National Academies Press: OpenBook

Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards (2006)

Chapter: 10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity

« Previous: 9 Effects on the Gastrointestinal, Renal, Hepatic, and Immune Systems
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

10
Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity

This chapter reviews research publications and relevant review articles published since the earlier NRC (1993) report and other relevant papers not included in that review, and also considers salient earlier papers. Evaluation of the plausibility and potential for carcinogenicity is based on human epidemiologic studies, laboratory animal lifetime bioassays, shorter-term genotoxicity tests, metabolism and pharmacokinetic data, and mechanistic information. Genotoxicity tests indicate the potential for fluoride to cause mutations, affect the structure of chromosomes and other genomic material; affect DNA replication, repair, and the cell cycle; and/or transform cultured cell lines to enable them to cause tumors when implanted into host animals. In interpreting the experimental studies and the consistency among disparate tests and systems, factors to be considered include the chemical form, concentrations, duration of exposure or application, vehicle or route of exposure, presence or absence of dose response, and information that each study provides about the potential stage of cancer development at which the chemical might operate. The degree of consistency of genotoxicity tests with the epidemiologic studies and whole animal bioassays on these points was evaluated.

GENOTOXICITY

Genotoxicity tests comprise in vitro and in vivo assays to assess the effects on DNA and chromosomal structure and/or function. The results of these assays serve as indicators of the potential interaction of chemicals with the genetic material. Changes in chromosomal or DNA structure or

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

function may be a step in the pathway to carcinogenesis. More often, they indicate interference with the normal duplication, function, and control of cell division and genetic activity that also might result in precancer or early neoplastic processes. Genotoxicity also encompasses the ability to cause germ cell and somatic cell mutations that cause malformations, disease, and other adverse health outcomes.

Many cell systems derived from various organisms have been used to the assess genotoxicity of a large array of chemicals. In evaluating the applicability of the results of these tests to human risk from fluoride ingestion, some of the key parameters are the concentrations used in the assays compared with physiologic concentrations, the form and vehicle for fluoride exposure in the assay, and existing data on overall applicability of the various assays to risk in humans. Tennant (1987) and Tennant et al. (1987) concluded that the Salmonella reverse mutation assay was the best short-term genotoxicity assay available for predicting carcinogenicity in mammals. However, Parodi et al. (1991) reviewed the results of various genotoxicity tests in comparison with animal carcinogenicity studies, and found that in vitro cytogenetic tests, particularly sister-chromatid exchange tests (SCEs), were more predictive of carcinogenicity than the Salmonella reverse mutation assay. Tice et al. (1996) subsequently reviewed relative sensitivities of rodents and humans to genotoxic agents and concluded that humans are more than an order of magnitude more sensitive than rodents to most of the genotoxic agents they examined using the genetic activity profile database.

The available new genotoxicity studies of fluoride are detailed in Table 10-1. The most extensive and important additions to the genotoxicity literature on fluoride since 1993 are in vivo assays in human populations and, to a lesser extent, in vitro assays using human cell lines and in vivo experiments with rodents. These studies are discussed below.

Gene Mutation

Mutagenicity indicates direct action of a substance on DNA. Alterations in DNA suggest that the chemical has the potential to cause genetic effects as well as carcinogenic potential. In 1993, the existing literature did not indicate that fluoride posed a mutation hazard. The literature included assays with Salmonella (virtually all negative results), various mammalian cells lines (virtually all negative), and cultured human lymphocytes. Positive results in the human lymphocytes were seen at fluoride concentrations above 65 micrograms per milliliter (µg/mL) (parts per million [ppm]) and generally at more than 200 µg/mL, (much greater concentrations than those to which human cells in vivo typically would be exposed). No pertinent studies have been found since those reviewed in the 1993 NRC report. The committee interprets the weight of evidence from in vivo rodent studies to

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

TABLE 10-1 Summary of Recent Genotoxicity Studies of Fluoride

Population or System/Method and Assay

Findings

Remarks

References

In vivo human studies

Subjects (n = 746) with normal or inadequate nutrition living in regions of China with water concentrations of fluoride at 0.2, 1.0, or 4.8 mg/L.

Assay: SCE in blood lymphocytes.

Subjects in the 4.8-mg/L region had lower average SCEs per cell.

Plasma and urine fluoride concentrations also measured; these were proportional to water concentrations.

Y. Li et al. 1995

Comparison of 100 residents of North Gujarat exposed to drinking water with fluoride at 1.95 to 2.2 mg/L with 21 subjects in Ahmedabad exposed at 0.6 to 1.0 mg/L.

Assay: SCE in blood lymphocytes and cell cycle proliferative index.

SCE rate was significantly greater in subjects from North Gujarat, but there was no difference in the cell cycle proliferative index.

Insufficient documentation of subject ascertainment or control for potential demographic confounding.

Sheth et al. 1994

Phosphate fertilizer workers with inhalation exposure.

Assay: chromosome aberrations, micronucleus, SCE.

Exposed workers had elevation in all cytogenetic outcomes tested.

 

Meng et al. 1995; Meng and Zhang 1997

Peripheral blood lymphocytes from inhabitants of the Hohhot region in inner Mongolia (n = 53 with fluorosis; n = 20 with no fluorosis) exposed to fluoride in drinking water at 4 to 15 mg/L compared with controls (n = 30) exposed to fluoride at < 1 mg/L.

Assay: SCE and micronucleus.

SCE: higher frequency in individuals with fluorosis (87% increase in SCEs), than no fluorosis (13% increase) compared with controls.

Micronucleus: higher frequency in individuals with fluorosis (3.4-fold increase) than no fluorosis (1.8-fold increase) compared with controls.

Insufficient documentation of subject ascertainment or control for potential demographic confounding.

Wu and Wu 1995

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

Human populations with long-term residency in communities with water concentrations of fluoride at 0.2, 1.0, and 4.0 mg/L. Measured plasma and urine fluoride concentrations.

Assay: SCE in blood lymphocyte.

SCEs higher in 4.0-mg/L community. Follow-up study in the 4.0-mg/L community comparing residents using well water (≤0.3 mg/L) and city water (4.0 mg/L) found no difference in SCE frequency between these two groups in the 4-mg/L town.

 

Jackson et al. 1997

Cultured peripheral blood lymphocytes from 7 female osteoporosis patients treated with disodium monofluorophosphate and NaF for 15 to 49 months (22.6 to 33.9 mg of fluoride/day). Measured serum fluoride.

Assay: chromosomal aberration, micronuclei, cell cycle progression.

No cytogenetic effects compared with the matched controls.

 

Van Asten et al. 1998

Comparison of residents of South Gujarat exposed fluoride at approximately 0.7 mg/L (control village) with residents exposed at 1.5 to 3.5 mg/L (3 villages).

Assay: SCE in peripheral lymphocytes.

One of the high-fluoride villages had elevated SCEs. No difference was found between the other two and the control village.

Insufficient documentation of subject ascertainment and demographic characteristics.

Joseph and Gadhia 2000

Case series in India of osteosarcoma (n = 20) compared with population distribution regarding bone tumor fluoride concentration and p53 mutations.

Assay: p53 mutation and fluoride concentrations in tumor tissue.

Two (10%) cases had p53 mutants in osteosarcoma tissue, and those two had the highest bone tumor fluoride concentrations.

Only patients undergoing prosthesis fitting at one hospital were selected; selection bias was possible. If replicated with systematic ascertainment, this design could indicate a mechanism for carcinogenic activity by fluoride.

Ramesh et al. 2001

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

Population or System/Method and Assay

Findings

Remarks

References

In vivo animal studies

Mice (B6C3F1) exposed via drinking water for 6 weeks. Measured fluoride concentrations in bone.

Assay: micronuclei in peripheral red blood cells, chromosome aberrations in bone marrow.

No micronuclei increase in peripheral red blood cells, and no chromosome aberration increase in bone marrow. Bone concentrations of fluoride increased with dose to >7,000 ppm.

Method addresses some of the conflicts in previous in vitro and in vivo studies.

Zeiger et al. 1994

Four Zucker rats, diabetic and nondiabetic males. Fluoride in water at 5 to 50 mg/L for 6 months.

Assay: SCE.

No SCE elevation in any exposed subgroup.

 

Dunipace et al. 1996

Wistar rats exposed to NaF at 0, 7, and 100 mg/L in drinking water

Assay: single cell gel electrophoresis (Comet assay)

No increase in single-strand DNA damage.

 

Ribeiro et al. 2004a

In vitro human studies

Synchronized human diploid fibroblasts. Attempt to reconcile disparate methods of classifying aberrations (e.g., gaps).

Assay: chromosome aberrations.

50 ppm NaF is lowest concentration inducing aberrations.

Proposes mechanism of inhibition of DNA synthesis and repair.

Aardema and Tsutsui 1995

Cultured human diploid cells. NaF treatment for 2.5 hours or continuous.

Assay: clastogenicity.

Fluoride clastogenic at >5 ppm. No effect on ploidy.

 

Oguro et al. 1995

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

Human diploid fibroblasts at quiescent stage treated with NaF at 1 to 10 ppm (fluoride ion at 0.45 to 4.5 ppm), 1 to 3 weeks.

Assay: clastogenicity.

No clastogenicity.

Fluoride concentrations in range of water supplies.

Tsutsui et al. 1995

Human lymphocytes from 50 individuals cultured in 10 to 30 ppm NaF.

Assays: chromosomal aberration and SCE.

Chromosomal aberration: 23% and 8% increased frequency of total aberrations at 20 and 30 ppm, respectively, but not at 10 ppm.

SCE: no effects reported.

 

Gadhia and Joseph 1997

Human embryo hepatocytes.

Treated with NaF at 40, 80, and 160 mg/L for 24 hours.

Assay: single cell gel electrophoresis (Comet assay)

Lipid peroxidase and glutathione also assayed.

Dose-related increase in single-strand DNA damage.

Dose-related increase in lipid peroxidase, decrease in gluthathione, and increase in the percentage of apoptotic cells.

Wang et al. 2004

In vitro animal studies

Cell cultures of rodents, prosimians, apes, and humans.

Assay: chromosome aberration.

Clastogenicity of fluoride in great apes and human cells only at 42 to 252 ppm NaF.

 

Kishi and Ishida 1993

BALB/c-3T3 mouse cells.

Examined numerous chemicals, including NaF.

Assay: cell transformation.

1.2 to 4.6 mM (19 to 193 ppm) NaF negative for transformation.

Standard transformation assay modified to increase sensitivity

Matthews et al. 1993.

Rats (Sprague-Dawley) cultured bone marrow cells.

NaF and KF at 0.1 to 100 µM for 12, 24, or 36 hours.

Assay: cytotoxicity and SCE.

Dose-response observed for cytotoxicity. No inhibition of cell proliferation. No effect on SCE.

 

Khalil and Da’dara 1994

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

Population or System/Method and Assay

Findings

Remarks

References

Rat (Sprague-Dawley) cultured bone marrow cells.

Treated with NaF and KF 0.1 to 100 µM for 12, 24, or 36 hours.

Assay: chromosomal aberration and break.

Weak effects at 1.0 µM, NaF and KF. Effects slightly greater for KF than NaF.

 

Khalil 1995

Chinese hamster ovary cells.

Treated with NaF at 7.28, 56, and 100 µg/mL for 3 hours.

Assay: single cell gel electrophoresis (Comet assay)

No increase in single-strand DNA damage.

 

Ribeiro et al. 2004b

Rat (F344/N) vertebral cells. NaF treatments 1 to 3 days.

Assay: chromosomal aberration.

Dose-related increases of chromosome aberrations at 0.5 and 1.0 mM for 24 and 48 hours.

Potential target organ of NTP carcinogenicity studies that yielded osteosarcomas. Provides possible mechanism for carcinogenesis of vertebrae.

Mihashi and Tsutsui 1996

ABBREVIATIONS: KF, potassium fluoride; NaF, sodium fluoride; NTP, National Toxicology Program.

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

indicate very low probability of a mutagenic risk for humans (NRC 1993; WHO 2002; ATSDR 2003).

Chromosomal Changes and DNA Damage

This section describes studies of fluoride’s effects on chromosomes and chromatids, formation of micronuclei, and DNA damage. Chromosomal alterations can include changes in chromosome number (aneuploidy) and aberrations of the chromosomes (before DNA synthesis) or chromatids (after DNA synthesis). (Nondisjunction or translocation of chromosome 21, producing Down’s syndrome, is discussed in Chapter 6 on Reproductive and Developmental Effects.) Classification of chromosome/chromatid aberrations has become standardized in recent years: some types of aberrations (e.g., chromatid gaps) are judged to be less important in evaluating effects on chromosomes than other major aberrations (e.g., breaks and translocations). SCE is not known to be on the causal pathway of any adverse health effects, but it is considered a generic indication of exposure to substances that can affect chromosomal structure, many of which are also carcinogens. The SCE assay is a helpful and widely used assay because of its greater sensitivity at lower concentrations than chromosome aberrations. Fewer cells need to be scored in order to establish with confidence whether an increase in SCEs has occurred in a specific test system.

Micronuclei are DNA-containing bodies derived from chromosomal material that is left behind during mitosis. Either a faulty mitotic process or chromosomal breaks can cause this phenomenon. Micronuclei can be visualized in nondividing cells. The relatively new “Comet assay” detects single-strand DNA damage in individual cells using microgel electrophoresis.

Effects on cell survival (cytotoxicity) and effects on cell division are commonly investigated and reported in the course of conducting in vitro cytogenetic studies, and they are included in the summary below.

Human Cells In Vitro

Interpreting the health significance of observed cytogenetic effects on human cells in culture depends on the dose, timing of application relative to the point in the cell cycle, and type of cultured cells, among other factors. As of the 1993 NRC report, the existing data of this type were inconsistent regarding the cytogenetic effects of fluorides. Since that time, Tsutsui et al. (1995) applied sodium fluoride (NaF) at or near concentrations found in water supplies (1 to 10 ppm, equivalent to 0.45 to 4.5 ppm fluoride ion) to diploid fibroblasts for up to 3 weeks and did not observe clastogenicity. Aardema and Tsutsui (1995) using a similar cell system found aberrations only above 50 ppm. The cell phases at which these effects were observed

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

suggested that the underlying mechanism of the chromosomal aberrations might be interference by fluoride with DNA synthesis and repair. In human diploid IMR90 cells, Oguro et al. (1995) observed clastogenicity only above 5 ppm NaF after short- and long-term applications. Gadhia and Joseph (1997) noted that 20 and 30 ppm NaF, but not 10 ppm, caused aberrations. No effects on SCEs were seen in their study. Recently, Wang et al. (2004) used the Comet assay to study genotoxicity in human embryo hepatocytes after treatment with NaF. They observed a dose-related increase in single-strand DNA damage at concentrations of 40, 80, and 160 mg/L.

Other Mammalian Systems In Vitro

Previous studies with a wide variety of test systems found cytogenetic effects in some but not all systems used (NRC 1993; WHO 2002; ATSDR 2003).

Recent studies with in vitro rodent systems include those by Khalil and Da’dara (1994) and Khalil (1995). They evaluated effects on cultured bone marrow cells of Sprague-Dawley rats after exposure to NaF or potassium fluoride (KF) at concentrations ranging from 0.1 µM to 0.1 μM (up to 2 ppm fluoride) for 12 to 36 hours. They did not observe increased SCE levels at any concentration, although there was dose-dependent cytotoxicity. Both NaF and KF induced chromosomal aberrations in a dose-dependent manner between 0.1 and 100 µM. Mihashi and Tsutsui (1996) studied effects on cultured vertebral cells of F344/N rats after 1 to 3 days of 9 to 18 ppm NaF treatment and found dose-dependent increases in chromosomal aberrations based on time and concentrations. Kishi and Ishida (1993) compared activity of NaF on chromosome aberrations for a series of cell lines from rodents, prosimians, great apes, and humans. Clastogenicity by 42 to 252 ppm NaF was seen only in the great ape and human cell lines. Their work thus indicates a greater sensitivity to fluoride in human than in rodent cells. In an older study not included in the NRC (1993) report, Jagiello and Lin (1974) reported that in vitro exposure of oocytes to NaF disrupted meiotic anaphase of ewes and cows but not of mice. The effective doses were the same order of magnitude as those reported by NRC in 1993 to cause chromosome aberrations in human lymphocytes. In vivo tests performed only in mice indicated that fluoride was not genotoxic, even at high doses. Ribeiro et al. (2004b) used the Comet assay to assess effects of NaF on Chinese hamster ovary cells in vitro. No damage was observed at concentrations of up to 100 µg/mL.

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Rodent Systems In Vivo

Zeiger et al. (1994) administered NaF in drinking water for 6 weeks to B6C3F1 mice and assayed micronuclei and chromosome aberration occurrences. They observed no increases over unexposed controls. Similarly, Dunipace et al. (1996) exposed diabetic and nondiabetic Zucker male rats to fluoride concentrations up to 50 mg/L in water for up to 6 months. They found no increase in the rate of SCEs for any test group.

Ribeiro et al. (2004a) exposed Wistar rats to NaF at 7 and 100 mg/L in drinking water for 6 weeks. Comet assays of peripheral blood, oral mucosa, and brain cells in vivo showed no increase in single-strand DNA damage.

Nonmammalian Systems In Vivo

Previous work on nonmammalian systems was sparse but did not indicate consistent cytogenetic effects. No new relevant studies have been reported.

Human Cells In Vivo

The NRC 1993 report noted the absence of human in vivo genotoxicity studies. Since 1993, important contributions to the evaluation of genotoxicity of fluoride have been in the area of cytogenetic studies of human populations exposed via diverse routes to various fluorides. Studies of human populations have the advantage of evaluating pertinent concentrations in a physiologically relevant context, despite the limitations inherent in all epidemiologic observational studies of not controlling for all factors that might be pertinent. Relevant studies are summarized below according to route of exposure.

Ingestion Route

The most well-documented in vivo human study published was that of Y. Li et al. (1995), who assayed the fluoride concentrations in water, plasma, and urine in more than 700 individuals. Six groups of 120 subjects resided in different locales with average naturally occurring fluoride concentrations in drinking water varying between 0.2 and 5 mg/L. They observed that, although plasma and urine fluoride concentrations varied with water concentrations, the groups of subjects living in the regions with higher concentrations of fluoride had lower average SCEs per cell. The study controlled for the nutritional status of the subjects. Subsequently, Jackson et al. (1997) compared SCE occurrence in lymphocytes of residents of communities with water fluoride concentrations of 0.2, 1, and 4 mg/L. Residents of the 4-mg/L

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

fluoride community had more average SCEs. In a follow-up study, there was no difference between the mean SCE level of a subsample of residents using the 4-mg/L community water and another sample of residents using 0.3-mg/L well water.

The following three less-well-documented studies reported associations between cytogenetic effects and residence in areas with high natural fluoride concentrations in drinking water. Sheth et al. (1994) published a preliminary investigation of SCEs in 100 residents of Gujarat, India, with fluorosis and 21 unaffected controls. They reported higher SCE rates among the fluorosis cases as well as higher fluoride concentrations in the cases’ water. The design of this study was seriously deficient, particularly because of the possibility of selection bias; cases and controls were recruited from different areas (cases were from areas with higher naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water). Additionally, clinical criteria for case definition were not adequately documented. Wu and Wu (1995) examined peripheral blood lymphocytes in a small series (n = 53) of residents in a high-natural-fluoride area (4 to 15 mg/L) and 30 control residents from a low-fluoride area (<1 mg/L) of Inner Mongolia. SCEs and micronuclei were more frequent only among subjects with fluorosis and not among those with higher exposures who did not exhibit fluorosis. The report had a dearth of information on subject selection and on control of potential confounding factors. Joseph and Gadhia (2000) later compared residents of three villages that had drinking water concentrations of fluoride at 1.6 to 3.5 mg/L with residents of Gujarat, India, where there is fluoride in residential drinking water at 0.7 mg/L . Chromosome aberrations were strongly elevated in residents of all three of the villages. SCE rates were elevated only in residents of one of those, and the same village’s residents also demonstrated higher chromosome aberrations in mitomycinC-treated lymphocytes. Only 14 individuals were tested from each village, and the method of subject selection was not reported.

Van Asten et al. (1998) found no cytogenetic effects (aberrations, micronuclei, or cell cycle progression) on cultured lymphocytes in women who had been treated with fluoride (22.6 to 33.9 mg/day) for osteoporosis for 1 to 4 years.

Inhalation and/or Dermal Routes

Two articles published by Meng et al. (1995) and Meng and Zhang (1997) described cytogenetic assays in phosphate fertilizer workers. Inhalation of fluoride is the principal chemical exposure in these plants. The air concentrations of fluoride ranged from 0.5 to 0.8 mg/m3 at the time of the study. Chromosomal aberrations, micronuclei, and SCEs were all elevated in exposed workers. The length of exposure did not show a dose-dependent relationship with these cytogenetic effects; those working at the plant for 5

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

to 10 years had the greatest effect compared with those working for more than 10 years or less than 5 years. It is not clear, however, whether length of employment is a pertinent exposure metric concerning the plausibility of cytogenetic risk of fluoride for this cohort.

Cell Transformation

Cell transformation is the conversion of normal cells to neoplastic cells in vitro. In the 1993 NRC report, the positive transformation results reported were largely in Syrian hamster embryo (SHE) cells for which results cannot be extrapolated to human systems or other cell types (NRC 1993). However, in the one study that included an additional system, BALB/3T3 mouse cells (Lasne et al. 1988), transformation was observed with NaF at 25 to 50 ppm primarily in a promotional model with a known carcinogen as an initiator, suggesting this mechanism for a potential carcinogenic effect of fluoride. Since that time, the only additional pertinent publication is by Matthews et al. (1993), who also used a BALB/3T3 system with assay modifications to increase sensitivity. They tested numerous chemicals including 1.2 to 4.6 mM NaF (19 to 193 ppm), which did not exhibit transformational activity according to their criteria.

DNA Synthesis and Repair

A report from India (Ramesh et al. 2001) described a case series of 20 osteosarcoma patients of which the two with the highest fluoride concentrations in their tumor tissue had mutations of the tumor-suppressor gene p53 and the others did not. The normal p53 allele appears to protect cells from some mutagenic exposures by enhancing DNA repair mechanisms, and the dominant, null mutation is often found in soft tissue and osteosarcomas (Wadayama et al. 1993; Hung and Anderson 1997; Semenza and Weasel 1997). However, it should be noted that the fluoride concentration reported in the tumors with p53 mutations (i.e., 64,000 and 89,000 mg/kg versus 1,000-27,000 mg/kg in the remaining patients) exceed the theoretical maximum fluoride concentration of 37,700 mg/kg in bone (see Chapter 3). No data were presented regarding drinking water concentrations or other sources of fluoride exposures for those patients. The observations in this small case series are consistent with a role of fluoride in p53 mutations that could influence the development of osteosarcoma.

No other studies on DNA synthesis or repair have been found since those reviewed in the 1993 NRC report. Previous results were inconsistent but suggested that a mechanism for genotoxicity might be secondary to inhibition of protein or DNA synthesis (NRC 1993).

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Update on Genotoxicity Conclusions and Recommendations of NRC (1993)

Overall, the results in in vitro systems summarized above are inconsistent and do not strongly indicate the presence or absence of genotoxic potential for fluoride. In 1993, NRC concluded that the existing genotoxicity data probably were not of “genetic significance.” There were no specific 1993 NRC recommendations regarding genotoxicity studies, although the report did mention the dearth of human in vivo assays. The more recent literature on in vitro assays does not resolve the overall inconsistencies in the earlier literature.

The human population in vivo studies published during the past 10 years comprise a new body of data that might be pertinent to evaluating the genotoxic potential of fluoride; those population studies by definition integrate the pharmacokinetic contexts and actual cell environment parameters resulting from external exposures, whether via water or other environmental media. However, the inconsistencies in the results of these in vivo studies do not enable a straightforward evaluation of fluoride’s practical genotoxic potential in humans.

CARCINOGENICITY

Animal Cancer Studies

Two studies were judged in the 1993 NRC review as adequate for the consideration of carcinogenic evidence in animals: an NTP study in F344/ N rats and B6C3F1 mice (NTP 1990) and studies in Sprague-Dawley rats (Maurer et al. 1990) and in CD-1 mice (Maurer et al. 1993). The latter study in CD-1 mice was in press at the time of the NRC (1993) review. Two neoplasms were noted in the weight-of-evidence discussion:

  1. Positive dose-related increase in the trend (P = 0.027) of osteosarcoma in male F344/N rats through drinking water route of exposure (NTP 1990)

  2. Positive increase of osteoma in male and female CD-1 mice through dietary inclusion exposure (Maurer et al. 1993).

The review concluded that “the collective data from the rodent fluoride toxicological studies do not present convincing evidence of an association between fluoride and increased occurrence of bone cancer in animals” (NRC 1993).

Since the publication of the 1993 NRC review, the discussion on the uncertainties and overall weight of evidence in animals was further ex-

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

panded (WHO 2002; ATSDR 2003). Most of the uncertainties had already been highlighted in the NTP study. However, the nature of uncertainties in the existing data could also be viewed as supporting a greater precaution regarding the potential risk to humans. The key issues are presented in this section. In addition, the committee found another NTP study that adds to the database on fluoride.

NTP Studies

In the chronic bioassays by NTP (1990), F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice were administered NaF in drinking water at of 25, 100, and 175 mg/L, 7 days per week for 2 years. A summary of the neoplasms found is presented in Table 10-2. Osteosarcomas of the bone were found in male rats (1 of 50 and 3 of 80 in the mid- and high-dose groups, respectively) but not in female rats or in mice. An additional male rat in the 175-mg/L group had osteosarcoma of the subcutaneous tissue. Rats and mice exhibited tooth discoloration, and male rats had tooth deformities and attrition.

To adequately assess the oncogenicity of a chemical, it is important that the dose range used in the study is sufficiently high, attaining the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or minimally toxic dose. There was a lack of significant toxicity of NaF in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice, which suggested that higher doses could be tolerated (NTP 1990). Thus, it can be argued that the oncogenicity of fluoride in drinking water cannot be fully assessed on the basis of this study. Although this could be the case for the study in mice, given that rats at the high dose already showed various tooth abnormalities, higher-dose treatment might interfere with the rat’s ability to eat (NTP 1990).

Increased incidence of osteosarcoma was reported in the high-dose male rats (Table 10-2). Opinion differs regarding the appropriateness of including the one case of extraskeletal osteosarcoma in the remaining incidence of osteosarcomas found in vertebrae and humerus (NTP 1990; PHS 1991; ATSDR 2003). The incidence from all sites gives stronger statistical significance than from the bone alone, lowering the P value from P = 0.027 to P = 0.01 for dose- related trend (logistic regression test) and from P = 0.099 to P = 0.057 for the pair-wise comparison with the controls (NTP 1990). A comparison with the historical control series was also presented, although its significance was compromised because of the higher fluoride in the standard diet used for the historical data, and because the radiograph used in the fluoride drinking water study was not routinely used in bone examinations (NTP 1990). Osteosarcoma is a rare tumor in rats. More recent historical data from Haseman et al. (1998) became available after the data from Haseman et al. (1985) that were used for the evaluation in the fluoride drinking water study. The data published in 1985 included studies

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

TABLE 10-2 Incidence of Neoplasms Highlighted in the NTP and Maurer et al. Studies

NaF in Drinking Water (NTP 1990)a

Site of Neoplasm

Control

25 mg/L

100 mg/L

175 mg/L

Male F344/N rats

 

 

 

 

Osteosarcoma: bone

0/80 (0%)+

0/51 (0%)

1/50 (2%)

3/80 (4%)

Osteosarcoma: all sites

0/80 (0%)++

0/51 (0%)

1/50 (2%)

4/80 (5%)

Oral cavityb

0/80 (0%)

1/51 (2%)

2/50 (4%)

3/80 (4%)

Thyroidc

1/80 (1%)+

1/51 (2%)

1/50 (2%)

4/80 (5%)

Female F344/N rats

 

 

 

 

Osteosarcoma: bone

0/80 (0%)

0/50 (0%)

0/50 (0%)

0/81 (0%)

Osteosarcoma: all sites

0/80 (0%)

0/50 (0%)

0/50 (0%)

0/81 (0%)

Oral cavityb

1/80 (1%)

1/50 (2%)

1/50 (2%)

3/81 (4%)

Thyroidc

2/80 (3%)

0/50 (0%)

2/50 (4%)

2/81 (2%)

NaF in Drinking Water (NTP 1992)

Site of Neoplasm

Control

250 mg/L

 

 

Male F344 rats

 

 

 

 

Osteosarcoma: bone

2/49 (4%)

1/49 (2%)

 

 

NaF in Diet (Maurer et al. 1993)d

Site of neoplasm

Control

4 mg/kg/day

10 mg/kg/day

25 mg/kg/day

Male CD-1 mice

 

 

 

 

Osteoma: bone

1/50 (2%)

0/42 (0%)

2/44 (5%)

13/50 (26%)***

Female CD-1 mice

 

 

 

 

Osteoma: bone

2/50 (3%)

4/42 (10%)

2/44 (5%)

13/50 (26%)**

aStatistical significance: trend test at P ≤ 0.05 (+); P ≤ 0.01 (++). Fisher pair-wise comparison at P ≤ 0.01 (**); P ≤ 0.001 (***). The average daily dose for the male rat control, 25-, 100-, or 175-mg/L group was 0.2, 0.8, 2.5, or 4.1 mg of fluoride/kg/day.

bIncluded squamous papillomas and squamous cell carcinomas in oral mucosa, tongue, or pharynx.

cFollicular cell adenomas or carcinomas.

dThe given dose is in NaF. Adjusted for the 45% weight difference between fluoride and NaF, the dose for the treatment group was 1.8, 4.5, or 11.3 mg of fluoride/kg/day. Fluoride intake for the control mice was 0.9 mg of NaF/kg/day (0.4 mg of fluoride/kg/day) for the males and 1.1 mg of NaF/kg/day (0.5 mg of fluoride/kg/day) for the females.

completed between 1979 and 1984, whereas the data published in 1998 were a 7-year collection up to January 1997. The 1990-1997 data showed a lower historical incidence of 0.1% (range 0% to 2%) each for bone and for all skin sites (Haseman et al. 1998). Ideally, historical data closer to the time frame of the bioassay of comparison would be more pertinent. On the basis of the 1990-1997 data, the incidence of osteosarcoma at the high dose appeared to exceed the historical range. Nevertheless, the same issues in making comparisons with historical data remain—historical control animals were not fed a low-fluoride diet and their bones were probably not examined with radiograph.

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

Additionally highlighted in the NTP report were the oral cavity squamous papillomas and squamous cell carcinomas (oral mucosa, tongue, pharynx) in male and female rats and thyroid follicular cell adenomas and carcinomas in high-dose male rats (Table 10-2). Both showed some increase with dose. The incidence at the high dose exceed the historical control but stayed within the high end of the historical range and was not statistically significant from the concurrent control. The marginal increase in these neoplasms might not provide additional weight to the overall evidence of oncogenicity, but their occurrence could serve as an additional guide for epidemiologic studies.

Among the other tumor sites and types highlighted in the NTP report as not statistically and biologically significant was the hepatocellular neoplasm (adenoma, carcinoma, hepatoblastoma, and hepatocholangiocarcinoma) in male and female mice (NTP 1990). Among these neoplasms, five in male and four in female treatment groups (unspecified) were reported by the contract laboratory as hepatocholangiocarcinoma (NTP 1990). All but one in the females were reclassified into hepatoblastoma by the NTP pathology working group (NTP 1990). The incidence of these rare neoplasms not seen in the concurrent controls (historical hepatoblastoma of 0/2,197 in male mice and 1/2,202 in female mice) was judged as not significant when grouped with the more common hepatocellular adenomas and carcinomas (NTP 1990).

Another study conducted by NTP (1992, released in 2005) that bears on the carcinogenicity evaluation of fluoride is one that investigated the interaction of fluoride on the development of osteosarcoma induced by ionizing radiation. Pertinent to the committee’s evaluation was a group of nonirradiated male F344 rats that were administered NaF at 250 mg/L in drinking water for two years. Of the 49 rats per group that were examined, osteosarcoma of the bone occurred in one NaF treated rats and two nonirradiated controls. Thus, the results did not show an increase of osteosarcoma with NaF. However, this single data point does not have sufficient statistical power for detecting low level effects and rendered its observed results statistically compatible with those from the NTP (1990) bioassay. It is noteworthy that the study had the unexpected result that none of the irradiated animals developed osteosarcoma.

Maurer et al. Studies

Maurer et al. (1990, 1993) fed Sprague-Dawley rats and CD-1 mice diets containing NaF at doses of 4, 10, and 25 mg/kg/day for up to 99 weeks (rats) or 97 weeks (mice). Evidence of toxicity included decreased weight gain in the high-dose rats and non-neoplastic changes of the teeth (rats and mice), bones (rats and mice), joints (mice), and stomach (rats). In rats, no incidence of preneoplastic or neoplastic lesions was significantly different

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

from that in controls. In mice, increased incidence of osteomas (noncancerous bone tumors) was reported (Table 10-2).

The many limitations of the studies in rats and mice were identified in the earlier NRC (1993) review. The histopathologic examination of bones was not performed for all test animals (PHS 1991; WHO 2002; ATSDR 2003). Data on neoplasm were reported only for the bone and stomach. Moreover, based on the joint review by the Carcinogenicity Assessment Committee, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, questions were raised about the adequacy of the histopathologic examinations (PHS 1991). In the original report, fibroblastic sarcoma with areas of osteoid formation, chordoma, and chondroma were found in the males and osteosarcoma and chondroma were found in the females. However, the joint review discovered additional osteosarcoma in males and females. Collectively, those discrepancies called into question the weight of this negative study in the overall weight-of-evidence consideration (PHS 1991).

In the study with CD-1 mice, increased osteoma was reported in males and females at the high dose (Maurer et al. 1993). The authors reported that retrovirus infection in mice from all test groups might have confounded the occurrence of osteoma. The earlier NRC (1993) review considered the impact of the infection and concluded that the fluoride exposure was the most obvious cause for the increase in osteoma. However, based on the view of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) that the osteomas were more reminiscent of a hyperplastic lesion, NRC (1993) concluded that their relevance to humans was questionable.

Human Cancer Studies

General Issues

Inherent difficulties for conducting epidemiologic studies of the cancer potential of fluoride and drinking water are similar to those challenges of studying most environmental chemicals. The limitations severely affect the possibility of identifying relatively small effects on cancer incidence and, especially, cancer mortality. Chief among them are the latency of cancer diagnosis after exposure to causal factors, typically spanning more than 10 years and often reaching 30 years. Migrations into and out of fluoridated areas often lead to misclassification of exposures when individual residency histories are not known. The diversity of cancers, comprising many different diseases rather than a single entity, necessitates evaluating each type of cancer separately rather than all cancers combined. Even so, there are few cancers for which specific environmental chemicals impart high attributable risks for the overall population or even among exposed populations.

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

The basic criteria for evaluating studies are appropriate methodology, potential selection and information biases, statistical power to detect real associations, appropriate time windows for assessing exposures and potential effects, and control for potential confounding by sociodemographic and other factors. In addition, sufficiently specific end points (types of cancer) and adequate exposure estimation are necessary for any epidemiologic study of fluoride and cancer to be informative for the committee’s task. A further issue is consideration of sensitive subpopulations based on a priori physiologic or previous epidemiologic data. Finally, it is necessary to apply biologic plausibility criteria and a weight-of-evidence approach to evaluate whether any observed associations should be interpreted as causal.

Many of the studies published before and since the 1993 NRC report are “ecologic studies.” In these designs, populations rather than individuals are the units of observation. A typical ecologic study regresses disease rates in different areas against average exposures. Such studies are usually less expensive and less time-consuming to conduct because the component data are already available. Incidence data are often very reliable if they are derived from high-quality population-based registries and census data. However, ecologic studies are often insensitive to small effects because of their design. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR 2003) estimated that the ecologic studies performed to date for fluoride and cancer did not have sensitivities to detect less than 10% to 20% increases in cancer risk. Ecologic studies can be subject to large amounts of bias. Confounding factors and limited ability to control for such factors can be particularly serious problems (see Appendix C for a more detailed discussion of ecologic bias).

In semi-individual (partially ecologic) designs, individual-level information is collected for outcome and important variables, but exposure is assigned at the group level (e.g., based on residence or job title). Although such studies can share some characteristics of fully ecologic studies, they have much better ability to control confounding (see Appendix C).

Individual-based studies are composed of (1) case-control studies in which a group of people with a disease are compared with a sample of the population giving rise to the cases (controls) with regard to exposures that occurred before diagnosis, (2) cohort studies in which exposed and nonexposed people are followed forward in time and the disease experience of the two groups are compared, and (3) hybrids of these case-control and cohort designs. In environmental epidemiology, generally hundreds of subjects are required to detect with statistical significance any less than a twofold increase in risk of disease associated with a particular exposure. If an environmental agent is a weak carcinogen, with risks as low as 1 per 100,000 or 1 per 1,000,000 of those affected, it is extremely difficult to detect such effects by standard epidemiologic methods. This is particularly

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

true of cohort studies, which would need to enroll large numbers of subjects to detect differences between exposed and unexposed cohorts when the risks are low.

Epidemiology Data for Carcinogenicity of Fluoride

The weight of evidence for epidemiologic studies that NRC reviewed in 1993 did not indicate cancer risk to humans from fluoride exposure. However, the predominant methods used, particularly ecologic studies for which individual exposure histories could not be collected and confounding variables could not be controlled, were inadequate to rule out a weak effect. Some studies reported positive associations and some did not, but many of the studies were flawed in that adjustment for potential sociodemographic confounders was lacking or inadequate.

Epidemiologic studies published since the early 1990s and other pertinent studies not included in the 1993 NRC review are detailed in Table 10-3. The data are discussed below according to target sites for which associations with fluoride have been reported by at least one study.

Bone and Joint Cancers, Particularly Osteosarcoma

Osteosarcoma presents the greatest a priori plausibility as a potential cancer target site because of fluoride’s deposition in bone, the NTP animal study findings of borderline increased osteosarcomas in male rats, and the known mitogenic effect of fluoride on bone cells in culture (see Chapter 5). Principles of cell biology indicate that stimuli for rapid cell division increase the risks for some of the dividing cells to become malignant, either by inducing random transforming events or by unmasking malignant cells that previously were in nondividing states. Osteosarcoma is a rare disease, with an overall annual incidence rate of approximately 0.3 per 100,000 in the United States (Schottenfeld and Fraumeni 1996). The age of diagnosis is bimodal with peaks before age 20 and after age 50.

The incidence and mortality studies of osteosarcoma reviewed by NRC 1993 were ecologic or semi-ecologic in design. Their results were contradictory and inconclusive. The incidence studies of Hoover et al. (1991) at the National Cancer Institute observed that osteosarcoma rates in young males increased in the fluoridated areas compared with the nonfluoridated areas of two SEER registries they analyzed (Iowa and Seattle). However, the authors concluded that an association of fluoridation and osteosarcoma was not supported by the data because there was no linear trend of increased rate of osteosarcoma with the duration of fluoridation of the pertinent water supplies. The Hrudey et al. (1990) osteosarcoma incidence study in Alberta, Canada, and the Freni and Gaylor (1992) mortality analysis of bone cancer

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

TABLE 10-3 Summary of Recent Studies of Fluoride and Cancer

Study Design & Location

Observations

Findings

Remarks

References

Individual-based studies (cohort or case control)

Case-control study of pediatric osteosarcoma. NY State residents.

130 cases plus matched controls, patient and/or parent interviewed re residency history, fluoride ingestion sources, and other factors.

59 pairs of subjects were interviewed.

All data combined: odds ratios (ORs) for total fluoride ingestion decreased. ORs for water ingestion were elevated. Total fluoride protective for males. Reduced data for subjects (vs. parents) only: elevated ORs with dose response but wide confidence intervals.

Water ingestion alone not discussed by authors. No data or analysis of possible critical time window or latency. Paper contained some reversal of data columns in gender-specific tables and some misstatements regarding proportions of males and females with osteosarcoma. However, on the basis of information available to the committee, those specific errors do not appear to affect interpretation of this study.

Gelberg et al. 1995

Historical occupational cohort study of cryolite worker. SIRs. Denmark.

522 workers exposed.

Increased incidence or urinary bladder and respiratory cancers.

No smoking or drinking water data.

Grandjeanet al. 1992; Grandjean and Olsen 2004

Case-control osteosarcoma analysis using public records only. Wisconsin.

167 cases and 989 cancer referents (brain, digestive system) from state cancer registry. Not interviewed.

No association with residential fluoridation, including ages 0 to 24. (Positive association with naturally occurring radiation in water.)

Lack of residential history via interview and use of cancer referents are limitations.

Moss et al. 1995

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

Study Design & Location

Observations

Findings

Remarks

References

Case control of osteosarcoma, age <20 years

U.S. multi-site

91 cases, 188 controls, interviewed on residency history and other fluoride exposures. Hospital-based.

Associations of exposures to fluoride at approximately 1 mg/L in water with osteosarcoma during ages 6 to 8, particularly for males.

Exploratory dissertation, multiple limitations in design, analysis, and presentation of findings.

Bassin 2001

Ecologic studies

Ecologic, correlations of cancer incidence (combined) for fluoride concentrations.

Worldwide.

49 cities or countries on 5 continents, classified as high or low cancer incidence. Where fluoride concentrations were unavailable, used data from neighboring area.

Inverse relationship between cancer rates and fluoridation reported R = −0.75. Latitude and temperature also analyzed, but not together as covariates.

Averaged male and female rates, and combined all cancers.

Steiner 2002

Ecologic analysis using proportions of populations with estimated fluoride concentrations ≥ 0.7 mg/L.

USA (6 cities, 3 states).

9 areas, 36 different sites of cancer, three 5-year periods. 15 years or 5 years (when different) coefficients and cancer incidence ratios. Used log-transformation of fluoride concentration and cancer rates.

Regression coefficient highest for females’ 1990 oral/digestive and male bone cancers.

Large number of comparisons. Cancer rates not shown. Rate distribution stated to be Poisson. Results presented selectively. Statistical methods flawed.

Takahashi et al. 2001

Mortality trends or uterine cancer before and after fluoridation terminated.

Multiple regression. Okinawa, Japan.

20 of the 53 towns included. Controlled for sociodemographics. All fluoride concentrations below 0.4 mg/L.

Positive correlation of fluoridation with mortality rates. Mortality rates among the towns converged after fluoridation terminated.

Up to 13 years of exposure data combined. Hypothesis generated and data analyzed further in same population.

Tohyama 1996

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

Comparison of cancer mortality rates for towns with high vs. low natural fluoride concentrations. Taiwan.

10 high and 10 low matched towns compared. Total populations exceeded 1 million. Rate ratios (SMRs) generated.

The only finding with 95% confidence interval excluding 1.0 = excess of bladder cancer in females. Also higher rate ratios in males for bone, females for uterus, colon, all sites; both genders.

Multiple comparisons. Hypothesis-generating. Controlled for urbanization and disinfection by-products. Osteosarcomas not distinguished from other bone cancers.

Yang et al. 2000

Incidence and mortality statistics; subtracted female from male osteosarcoma rates. Worldwide.

Used U.S. and NJ rates, among others.

Concluded that the difference between male and female rates between fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas indicates cancer associations.

Inappropriate to subtract one gender from other.

Uses circular reasoning on causality.

Yiamouyiannis 1993

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

for 40 cancer registries worldwide found no evidence of association with fluoride.

Cohn (1992) in New Jersey had findings suggestive of an association of fluoride in public water with increased osteosarcoma in young males. The osteosarcoma rate ratio among males below age 20 in the Cohn analysis, based on 20 cases, was 3.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8 to 6). Mahoney et al. (1991) generated bone cancer and osteosarcoma incidence rate ratios for the years 1975-1987 for fluoridated and nonfluoridated counties of New York State (excluding New York City). The authors did not observe an association of fluoridation and osteosarcoma or other bone cancers for either gender, including for those younger than age 30.

As discussed above, strengths of all the ecologic studies included the largely complete ascertainment of cases through the population-based cancer registries; the chief limitation is the potential for large amounts of bias and poor ability to adjust for covariates.

Since the 1993 NRC report, Yang et al. (2000)1 conducted an ecologic analysis of cancer mortality in 20 municipalities in Taiwan, half with measurable naturally occurring fluoride concentrations. They controlled for urbanization and sociodemographic variables. Bone cancers (not specifically osteosarcoma) were nonsignificantly elevated (rate ratio [RR] of 1.6, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.17) in males but decreased in females (RR of 0.87, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.44). The range of fluoride concentrations was not reported, but the median and mean were about 0.25 mg/L.

Also since 1993, four individual-based studies have been published. Gelberg (1994) and Gelberg et al. (1995) conducted a population-based case-control study of osteosarcoma before age 25 in New York State. It included 130 cases and one matched control for each case. Controls were drawn from birth certificates, with replacement for those that could not be located. Parents and/or patients were interviewed regarding residence history and exposure to fluoride through drinking water, consumer dental products, dental supplements, and fluoride treatments. Analyses were conducted according to estimated lifetime dose of fluoride in total milligrams from each source of potential exposure, both separately and combined. When data on all subjects were analyzed, total fluoride exposures showed an inverse relationship with osteosarcoma. Use of fluoride gels had strong negative associations with osteosarcoma. Based on the parents’ interviews alone (97% of subjects), the authors found negative associations with total estimated fluoride intake from all sources, particularly due to a strong negative association of osteosarcoma with estimated quantities of fluoride ingested from toothpaste. Odds ratios (ORs) were above 1.0 for all catego-

1

This study did not analyze age subgroups and, therefore, did not address particular risk for young males or females.

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

ries of lifetime fluoride intake from drinking water compared with those with zero estimated intake from that source, particularly among females. This distinction is particularly noteworthy because Gelberg et al. had higher estimates of the relative contributions of fluoride from toothpaste ingestion compared with drinking water than those reflected in Chapter 2 of this report (see Figure 2-1). The source of the study’s estimates of toothpaste ingestion was not specified, but the relative proportions were most similar to those shown in Figure 2-1 for ages 2 to 6. If the relative contributions from toothpaste were exaggerated, then the findings regarding fluoride specifically from drinking water could arguably be given greater weight. Analyses of average annual fluoride exposure did not differ markedly from the observations on cumulative exposure estimates, thereby controlling to some degree for age of diagnoses.

A reduced set of 59 respondent pairs who were the actual patients or their controls (i.e, excluding proxies) showed positive associations, with very wide CIs, for both fluoridated water alone and for total fluoride exposure (only combined genders were analyzed in this smaller series). There were no analyses using lagged exposure estimates to consider hypothetical latencies between potential exposures and diagnosis of osteosarcoma, so it is possible that inclusion of nonpertinent exposures could lead to misclassification of relevant exposures.

Gelberg et al. concluded that their study showed no association of osteosarcoma and fluoride exposure. To date, this study is the closest to fulfilling the recommendation of the 1993 NRC report regarding conducting one or more analytic studies of osteosarcoma and fluoride exposure. However, no bone fluoride concentrations could be assessed through this design.

Moss et al. (1995) conducted a case-control analysis of osteosarcoma in Wisconsin by using only public records (without interviews). For the 167 cases, 989 cancer controls were selected from the state cancer registry among patients with other types of cancer (brain, digestive system). The study controlled for size of town, age at diagnosis, and radium levels in drinking water and did not observe an association of fluoridation at the time of case diagnosis with osteosarcoma. Because exposure classifications were assigned without interviews or other sources of residence history or water source data, this design is similar to that of a semiecologic study. The authors also examined young age groups specifically.

A pilot hospital-based case-control study of patients under age 40 was published by McGuire et al. (1991), indicating a nonsignificant negative association with a small series of osteosarcomas (34 cases and matched controls). A full-scale case-control study by this group (Douglass 2004) is now under way. Its design is described below because of its potential for future contribution to this issue.

Grandjean et al. (1992) and Grandjean and Olsen (2004) conducted

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

a historical cohort study among cryolite production workers in Denmark who previously had been documented to suffer high rates of skeletal fluorosis. Cryolite is composed of about 50% fluoride, and the workers were not believed to be exposed to suspected carcinogens of any other type via their work. The authors did not control for smoking. There were no bone fluoride measurements. However, daily dose of fluoride to these workers during their time of employment could be estimated at about 30 mg/day. Over many years of employment, workers’ exposure would tend to greatly exceed chronic exposures from ingestion of fluoride at the current MCL of 4 mg/L. No osteosarcoma incident or mortality cases were observed among their 522 subjects, and, given the rarity of osteosarcoma, the authors concluded an 18-fold upper bound on the relative risks of this disease from the exposures encountered by their cohort.

The central research chapter of an unpublished dissertation by Bassin (2001) on fluoride and osteosarcoma has recently become publicly available. The author described the work as exploratory. The report has important strengths and major deficits, some of which are described below.

The design is a case-control study of people under 20 years of age from 11 teaching hospitals in the United States. Cases (n = 91) were retrospectively ascertained and 188 controls were hospitalized patients in the same orthopedics departments. Controls were matched with cases according to distance of residence from the hospital. Hospital-based controls can introduce serious selection bias; osteosarcomas treated at the participating teaching hospitals are more likely to be representative of all osteosarcomas occurring in the surrounding populations, whereas patients treated for fractures or other common orthopedic ailments at these teaching hospitals may not be as representative of the overall population that gave rise to the cases. If fluoride exposure is either a risk factor or a protective factor for the group of hospitalized controls (e.g., fracture patients), the resulting relative risk estimates could be biased downward or upward, respectively. For example, the dissertation did not provide any data on what proportion of the controls comprised fracture patients.

All subjects or their surrogates were interviewed about lifetime residence history, a strength of the design. However, individual information on key socioeconomic factors such as education and income was not collected. Average income levels based on zip codes were used but might not reflect individual socioeconomic status. Lack of such information can be problematic if socioeconomic status, or factors for which it is a surrogate, introduce confounding.

The primary exposure metrics for fluoride in drinking water were based on a combination of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, states, locales, and purveyors on year-specific water system fluoride concentrations expressed as proportions of the recommended fluoride

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

guidelines. Based on tertiles for the controls, three exposure categories were expressed as 100%, 30% to 99%, and <30% of the target concentrations for fluoridated water.

A unique feature of the analysis published in the literature so far was an exploratory analysis of ORs for each specific year of age. Bassin found elevated ORs for the highest tertile compared with the lowest centering on ages 6 to 8. At age 7, the respective ORs (and 95% confidence intervals) were 7.2 (1.7 to 30.0) for males and 2.0 (0.43 to 9.28) for females. For the highest tertile, graphed results for males indicated a gradual increase and then a decrease of estimated relative risk from exposure at ages 0 to 15 with peaks at age 7, with the middle tertile, compared with the lowest, showing stable ORs across all ages. For females, both the middle and highest tertiles of exposure showed relatively unchanging relative risk estimates across exposure ages.

There was no analysis of cumulative exposures to fluoride, and therefore it is difficult to compare the Gelberg study, which used only cumulative exposure indices, with the Bassin work. This dissertation had a paucity of data in the results section, hampering its interpretation; for example, the report did not provide numbers of subjects in the categories upon which the ultimate analyses were based. Also, there were no data on bias potential stemming from nonparticipation of subjects due to refusal to be included or inability to locate them.

Nevertheless, the higher ORs for males than for females, and the highest ORs at ages 6 to 8, during what the author describes as the “mid-childhood growth spurt for boys,” are consistent with some previous ecologic or semiecologic studies (Hoover et al. 1991; Cohn 1992) and with a hypothesis of fluoride as an osteosarcoma risk factor operating during these ages. A publication based on the Bassin thesis is expected in the spring/summer of 2006 (E. Bassin, personal communication, Jan. 5, 2006). If this paper provides adequate documentation and analyses or the findings are confirmed by another study, more weight would be given to an assessment of fluoride as a human carcinogen.

A relatively large hospital-based case-control study of osteosarcoma and fluoride exposure is under way (Douglass 2004) and is expected to be reported in the summer of 2006 (C. Douglass, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, personal communication, January 3, 2006). Most of the incident cases are identified via eight participating medical centers in California, District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nebraska, and Ohio. The study has prospectively identified 189 incident cases of osteosarcoma and 289 hospital controls. Controls are orthopedic patients at the same hospitals as osteosarcoma patients and include patients diagnosed with malignancies other than osteosarcoma and other patients admitted for benign tumors, injuries, and inflammatory diseases. Matching criteria include gender, age,

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

and geographic characteristics. The investigation includes residence histories and detailed interviews about water consumption as well as fluoride assays of bone specimens and toenails of all subjects. The ultimate analysis and validity of this study will depend partly on the degree to which control selection is not biased in such a way as to artificially increase or decrease the likelihood of fluoride exposure compared with the general population to which this study is intended to apply.

A preliminary retrospective recruitment phase of this investigation, including telephone interviews, residential history reconstruction, and an attempt to estimate dietary fluoride intakes, reported ORs of 1.2 to 1.4 that were not statistically significant (Douglass 2004). No confidence intervals were provided. The Douglass study may have limited statistical power to detect a small increase in osteosarcoma risk due to fluoride exposure, but the committee expects the forthcoming report is likely to be a useful addition to the weight of evidence regarding the presence or degree of carcinogenic hazard that fluoride ingestion might pose to osteosarcoma risk, particularly if it addresses some of the limitations of hospital-based studies that are mentioned above in the description and critique of the Bassin thesis.

Kidney and Bladder Cancers

The plausibility of the bladder as a target for fluoride is supported by the tendency of hydrogen fluoride to form under physiologically acid conditions, such as found in urine. Hydrogen fluoride is caustic and might increase the potential for cellular damage, including genotoxicity. The Hoover et al. (1991) analyses of the Iowa and Seattle cancer registries indicated a consistent, but not statistically significant, trend of kidney cancer incidence with duration of fluoridation. This trend has not been noted in other publications, although Yang et al. (2000) observed that the adjusted mortality rate ratios of kidney cancers among males in Taiwan was 1.55 (95% CI 0.84 to 2.84). The analogous rate for females was 1.37 (95% CI 0.51 to 3.70). Yang et al. noted statistically significant RRs in females for bladder cancer (RR = 2.79, 95% CI 1.41 to 5.55; for males RR = 1.27, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.15).

The Grandjean et al. (1992) and Grandjean and Olsen (2004) historical occupational cohort study of cryolite workers in Denmark (described earlier in the section on bone and joint cancers), who were followed from 1941 to 2002, observed an elevated standardized incidence ratio (SIR) for bladder cancers (SIR = 1.67, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.59). The SIR is the ratio of observed cases of cancer to the expected number of cases based on incidence rates of the general population. Higher SIRs were seen among males employed more than 10 years, males less than 35 years old when follow-up began, and among workers observed after a minimum latency of 30 years

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

(Grandjean and Olsen 2004). In the absence of data on smoking, the authors interpreted the higher SIRs for bladder cancer than for lung cancer to suggest that smoking was unlikely to be the major cause of the elevated bladder cancer incidence. The authors proposed (2002) that excretion of fluoride compounds entailed exposure of the pertinent target tissues. As noted above, the estimated exposures of the cryolite workers were about 4-fold greater than those estimated from ingestion of fluoridated water at the MCL of 4 mg/L. However, those workers were exposed for fewer years than those involved in lifetime residency.

Romundstad et al. (2000) reported on cancer among Norwegian aluminum workers exposed to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and fluorides. SIRs for bladder and lung cancer were elevated among the exposed workers. However, separate effects from the two exposures could not be distinguished from this paper. Further, the authors review and compare earlier studies that used different aluminum plant processes, which support the role of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in bladder cancer among the exposed cohort. It may be noteworthy that smoking did not appear to be a confounder for the risk of bladder or lung cancer among the exposed cohort. The authors state, but do not present data, that they found a “weak association” of bladder for fluoride exposures lagged less than 20 years.

Oral-Pharyngeal Cancer

The NCI analysis (Hoover et al. 1991) indicated an a priori interest in oral cancers. In Iowa, one of the two cancer registries they analyzed, the authors observed a trend among males in the incidence rates of oropharyngeal cancer with duration of fluoridation, but mortality analyses did not indicate an association with fluoridation. However, in an earlier study in England, oral-pharyngeal cancers among females constituted the only site-gender category for which standardized mortality ratios in England were found to be significantly elevated in areas with naturally occurring high fluoride concentrations, defined as more than 1.0 mg/L. Twenty-four site-gender combinations were examined for 67 small areas (Chilvers and Conway 1985).

Uterine Cancer

An association of uterine cancer (combination of cervical and corpus uteri) with fluoridation was reported by Tohyama (1996), who observed mortality rates in Okinawa before and after fluoridation was terminated, controlling for sociodemographics. This analysis is a follow-up of the positive results from a previous exploratory analysis that comprised a large number of comparisons conducted by this researcher with the same data

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

set. The only other recent publication to report on uterine cancers is that of Yang et al. (2000), who observed a mortality rate ratio of 1.25 with 95% CI of 0.98 to 1.60.

Other Specific Cancers

Respiratory cancers were elevated among the cohort of Danish cryolite miners for whom exposure was by the inhalation route (Grandjean et al. 1992; Grandejan and Olsen 2004; see discussions above on this cohort study). SIRs of 1.51 (95% CI 1.11 to 2.01) were observed for the cohort as a whole, with higher SIRs among those after 30 years of exposure and among males younger than 35 when follow-up began. No smoking data on the cohort were collected. Also, except for mortality among females in Taiwan (Yang et al. 2000), there has not been corroborating data from other analyses for respiratory cancers.

No association between lung cancer and exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and fluorides was found in a study of the Norwegian aluminum industry (Romundstad et al. 2000).

The NCI incidence or mortality analyses conducted by Hoover et al. (1991) observed a few suggestive increases among some subgroups for soft tissue sarcoma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, colorectal cancer, and lip cancer, but those cancers were not a priori of concern as related to fluoride exposure based on biologic plausibility.

All Cancers Combined

A large number of mortality analyses for all cancers combined have been reported and reviewed previously (NRC 1993; McDonagh et al. 2000a), and most of those did not detect an association of combined cancer mortality with fluoridated water. Typically, studies that only report combined cancer rates are not informative for assessing possible associations between an environmental exposure and a specific cancer outcome, particularly an uncommon cancer. Thus, the committee did not use these types of studies as part of its evaluation.

Other Studies Evaluated

The following three studies were reviewed but were not included by the committee in the evaluation of weight of evidence of carcinogenicity of fluoride for the reasons summarized below.

Takahashi et al. (2001) conducted an ecologic analysis of data from nine U.S. cities for three 5-year intervals spanning 1978-1992 combined with fluoridation data. Their analysis involved regression of log-transformed

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

cancer incidence rates on the log-transformed proportion of residents receiving fluoridated water. This paper is difficult to interpret and to compare with other studies in part because of its novel method of analysis. Unusual cancer subsites are included and major anatomical groupings typically appearing in cancer incidence reports (e.g., lymphocytic leukemia, breast, uterus) were omitted. Results were incompletely reported for subsets of data for particular cancer sites, creating issues of multiple comparisons and selective presentation. Another issue is that the ecologic exposure variable is the percentage of the population in each area with fluoridated water (or naturally occurring fluoride at 0.7 mg/L or higher). This is an aggregated form of a dichotomous variable on the individual level, which tends to bias results away from the null. There was inconsistent standardization of the outcome variable (which was age standardized) and the exposure variable (which was not), which can lead to bias. There was no adjustment for confounding by urbanization or other sociodemographic factors among the nine cities, which included widely different geographic, industrial, and demographic characteristics, and there was no population weighting by size. Finally, ecologic bias is best understood for linear or log-linear regression, making this study harder to interpret.

Steiner (2002) conducted an ecologic analysis of latitude, temperature, and fluoridated water in 49 cities worldwide. When fluoride concentrations were unavailable for these cities, he substituted data from neighboring areas. Average daily temperature and latitude were also included in his models, but not simultaneously. Steiner analyzed only all cancers combined. He found a negative association between cancer incidence and fluoridation.

Yiamouyiannis (1993) subtracted female from male cancer incidence rates for the United States and for New Jersey as an indication of fluoride’s carcinogenic effect among males. This paper used circular reasoning to reach a conclusion of causality; that is, it concluded that higher cancer rates in males indicate an association with fluoride on the basis of a presumed causation by fluoride of cancers in males. Because most cancers do not occur at the same rates in each gender, the committee judges it is inappropriate to subtract rates of women from those of men as a means of evaluating factors that only affect bone cancer in males.

It has been suggested that differences in osteosarcoma rates found in provinces of Kenya could be related to fluoride exposure (C. Neurath, Fluoride Action Network, unpublished data, June 17, 2005). For eight provinces of Kenya, Neurath correlated enamel fluorosis prevalences reported by Chibole (1987) with osteosarcoma incidence rates reported by Bovill et al. (1985) and found a strong association. This type of fully ecologic analysis (see Appendix C) has its inherent advantages and limitations; in this instance, however, the underlying ratios of observed-to-expected osteosarcoma incidence are not reliable because Bovill et al. do not state

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

that their incidence data were adjusted for differences in the age structure of various provincial populations. Bovill et al. state that Kenya is characterized by strong contrasts of ethnicity and other demographics among its geographic regions. The provincial summaries are weighted averages of the children examined, but it is not stated if they are also weighted averages of the underlying populations. Chibole does not state how the children examined in Kenyan schools and hospitals were selected (i.e., whether the fluorosis prevalence data collected were ascertained in a manner that would accurately reflect the populations of the component provinces). Chibole’s detailed table indicates a wide range of prevalences of fluorosis within many of the provinces (e.g., from 3.7% to 69.5% in the Rift Valley province).

Summary of Cancer Epidemiology Findings

The combined literature described above does not clearly indicate that fluoride either is or is not carcinogenic in humans. The typical challenges of environmental epidemiology are magnified for the evaluation of whether fluoride is a risk factor for osteosarcoma. These challenges include: detection of relatively low risks, accurate exposure classification assessment of pertinent dose to target tissues, multiple causes for the effect of interest, and multiple effects of the exposure of interest. Assessing whether fluoride constitutes a risk factor for osteosarcoma is complicated by (1) how uncommon the disease is, so that cohort or semi-ecologic studies are not based on large numbers of outcomes, and (2) the difficulty of characterizing biologic dose of interest for fluoride because of the ubiquity of population exposure to fluoride and the difficulty of acquiring bone samples in nonaffected individuals.

In summary, there has been partial but incomplete fulfillment of NRC’s recommendations on individual-based cancer studies in the intervening years since 1993; one analytic study of osteosarcoma has been published, but bone samples were not included. The alternative (hospital-based) design, including bone assays, from the Harvard group might be more useful in addressing this issue.

EPA GUIDELINES AND PRACTICE IN SETTING MCLGS REGARDING CARCINOGENICITY

The EPA Office of Drinking Water establishes MCLGs of zero for contaminants that are known or probable human carcinogens. Chemicals for which cancer hazard is judged to be absent are regulated via the reference dose (RfD) method (see Chapter 11). “Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health (2000)” reviewed EPA’s additional practice of applying an uncertainty factor between

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

“1 and 10” to an RfD derived from noncancer health effects (EPA 2000d). This procedure has been used for substances judged to be possibly carcinogenic in humans. That methodology document also stipulates that the water concentrations estimated to result in 10−6 to 10−5 excess cancer risks should also be assessed under the RfD scenario for comparison.

As of April 2005, EPA has adopted new “Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment,” which has replaced the 1986 categories with weight-of-evidence descriptors, involving textual consideration and explanation of how each category was arrived at. In addition, the Guidelines provide for consideration of mode of action and sensitive subpopulations, especially children (EPA 2005a,b). In addition to mode of action, other factors for weighing human epidemiologic studies and lifetime whole animal bioassays include data on biomarkers (genotoxicity and other assays of exposure, susceptibility, and effect) and toxicokinetics. Thus, key decisions about cancer pertinent to a MCLG for drinking water include an assessment of whether an MCLG of zero is appropriate based on the current epidemiologic, animal bioassay, and additional contributing data. If not, EPA will need to decide whether an uncertainty (safety) factor greater than 1.0 and up to 10.0 should be applied to an RfD derived from a precursor response to tumors.

Some recent examples of the use by EPA of RfDs with additional safety factors imposed because of possible carcinogenic hazard, based on the July 1999 Cancer Guidelines, include the MCLG for disinfection by-products (EPA 2003c). For dibromochloromethane (DBCM), EPA imposed an additional uncertainty factor of 10 to account for possible carcinogenicity based on studies of DBCM by NTP in 1985 that showed an increase in liver tumors in both genders of mice but no increase in either gender of rats. Similarly for trichloroacetic acid (TCA), an additional uncertainty factor of 10 was added to the MCLG derived from the RfD; TCA induced liver tumors in mice but not in rats. The MCLGs for all regulated chemicals considered to be possible carcinogens has included the additional 10-fold risk management factor applied to the RfD (J. Donohue, EPA, personal commun., 2004).

FINDINGS

The 1993 NRC report recommended the following:

Conduct one or more highly focused, carefully designed analytical studies (case control or cohort) of the cancer sites that are most highly suspect, based on data from animal studies and the few suggestions of a carcinogenic effect reported in the epidemiological literature. Such studies should be designed to gather information on individual study subjects so that adjustments can be made for the potential confounding effects of other risk factors in analyses of individu-

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

als. Information on fluoride exposure from sources other than water must be obtained, and estimates of exposure from drinking water should be as accurate as possible. In addition, analysis of fluoride in bone samples from patients and controls would be valuable in inferring total lifetime exposures to fluoride. Among the disease outcomes that warrant separate study are osteosarcomas and cancers of the buccal cavity, kidney, and bones and joints.

As described above, some progress in those directions have been made, with the most comprehensive study still in progress (Douglass 2004).

Fluoride appears to have the potential to initiate or promote cancers, particularly of the bone, but the evidence to date is tentative and mixed (Tables 10-4 and 10-5). As noted above, osteosarcoma is of particular concern as a potential effect of fluoride because of (1) fluoride deposition in bone, (2) the mitogenic effect of fluoride on bone cells, (3) animal results described above, and (4) pre-1993 publication of some positive, as well as negative, epidemiologic reports on associations of fluoride exposure with osteosarcoma risk.

Several studies indicating at least some positive associations of fluoride with one or more types of cancer have been published since the 1993 NRC report. Several in vivo human studies of genotoxicity, although limited, suggest fluoride’s potential to damage chromosomes. The human epidemiology study literature as a whole is still mixed and equivocal. As pointed out by Hrudey et al. (1990), rare diseases such as osteosarcoma are difficult to detect with good statistical power.

In animal studies, the overall incidence of osteosarcoma in male rats showed a positive trend. Based on the more recent historical control data (Haseman et al. 1998) that were closer to the time frame of the NTP study, the 4% to 5% incidence at the high dose might have exceeded the historical range. The relevance of rat osteosarcoma to humans was discussed based on the species differences in the development of long bone, the common site of human osteosarcoma (NTP 1990). Specifically, ossification of human long bones is completed by 18 years of age whereas it continues in rats throughout the first year of life (PHS 1991). Nevertheless, most of the osteosarcomas found in male rats were not in long bones.

In another study (NTP 1992), that used the same strain and sex of rats, no increase in osteosarcomas was reported, even though the animals were exposed to a higher concentration of fluoride than in the earlier study. However, the primary intent of the NTP (1992) study was to test the hypothesis that ionizing radiation is an initiator of osteosarcoma and that fluoride is a promoter, and the committee thought it was noteworthy that none of the irradiated animals developed osteosarcomas.

The 1993 NRC review concluded that the increase in osteoma in male and female mice (Maurer et al. 1993) was related to fluoride treatment.

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

TABLE 10-4 Evidence Summary for Carcinogenicity of Fluoride: Epidemiologic Studies and Rodent Lifetime Bioassays

Cancer Site/Type

Individual-Based Epidemiology Studies

Ecologic Epidemiology Studies

Animal Data

Osteosarcoma

Case-control studies ambiguous (additional comprehensive hospital-based case-control study including bone fluoride measurements is under way).

Mixed.

Male F344/N rats: Borderline positive.

Male F344 rats: inconclusive

Oral cavity

 

NCI incidence elevated in males, but no mortality trends. Several other reports positive.

Nonstatistically significant increase in male rats.

Thyroid

 

 

Nonstatistically significant increase in male rats.

Kidney and/or bladder

Occupational cohort: positive finding, inhalation route, high exposures.

Some positive reports.

 

Uterine

 

One positive report.

 

Respiratory

Occupational cohort positive finding, inhalation route, high exposures.

One positive report.

 

TABLE 10-5 Evidence Summary for Carcinogenicity of Fluoride: Genotoxicity and Mechanistic Assays

Type of Effect and Assay

Strength of Evidence

Mitogenesis

Well established.

Cytogenetic effects: human in vivo exposure, in vitro assay.

Inconsistent; and the positive findings were from weak papers.

Cytogenetic effects: human in vitro exposure, in vitro assay.

Inconsistent.

Cytogenetic effects: other mammalian systems.

Inconsistent.

Transformation.

Inconsistent; the positive results are consistent with a promotion mechanism.

DNA repair mechanism: human.

Suggestive positive finding regarding tumor suppressor gene, small case series.

Mutation: mammalian systems.

Inconsistent.

Mutation: microorganisms.

Negative.

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

Although the subsequent review by AFIP considered these mouse osteomas as more closely resembling hyperplasia than neoplasia, given that osteoma is widely recognized as neoplastic, the evidence of osteoma remains important in the overall weight-of-evidence consideration. The increased incidence and severity of osteosclerosis in high-dose female rats in the NTP study demonstrated the mitogenic effect of fluoride in stimulating osteoblasts and osteoid production (NTP 1990) (see also Chapter 5).

The genotoxicity data, particularly from in vivo human studies, are also conflicting; whereas three were positive on the basis of the ingestion route (Sheth et al. 1994; Wu and Wu 1995; Joseph and Gadhia 2000), all three of these reports had serious deficits in design and/or reporting, including the characterization of how the study populations were selected and whether the exposed and unexposed study subjects were comparable. Two studies (Meng et al. 1995; Meng and Zhang 1997) were positive for the inhalation route among workers in a phosphate fertilizer factory, although other contaminants cannot be ruled out as the causal factors. Contrasting negative observations by other investigators (Li et al. 1995; Jackson et al. 1997; Van Asten et al. 1998) must also be considered.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Carcinogenicity

  • The results of the Douglass et al. multicenter osteosarcoma study (expected in the summer of 2006) could add important data to the current body of literature on fluoride risks for osteosarcoma because the study includes bone fluoride concentrations for cases and controls. When this study is published, it should be considered in context with the existing body of evidence to help determine what follow-up studies are needed.

  • Further research on a possible effect of fluoride on bladder cancer risk should be conducted. Since bladder cancer is relatively common (compared with osteosarcoma), both cohort and case-control designs would be feasible to address this question. For example, valuable data might be yielded by analyses of cancer outcomes among the cohorts followed for other health outcomes, such as fractures (see Chapter 5).

Genotoxicity

  • The positive in vivo genotoxicity studies described in the chapter were conducted in India and China, where fluoride concentrations in drinking water are often higher than those in the United States. Further, each had a dearth of information on the selection of subjects and was based on small numbers of participants. Therefore, in vivo human genotoxicity studies

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×

in U.S. populations or other populations with nutritional and sociodemographic variables similar to those in the United States should be conducted. Documentation of subject enrollment with different fluoride concentrations would be useful for addressing the potential genotoxic hazards of fluoridated water in this country.

Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 304
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 305
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 306
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 307
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 308
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 309
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 310
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 311
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 312
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 313
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 314
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 315
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 316
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 317
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 318
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 319
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 320
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 321
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 322
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 323
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 324
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 325
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 326
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 327
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 328
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 329
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 330
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 331
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 332
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 333
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 334
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 335
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 336
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 337
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 338
Suggested Citation:"10 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity." National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11571.
×
Page 339
Next: 11 Drinking Water Standards for Fluoride »
Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $76.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Most people associate fluoride with the practice of intentionally adding fluoride to public drinking water supplies for the prevention of tooth decay. However, fluoride can also enter public water systems from natural sources, including runoff from the weathering of fluoride-containing rocks and soils and leaching from soil into groundwater. Fluoride pollution from various industrial emissions can also contaminate water supplies. In a few areas of the United States fluoride concentrations in water are much higher than normal, mostly from natural sources. Fluoride is one of the drinking water contaminants regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) because it can occur at these toxic levels. In 1986, the EPA established a maximum allowable concentration for fluoride in drinking water of 4 milligrams per liter, a guideline designed to prevent the public from being exposed to harmful levels of fluoride. Fluoride in Drinking Water reviews research on various health effects from exposure to fluoride, including studies conducted in the last 10 years.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!