre in the mother’s urine, IQ dropped 4.5 points in their male children tested at ages of three to four years.

Christine Till, a professor in the Department of Psychology at York University in Toronto, told CNN, “At a population level, that’s a big shift. That translates to millions of IQ levels lost.”

Ashley Malin, an assistant professor in the University of Florida’s Epidemiology Department, had similar findings in her Florida study, published in JAMA in 2024.

“There is evidence that fluoride exposure has been associated with the diseases [and] disorders that RFK listed, but with caveats,” Malin told the Virginia Mercury in a recent article.

“Aside from fluoride’s impacts on neurodevelopment, I think that there is more that we don’t know about health effects of low-level fluoride exposure than what we do know, particularly for adult health outcomes,” Malin added.

In August, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) in the United States found that fluoride levels higher than 1.5 mg/L (the highest acceptable level in Canada) are associated with lower IQs in children. The NTP said there is insufficient evidence to conclude that there are similar risks at the recommended level of 0.7 mg/L.

Montreal recently ended its water fluoridation and hopefully other cities will follow. Only a misguided nanny state would poison young minds and old bones for the sake of people who don’t brush their teeth.

Lee Harding is a Research Fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

2025 Federal Election

The Cost of Underselling Canadian Oil and Gas to the USA

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Canadians can now track in real time how much revenue the country is forfeiting to the United States by selling its oil at discounted prices, thanks to a new online tracker from the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. The tracker shows the billions in revenue lost due to limited access to distribution for Canadian oil.

At a time of economic troubles and commercial tensions with the United States, selling our oil at a discount to U.S. middlemen who then sell it in the open markets at full price will rob Canada of nearly $19 billion this year, said Marco Navarro-Genie, the VP of Research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Navarro-Genie led the team that designed the counter.

The gap between world market prices and what Canada receives is due to the lack of Canadian infrastructure.

According to a recent analysis by Ian Madsen, senior policy analyst at the Frontier Centre, the lack of international export options forces Canadian producers to accept prices far below the world average. Each day this continues, the country loses hundreds of millions in potential revenue. This is a problem with a straightforward remedy, said David Leis, the Centre’s President. More pipelines need to be approved and built.

While the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) pipeline has helped, more is needed. It commenced commercial operations on May 1, 2024, nearly tripling Canada’s oil export capacity westward from 300,000 to 890,000 barrels daily. This expansion gives Canadian oil producers access to broader global markets, including Asia and the U.S. West Coast, potentially reducing the price discount on Canadian crude.

This is more than an oil story. While our oil price differential has long been recognized, there’s growing urgency around our natural gas exports. The global demand for cleaner energy, including Canadian natural gas, is climbing. Canada exports an average of 12.3 million GJ of gas daily. Yet, we can still not get the full value due to infrastructure bottlenecks, with losses of over $7.3 billion (2024). A dedicated counter reflecting these mounting gas losses underscores how critical this issue is.

“The losses are not theoretical numbers,” said Madsen. “This is real money, and Canadians can now see it slipping away, second by second.”

The Frontier Centre urges policymakers and industry leaders to recognize the economic urgency and ensure that infrastructure projects like TMX are fully supported and efficiently utilized to maximize Canada’s oil export potential. The webpage hosting the counter offers several examples of what the lost revenue could buy for Canadians. A similar counter for gas revenue lost through similarly discounted gas exports will be added in the coming days.

What Could Canada Do With $25.6 Billion a Year?

Without greater pipeline capacity, Canada loses an estimated (2025) $25.6 billion by selling our oil and gas to the U.S. at a steep discount. That money could be used in our communities — funding national defence, hiring nurses, supporting seniors, building schools, and improving infrastructure. Here’s what we’re giving up by underselling these natural resources. 

342,000 Nurses

The average annual salary for a registered nurse in Canada is about $74,958. These funds could address staffing shortages and improve patient care nationwide.
Source

39,000 New Housing Units

At an estimated $472,000 per unit (excluding land costs, based on Toronto averages), $25.6 billion could fund nearly 94,000 affordable housing units.
Source

About the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

The Frontier Centre for Public Policy is an independent Canadian think-tank that researches and analyzes public policy issues, including energy, economics and governance.

Continue Reading

Business

Hudson’s Bay Bid Raises Red Flags Over Foreign Influence

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Scott McGregor

A billionaire’s retail ambition might also serve Beijing’s global influence strategy. Canada must look beyond the storefront

When B.C. billionaire Weihong Liu publicly declared interest in acquiring Hudson’s Bay stores, it wasn’t just a retail story—it was a signal flare in an era where foreign investment increasingly doubles as geopolitical strategy.

The Hudson’s Bay Company, founded in 1670, remains an enduring symbol of Canadian heritage. While its commercial relevance has waned in recent years, its brand is deeply etched into the national identity. That’s precisely why any potential acquisition, particularly by an investor with strong ties to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), deserves thoughtful, measured scrutiny.

Liu, a prominent figure in Vancouver’s Chinese-Canadian business community, announced her interest in acquiring several Hudson’s Bay stores on Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (RedNote), expressing a desire to “make the Bay great again.” Though revitalizing a Canadian retail icon may seem commendable, the timing and context of this bid suggest a broader strategic positioning—one that aligns with the People’s Republic of China’s increasingly nuanced approach to economic diplomacy, especially in countries like Canada that sit at the crossroads of American and Chinese spheres of influence.

This fits a familiar pattern. In recent years, we’ve seen examples of Chinese corporate involvement in Canadian cultural and commercial institutions, such as Huawei’s past sponsorship of Hockey Night in Canada. Even as national security concerns were raised by allies and intelligence agencies, Huawei’s logo remained a visible presence during one of the country’s most cherished broadcasts. These engagements, though often framed as commercially justified, serve another purpose: to normalize Chinese brand and state-linked presence within the fabric of Canadian identity and daily life.

What we may be witnessing is part of a broader PRC strategy to deepen economic and cultural ties with Canada at a time when U.S.-China relations remain strained. As American tariffs on Canadian goods—particularly in aluminum, lumber and dairy—have tested cross-border loyalties, Beijing has positioned itself as an alternative economic partner. Investments into cultural and heritage-linked assets like Hudson’s Bay could be seen as a symbolic extension of this effort to draw Canada further into its orbit of influence, subtly decoupling the country from the gravitational pull of its traditional allies.

From my perspective, as a professional with experience in threat finance, economic subversion and political leveraging, this does not necessarily imply nefarious intent in each case. However, it does demand a conscious awareness of how soft power is exercised through commercial influence, particularly by state-aligned actors. As I continue my research in international business law, I see how investment vehicles, trade deals and brand acquisitions can function as instruments of foreign policy—tools for shaping narratives, building alliances and shifting influence over time.

Canada must neither overreact nor overlook these developments. Open markets and cultural exchange are vital to our prosperity and pluralism. But so too is the responsibility to preserve our sovereignty—not only in the physical sense, but in the cultural and institutional dimensions that shape our national identity.

Strategic investment review processes, cultural asset protections and greater transparency around foreign corporate ownership can help strike this balance. We should be cautious not to allow historically Canadian institutions to become conduits, however unintentionally, for geopolitical leverage.

In a world where power is increasingly exercised through influence rather than force, safeguarding our heritage means understanding who is buying—and why.

Scott McGregor is the managing partner and CEO of Close Hold Intelligence Consulting.

Continue Reading

Trending

X