Archive | June, 2013

Dr. Paul Connett on the Top 7 Reasons to End Fluoride – Toronto

23 Jun

On Monday, April 22, 2013, I held an event at the North York Civic Centre hosting Dr. Paul Connett Ph.D on the artificial fluoridation of Toronto’s water supply. You can see the full video presentation on YouTube here.

Dr. Connett is a graduate of Cambridge University and holds a Ph.D. in chemistry from Dartmouth College. After teaching for 23 years in Canton NY at St. Lawrence University, he retired from his full professorship in chemistry in May 2006.  Dr. Connett was kind enough to grace Toronto with his presence before travelling on April 23rd to testify against the addition of hydrofluorosilicic acid (fluoride) to the water supply in various municipalities in Quebec. Quebec currently has one of the lowest rates of artificially fluoridated water in Canada at just 6.4% with their largest city Montreal, having never fluoridated their water supply.

After another incredibly informative presentation, Dr. Connett reviewed the top 7 reasons why the artificial fluoridation of any water supply is absurd, immoral, unethical, and goes against one of our most basic human rights which is our right to informed consent.

Here are the top 7 reasons to end the artificial fluoridation of any water supply as presented by Dr. Paul Connett:

1) The Results of the Largest Study Ever Conducted on Fluoride and Tooth Decay

In 1991, the largest study ever conducted on tooth decay was performed by Brunelle and Carlos at a cost of $3,600,000 examining over 39,000 children in 84 fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. The results showed that out of the 128 tooth surfaces in the human mouth, 0.6/1 tooth surface may have been saved through fluoride ingestion. 

Under true informed consent where you the patient makes the choice of ingesting a medication based on the potential risk/reward analysis provided by your doctor, would you choose to ingest fluoride as a medication every single day for the rest of your life to save 0.6 of a single tooth surface in your mouth?

2) Fluoride Works Topically

In 1999, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the USA conducted a study with 30 scientists to review the literature on the intake of fluoride. The CDC, although a strong advocate for the addition of hydrofluorosilic acid to the water supply, determined “… laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children” citing the peer reviewed study from JD Featherstone.

The CDC themselves say that fluoride works topically, yet in the very same paper, they then advocate continuing the addition of fluoride to the water supply so that the population continues to ingest it… Something seem wrong here?

3) Population Overexposed to Toxic Fluoride

In 2006 the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science (NRC) released a 450 page review of fluoride toxicity titled Fluoride in Drinking Water – A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. The results of the 3 year study showed that fluoride at 4 ppm (4mg/liter of water) placed the target population at increased risk of teeth, bone and joint damage. This lead the NRC to recommend that the “safe” level of fluoride in drinking water be dropped.

4) Increased Risk of Bone Cancer

In 2001 a study was produced by Bassin et al.  from Harvard University “Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma.” The results showed that there was a statistically high correlation between increased fluoride intake in young males, and increased incidence of bone cancer later in life. The same finding was not true for females however Bassin acknowledged that more study was required either way.

The interesting point to acknowledge is that Bassin found a link between fluoride and osteosarcoma using the same data analysed from a previous study (McGuire, Douglass, et al. 1995) where no link was found. How could two separate researchers find different results when analysing the same data? The fact that Professor Douglass, who found no link to osteosarcoma from fluoride ingestion, also worked for Colgate and donated millions of dollars to Harvard, brought forward enough controversy for even Fox News to question.

5) Fluoride May Have Nothing At All to Do With Tooth Decay

In 2009 Warren et al. conducted a complete study on total fluoride exposure as it relates to tooth decay and dental fluorosis. Their findings suggested that “achieving a caries-free status may have relatively little to do with fluoride intake, while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake.” (Warren 2009).

As Health Canada’s dangerously outdated endorsement of fluoride is based on studies as old as the 1930’s studies conducted by Dr. H. Trendley Dean who observed a correlation between higher intakes of fluoride, less tooth decay, yet more dental fluorosis, the question remains… Would you risk increased dental fluorosis for decreased tooth decay?

6) 41% of the Population Now Has Dental Fluorosis

Dental fluorosis is a mottling and discolouration of the teeth and can be a very debilitating disease. Increased fluoride ingestion has been directly linked to this disease and was observed as far back as 1931 causing a “browning” of the teeth.

In 2010, the CDC reported that dental fluorosis affected 41% of the population as the following graph shows:

CDC 2010 - Fluorosis Levels USA

Note that an alarming 3.6% of the general US population are now diagnosed as having “moderate or severe” dental fluorosis. Dental fluorosis is highly problematic especially for those who consume a large amount of fluoridated water compared to the general population such as fire-fighters, athletes, diabetics etc… Hence the controversy of dose vs. dosage. Although the dose of fluoride added to water at 1 ppm is very accurate, the dosage is different for everyone depending on how much water they consume.

7) Fluoride Reduces IQ in Children

In India and China, where naturally occurring levels of fluoride are very high in some areas, numerous studies are being conducted to understand the effect of this poison on the human mind and body. The most concerning of which was the recently published 2012 Harvard School of Public Health study Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The results were repulsive.

Zhang et al. showed that those children who were exposed to high levels of fluoridation exhibited significantly lower IQs supporting the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride on children’s neurodevelopment.

This is an extremely important blog post for me this evening ladies and gentlemen. As I have gotten older in life I have come to realize certain facts about North American culture that are far different from the picture painted in our public schools.

One is that we are told to believe many things that simply aren’t true. I was one of the people who blindly followed the herd and said “fluoride is good for my teeth.” With time however, and with my own research, I have found that this could not be further from the truth. When we are told to blindly believe an idea without asking where that idea came from, and what scientific studies were conducted to back those ideas up, we become our own worst enemies.

Another point I have realized is that there are many people out there who know the truth however disturbing it may be, and yet, have allowed themselves to forget about it and merely brush the truth aside.

Don’t do that.

It is never too late to do the right thing. It is never too late to live, love and and to be human. To love people you don’t even know. To help humanity be stronger than we have ever been.

I challenge anyone to refute the studies cited above. I challenge any so-called public health figure to debate Dr. Connett on national television.

And the next time you think that fluoride is good for you ask yourself one question… Says who?

How to Solve Toronto’s Traffic Congestion Problems: Top 5 Reasons Why We Need Subways

12 Jun

Toronto is growing fast. There are now over 55,000 condo units being built around the GTA landing it the number one spot in North America for new high rise construction. With massive growth happening in the outskirts as well, more people flock into and out of the city on a daily basis. So what does this mean for roads?

Things are about to get a whole lot worse.

If over 200 condos worth of new homes are to be built, the surrounding transit system has to handle the onslaught of new riders. Either public transit needs to cope with the new demand or 55,000 homes worth of new cars are about to riddle the streets. The hairy reality we face however is that our roads are already congested and our transit system so outdated that Toronto City Council is now forced to deal with years of neglect and pathetic transit planning.

This leaves only one option to solve Toronto`s transit problems:

Build subways.


We need subways, and we need them immediately.

Look at subway maps around the world:

New York Subway

New York Subway Map

Frankfurt Subway

Frankfurt Subway Map

Tokyo Subway

Tokyo Subway Map

Toronto Subway

Toronto Subway Map

Does something seem wrong here?

On the international subway scale, Toronto is so barbaric… so out of touch with reality it is scary to think that politicians like Karen Stintz are in charge of something as important as transit infrastructure. Tell me something Karen, after the LRT is built and traffic builds up again to the point of deadlock, will subways suddenly make sense to you?

Here are the top 5 reasons why Toronto needs subways:

1) Time

As we get older we realize with more urgency perhaps that time is our most valuable resource. Having more time means having less stress, being more productive, and generally being happier. The simple expansion, for example, of the Sheppard line from Yonge to Downsview would result in millions of hours of individual time being saved over many years. The current set-up, where people have to take the Finch line south, all the way around and back North to Downsview, is not only ridiculous, it is a complete waste of time… Your time! One simple extension could save the average person over one hour a day resulting in giving them months of their life back. More subways means more time.

2) Safety

More subways below-ground means less TTC roadblock buses and LRT aboveground. As the roads become ever more congested the rate of car accidents also increases. As discussed in my previous blog post Why Speed Doesn’t Kill: Bad Drivers a Result of NO Government Training, it is even more concerning that Toronto has no formal driver training process leaving new drivers and immigrants to learn the rules of the road from people who may not be qualified. These very same people then drive alongside our bus drivers who are in charge of protecting the lives of their daily commuters.

Dealing with untrained, sometimes unlicensed drivers, puts bus drivers at increased accident risk.  This makes bus drivers just as susceptible to stress, carelessness or road rage as the rest of us. The impact of  bus driver carelessness can be felt as in this article posted by the Toronto Sun regarding the untimely death of a 43 year old Toronto woman killed on a TTC bus in 2011.

3) Efficiency

Subways are extremely efficient. They run directly off the power grid and transport a large number of people per watt of energy used. New methods are being continuously developed to make them even more efficient and harness the wasted power they produce. Since subways are underground, they are shielded from the majority of our harsh Canadian winters which is even more important in the long-run. Since they do not interfere with above ground road traffic, subways are also more efficient for drivers.

4) No Other Viable Alternative

The problem with Light Rail Transit (LRT) is simple… When the roads are congested to the point of standstill traffic, building a rail-road line right smack down the centre of it isn’t exactly going to make things speed up now is it? Since construction has to happen aboveground, the inconvenience to daily commuters is astonishing. Point and case as with the development of the new York Region LRT scam line from Warden to Yonge. Traffic has become disastrous along Highway 7 and its neighbouring streets as massive construction has been taking place since 2009 and may last until 2020! Notice how the construction crews have stopped at all the major bridges? Just wait until the “relocation” of those bridges begins. That is not only going to become a project in extreme patience for the everyday commuter, the estimated $2-3 BILLION budget will be easily burned.

As Toronto begs to expand its subways, York Region spends billions on an LRT while their buses are empty.

5) Cost

Yes subways are expensive… in the beginning. However other than the initial upfront costs of construction, the benefits begin to add up immediately after opening:

  • Saving people time.
  • Reduced aboveground traffic and accidents.
  • Energy efficiency.
  • Reduced impact on drivers.
  • Ease of travel.
  • Speed.
  • Convenience.
  • Stress reduction.

If a massive subway project were to begin in Toronto, the money spent would immediately be recirculated throughout the city. The all-Canadian subway workforce would need food, shelter, entertainment, transportation and more. “Made in Canada” regulations would benefit hundreds of Canadian businesses who supplied the expansion. What “cost” is there really when these points are factored into a subway expansion plan? When people have more time to pursue happiness on a daily basis?

Not only should the upfront costs of Toronto’s subway expansion be calculated, the resulting boom in the local economy and the freedom they create for the people must be taken into account so that 15 years into the future and beyond, our great City of Toronto is ready to handle the further population explosion and increasing need for speedy transit.

The World is our Teacher.

The Canadian Fight for GMO Labelling is Winning

8 Jun

Ladies and gentlemen, keep up the great work. We are wearing away at the deceitful, corporate controlled Canadian government who is not looking out for the health of you and your family but the health of big business bank accounts.

How do I know we are making progress? Simple. The single serve generic responses I have received back from Health Canada and the CFIA have changed over the past year to now mention that Organic Certification is the only way to ensure that the food you eat does not contain any Genetically Modified Ingredients whatsoever in Canada.

Here is the first response I received back from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency on July 7, 2012 when I asked why GMO labelling was not mandatory in Canada:


The food safety evaluation of novel foods (including products of genetically modified foods) is the responsibility of Health Canada.

You can read about the review process that Health Canada uses at

A list of approved products is on their site at

Mandatory labelling is required when genetically engineered products have a significant health, safety or compositional change (as determined by Health Canada). To date, no products approved for sale in Canada have triggered the need for mandatory labelling.

There is a standard in place for labelling of foods that are products of biotechnology and foods that want to make a claim in regard to being free of biotechnology. Information on the Standard for Voluntary Labelling and Advertising of Foods That Are and Are Not Products of Genetic Engineering can be found at:

At this time, no changes in labelling policy in regard to food products of biotechnology are anticipated.

For questions and comments about genetically modified (GM) foods and other novel foods, contact

Thank you for using the CFIA web site.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Web Inquiries Team

And almost a year later, here is the response I received back from Health Canada’s Novel Foods Section, Evaluation Division and the Bureau for Microbial Standards:

Thank you for your correspondence on May 31, 2013 regarding the safety and labelling of genetically-modified (GM) food in Canada.

The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring the safety of the Canadian food supply.  As part of this commitment, Health Canada conducts a rigorous and thorough science-based assessment of all GM food products before they are allowed to enter the Canadian food supply.  GM foods are considered “novel foods” and are regulated under Division 28 of the Food and Drug Regulations (F&DR), which prohibits manufacturers of these products from selling them in Canada until Health Canada has completed a full safety assessment and found them to be as safe and nutritious as conventional foods.  All novel foods approved for sale in Canada have undergone this thorough assessment to ensure that they are wholesome, nutritious, and safe to eat.

The full safety assessment of the product involves a rigorous scientific evaluation and GM foods are only approved after Health Canada’s scientists are satisfied that the data provided by the applicants addresses all health and safety concerns and meets regulatory requirements.  Companies are required to test their products according to the requirements and submit high calibre data demonstrating compliance.  In-depth analysis is conducted of the data and of the methods used to ensure validity of the results.  If the evaluators determine that the data is not sufficient, additional information and/or testing will be requested in order to fully demonstrate the safety of the product.  Evaluators may also supplement the information provided by the petitioner with any published data in Canada or internationally that is relevant to the product in question.  The scientific review involves how the food was developed, a comparison of the compositional and nutritional information with non-modified counterparts, and an examination of the food’s potential to be or to contain a toxin or allergen.

For more information regarding the scientific evaluation process and Health Canada’s policies regarding novel foods, please visit our website at

Health Canada and the CFIA share the federal responsibility for food labelling policies under the Food and Drugs Act. In accordance with its mandate, Health Canada is responsible for food labelling policies with respect to health and safety. The Department requires mandatory labelling of all food products, including GM foods, where there are clear scientifically established health risks or significant nutritional changes, which can be mitigated through labelling. General provisions for food labelling to address non-health or safety considerations, such as how the food is produced, are the responsibility of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).

The Government of Canada recognizes that the labelling of foods derived from biotechnology has become an important issue for Canadians. To this end, Health Canada worked actively with the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors and the Canadian General Standards Board to develop a Canadian voluntary standard for labelling of genetically engineered foods.  Other partners in this process included consumer groups, food companies, producers, environmental groups, general interest groups and other government departments. The standard “Voluntary labelling and advertising of foods that are and are not products of Genetic Engineering” was adopted as a national standard by the Standards Council of Canada in April 2004.  It provides guidance to food companies to address the consumers demand for the labelling of genetically engineered foods in Canada.  More detail on this initiative is available on the Public Works and Government Services Canada website

If you choose to avoid consuming foods that may be derived from a GM food source, you may do so by consuming organic food products. Canada’s Organic Products Regulations (OPR), which came into force on June 30, 2009, set out rigorous standards for the certification of products as organic by accredited certification bodies. Organic products are determined in accordance with the “Organic Production Systems General Principles and Management Standards” released by the Canadian General Standards Board. The standard states that all materials and products produced from genetic engineering (i.e., GM foods) are not compatible with the general principles of organic production and therefore not accepted under the standard. Also, products that meet the production requirements and contain at least 95 per cent organic content may be labelled as “organic” and feature the new Biologique Canada Organic Logo. This provides Canadians with more choice when it comes to the food they purchase and consume.

If you feel that the current legislation concerning the labelling of GM foods (i.e., the standard for voluntary labelling) should be changed, please contact your local Member of Parliament (MP).

Thank you for writing.

Novel Foods Section/Section des Aliments Nouveaux
Evaluation Division/Division de l’évaluation
Bureau of Microbial Hazards/Bureau de Dangers Microbiens
Food Directorate/Direction des Aliments
Health Products and Food Branch/Direction Général des Produits de Santé et des Aliments
Health Canada/Santé Canada
251 Promenade Sir Frederick Banting Driveway
Centre de recherche Sir Frederick Banting Research Centre 2204E
4th Floor West, Tunney’s Pasture/ 4e etage, Pre Tunney
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K9

Notice the length?

Not only does the second email from Health Canada go into more detail, a lot more detail, it  highlights an extremely important fact previously unseen in the first email from the CFIA – “If you choose to avoid consuming foods that may be derived from a GM food source, you may do so by consuming organic food products.”

Why should you be concerned about eating GMO foods and feeding them to your children in the first place?

So why the risk? Explaining how GMO strains have been engineered in the first place sheds light on how our food is being produced. There are two primary GMO technologies which Monsanto has introduced into corn and soy crops in North America:

  1. The first technique inserts the DNA from bacteria into the target crop so that the crop will produce its own insecticide. The name given to the corn variety is Bt Corn. The result is vermin and insects will not feed on the plants. If that crop becomes poisonous to other animals should we believe that those same plants should not be poisonous to humans?
  2. The second technique also mixes the DNA of a bacteria with that of the target crop this time however so that the crop can withstand what would otherwise be a lethal dose of herbicide. The most common form of this type of GMO crop is Roundup Ready Soy. The result is entire crops can be sprayed with an increased amount of Roundup (Glyphosphate) herbicide to kill the surrounding weeds yet the crop survives. Ready for a poison soaked corn on the cob?

So there you have it. The “safe” GMO that is on your plate has either been spewing out its own toxic pesticide or has been drenched with a larger dose than ever of a toxic herbicide.

Dinner is served…

The time to act is now. If our government officials feel that GMOs are safe, why not label them so that we the people may make our own decisions regardless? The Canadian Food Inspection Agency enforces rules and regulations stipulated by Health Canada therefore please contact Health Canada and your local MP should you feel the need to address your concerns regarding GMOs and the lack of transparency of labelling food products in Canada.

Policy change is slow. As great change is on the horizon, there are winners and losers. There are those who welcome it, and those who lament it. But as you can see from the standardized, nameless government responses above, change is occurring however slow it may be. The public awakening and pressure being exerted on our government officials is working. Let your voice be heard.

In the meantime, if you want to ensure the health of yourself and your family, eat organic. Here is a very helpful shopping resource as you begin your journey: