When I was a kid, there was a huge controversy surrounding a concerted federal government/dental community pus to put fluoride in our drinking water as a way of reducing tooth decay. As I recall—and my memory is vague because I didn’t pay any attention at the time—the John Birch Society was a big opponent and the entire matter was screamed against as some kind of a commie plot.
But over time, the country accepted the perceived wisdom of fluoridating the water, our population didn’t turn into mutants, tooth decay did decline, and the issue went away. Or so I thought. Apparently, the anti fluoride movement has counter attacked, with some success. From the NYT story:
A growing number of communities are choosing to stop adding fluoride to their water systems, even though the federal government and federal health officials maintain their full support for a measure they say provides a 25 percent reduction in tooth decay nationwide. Last week, Pinellas County, on Florida’s west coast, voted to stop adding fluoride to its public water supply after starting the program seven years ago. The county joins about 200 jurisdictions from Georgia to Alaska that have chosen to end the practice in the last four years, motivated both by tight budgets and by skepticism about its benefits.
So, the question becomes, what are the adverse effects?
The movement to stop fluoridating water has gained traction, in large part, because the government has recently cautioned the public about excessive fluoride. A report released late last year by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention linked fluoride to an increase among children in dental fluorosis, which causes white or yellow spots on teeth. About 40 percent of children ages 12 to 15 had dental fluorosis, mostly very mild or mild cases, from 1999 to 2004. That percentage was 22.6 in a 1986-87 study. Fluorosis is mostly a cosmetic problem that can sometimes be bleached away. But critics argue that spotted teeth are a warning that other bones in the body may be absorbing too much fluoride. Excessive fluoride can lead to increases in bone fractures in adults as well as pain and tenderness...
Doctors, scientists and dentists, including Dr. Bailey of the Public Health Service, mostly agree that fluoride works best when applied topically, directly to the teeth, as happens with brushing. “The fact that no one really knows what dosage a given person receives from fluoridated water makes the subject of benefits and harms very difficult to quantify,” said Rainer Newberry, a professor of geochemistry at University of Alaska, Fairbanks, who sat on the committee that studied the issue prior to the June vote in Fairbanks. “And this presumably explains the number of studies with diverging conclusions.”
In principle, I don’t believe in forced medication, and certainly not in the water supply. Moreover, fluoride is different than, say, chlorine, which is added to water to make it safe to drink. And yet, I also don’t see what the big deal is in keeping the long settled status quo that has provided benefit with apparently little detriment. And poor kids might benefit who would not have proper access to dental care if their teeth decayed.
On the other hand, I also don’t I see a problem with municipalities saving money by ending their fluoridation programs, since the adverse consequences will be mild and only an unessential additive is being removed. So, on balance, if I were an official voting on this, I would probably vote to save the money—particularly given the availability of fluoride tooth paste and the like—but I wouldn’t hold it against anyone who went the other way.
Here’s the essential point, I think: Ain’t freedom grand? Nothing is ever settled. We can keep standing against established ideas and government status quos, and actually change policy. The anti-fluoride movement is bottom-up. That’s a very good thing.
