This seems bizarre to me. People don't want fluoride in their toothpaste? Why not? Dentists seem pretty unanimous that everyone should brush twice a day with fluoride toothpaste.
Additionally, fluoride is much more important for children. As enamel is forming, fluoride interacts with it and strengthens it. Adults need far less (threshold dose effect) and for most people in the United States, they likely get enough in the water. I also figure this is a toothpaste you'll use in the morning, and another fluoridated one in the evening. You can also use a fluoridated mouthwash.
At some point, I would love to introduce a fluoridated version.
Good job getting this off the ground, and best of luck with it.
I really like the idea of caffeinated toothpaste. It is simple & brilliant and I hope you succeed with this.
Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face. A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1891&dat=19620321&id=...
A classic.
I find it amazing that only basic testing is needed for cosmetic products and something one is easily ingesting (slightly) on a day to day basis, but yet... fluoride requires animal testing?
I would think at this point, a simple chemical composition testing the fluorine levels would be appropriate enough. They obviously don't find the caffeine a threat enough to warrant such things in the product.
In the case of toothpaste, we've already tested fluoride. I'm going to guess we know the safe limits and the recommended amounts in the stuff. So as long as there isn't any new sorts of drug in the toothpaste and one is using pretty standard safe sort of ingredients, there isn't really a need for some of the testing - animal or human testing. Tests to verify the percentage of fluoride in the toothpaste? Absolutely. Getting the fluoride from verified sources? Sure thing. And so on.
Cosmetics have relatively few standards comparatively [1]. In a way, it seems to be enough. It likely isn't an issue with common ingredients - same situation as fluoride. But on the other hand, if a company uses a new ingredient, I'd rather have some sort of official tests for safety. I think this is probably especially important with things used around the eyes and lips - and I'm not sure some of the warning labels are quite enough. For example, some of the Halloween makeup will have warnings not to use certain colors around the eyes (usually black or red). Of course, this is in small print on the back of the package, and not on the container holding the makeup. Yet if you look at the package, it often has that very color near the eyes.
[1]http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/GuidanceRegulation/LawsRegulati...
This is probably exactly what the testing is for. Consider a drug that is (fluoride + X), where both fluoride and X are "already tested and safe". Are we sure that for all values for X, (fluoride + X) is safe also?
Of course, it might also be prudent to get certified to handle fluoride as well as manufacture toothpaste with it and other such things.
But then again, caffeine is a drug occasionally as well. Excedrine has to list it on their FDA required product information: No-Doz (caffeine pills) has the same sort of label. Granted, it might be more benign than fluoride - yet the FDA sees no problem with it being in toothpaste so long as he doesn't have the fluoride.
I don't know all the details, mostly because I've never wanted to manufacture toothpaste. But it seems there should be a simple way of doing this stuff with simple tests in most cases, and that the information should be easily accessible.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/tooth-decay-calgary-fl...
Are unlikely to dissuade folks given the echo chambers people are encouraged to live in today.
But, man, one tube of this thing is roughly the LD50 for caffeine ingestion. This is definitely a "keep out of the reach of children" product.
Just a guess though.
The environment???
Fluoride, like many minerals, is naturally occurring in many water sources, just not (all) of the ones that are used for drinking water. Additionally, the concentration of fluoride for this purpose is minuscule (0.7 mg/L according to Health Canada).
Up here in Maine we have a pretty bad fluoride issue in some areas, and a lot of people are not testing their well water, and ending up with fluoride poisoning.
Until recently I couldn't avoid government insurance here in America, and the IRS penalizes me monthly for it at a rate higher than the cost of subsidized insurance.
And flouride in your water doesn't replace toothpaste. Are you seriously trying to tell me if I don't brush but drink enough water a day, without changing my sugar consumption and after-meal rinsing habits, that my gums will stay healthy? I don't think you really know what you're talking about.
- Dental cavities can be prevented by maintaining a constant low level of fluoride in the oral cavity.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs318/en/
It doesn't seem like it's an issue to you, personally, because we have flourinated water.
As a child, I used to get nauseated after brushing my teeth and formed a physical aversion I had to overcome daily. After discovering flouride-free toothpaste a few years ago, I stopped feeling sick after brushing. It's possible I have an underactive thyroid but I haven't sought a real diagnoses.
Putting flouride in our tap doesn't solve sugar over-consumption or bad dental care. And it possibly aggravates hyperthyroidism in some people, though I don't know of any conclusive studies.
I though you just said that tooth decay isn't still a public health concern, now it is?
Are you saying the WHO is wrong? Based on what evidence?
Don't hijack my argument into something else.
I said it wasn't the government's responsibility to flouridate my drinking water. That isn't what I pay taxes for.
^ Is what you really said, which didn't make sense even in context.
You pay taxes for what your democratically elected representatives determine it's for, not what you personally think - and like the WHO, they think some of it should be marginally spent on solving major public health concerns.
The idea that democratic elections are functioning in a representative way in America is a joke. I have no control over many policies that govern me. But I still reserve the right to decide what I think are worthwhile tax expenditures. Your same logic would invalidate the gross overspending of taxes towards my government's defense budget.
At least you understand saying, "That's not what I pay taxes for" is a moot argument then.
Nowadays we consume processed water which is clear of many impurities and tends to come just one source. The quality is extremely consistent, so we don't die of poisonings and contaminations. But then, the selection of where our drinking water comes from, and the purification processes may have the impact that the fluoride level is consistently lower than is good. Hence the possible need to add fluoride to water.
Note that they didn't /remove/ the recommendation for fluoride in water. They just reduced the recommended amount.
1: http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/04/27/40257994...
What I do works for me, and works well - I look for fluoride-free products - you can stick with using agricultural waste in your water supply, but I stay off it!