“The cessation of all compulsory water fluoridation schemes should be the goal of all public health agencies, ethical lawmakers and informed citizens,” argues Rita Barnett-Rose, Chapman University Associate Law Professor, (online August 2014), reports the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF).
Evidence of fluoride‘s harm is ignored, downplayed or not studied; benefits exaggerated and informed consent disregarded. “Claims that fluoridation is not mass medication are unpersuasive,” she writes.
After scientists disproved the 1945 theory assuming ingested fluoride was essential for healthy teeth, fluoridation promoters newly speculate, without evidence, that fluoridation benefits low-income children who have the most decay and least access to dental care – a problem that persists today despite 7 decades of fluoridation. In fact, dental socioeconomic disparities have increased.
The National Research Council acknowledges significant fluoride health research has yet to be done – especially fluoride’s effect on the young brain.
Using case law, legal opinions and scientific reports, Barnett-Rose argues that fluoridation schemes allow public health officials to experiment on human subjects without their informed consent.
“Adding a drug to the water supply to treat or prevent the disease of tooth decay is unquestionably a medical intervention, and the fact that the risks of this drug are still being determined by public agencies, supports an argument that water fluoridation is an ongoing human medical experiment,” she writes.
“Continued imposition of compulsory water fluoridation schemes violates numerous legal and ethical human subjects’ research protocols,” argues Barnett-Rose.
“It is no longer acceptable for public health officials to simply dismiss the accruing negative data and to continue to insist that the levels of fluoride children and adults are receiving on a daily basis are without any serious health consequences,” she writes.
Attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President says, “Politics plays a heavy hand in fluoridation policy and promotion which seems to protect special interest groups, corporations and government agencies instead of the American public who are unwitting guinea pigs in this ongoing fluoridation experiment.”
Barnett-Rose writes: “Taking politics and long-entrenched agendas out of the mix, the risks of tooth decay, while perhaps still significant for a minority of individuals, are significantly outweighed by the human rights burdens, economic costs, and risks of other bodily harm for the majority of those affected.”