Fluoride Action Network

Lawmakers should vote to stop fluoridation

Source: St. Cloud Times | October 5th, 2006 | By Jason Krueger

Water fluoridation enjoys a widespread reputation as a miracle drug.

Yet many questions persist in the quest for truth on water fluoridation. There is such a disparity in the facts it could leave experts themselves wondering what to believe.

The American Dental Association and Centers for Disease Control are among the biggest supporters. Both boast fluoridation as “one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.”

The ADA did not always support fluoridation. In 1944, the Journal of the American Dental Association stated, “Our knowledge of the subject certainly does not warrant the introduction of fluorine in … water supplies. We do know that the use of the drinking water containing as little as 1.2 to 3.0 ppm of fluorine will cause developmental disturbances … and we cannot afford to run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances in applying what is … a doubtful procedure.”

Involuntary process

When our legislators decided to fluoridate every statewide municipal water supply in 1967, their decision was based on disputable science and political pressure. If such a measure were put to a House vote in 2006, perhaps appropriately titled, “Do you support untested involuntary medication via municipal water supplies,” you can bet the bill would be quickly defeated.

… Fluoridation is forced medication. Although it isn’t as intrusive as a flu shot, the concept is the same. Public outcry would be fervent if flu shots were administered against our will. The intention to preserve health is valiant, but involuntary medication is ethically wrong and against the law.

Most of the world has rejected fluoridation. … Leading countries — including Germany, Japan and China — do not permit fluoridation. Our tooth decay rates are similar, if not worse, than theirs.

Logistically, community fluoridation is poorly conceived. Less than 1 percent of household water used is consumed. If fluoride was meant to enhance our teeth, this surely illustrates a lesson in futility.

Local effects

One can determine the type of fluoride added to Minnesota’s water by referencing a city’s annual Consumer Confidence Report. Sauk Rapids boldly describes fluoride’s source as “discharge from fertilizer and aluminum factories.”

EPA Office of Water Deputy Administrator Rebecca Hanmer qualifies this in a statement made in 1983: “In regard to the use of fluorosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem.

“By recovering by-product fluorosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available …”

This establishes fluoride as an environmental contaminate and identifies it as an industry byproduct.

Instead of fluoride polluting ecosystems, it is “safely” routed into water.

Our state lawmakers must act promptly to remove fluoride from our water.


Jason Krueger, Sauk Rapids, volunteers as the state representative for the Fluoride Action Network.