Should Fluoride Be in Public Water?

Debates and discussions about vaccines, seed oils and general chemical usage have increased, due in part to the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement. So, what do people tend to think about fluoride in the public water supply?

____________________________________________________________________________

Stance 1: Strong support for fluoride as it provides public health benefits

Core Argument: Fluoride is a public health necessity, especially for disadvantaged or poor communities, that has been proven to be safe and effective.

Supporting Arguments:

• CDC reviews suggest that optimally fluoridated water correlates with trends of reduced cavities in children and adults by about 25% compared to those in non?fluoridated districts. The correlation persists with children in fluoridated school districts having roughly 2 fewer decayed teeth.
• Fluoridation provides cavity protection regardless of socioeconomic status—significantly aiding low-income, elderly, and minority populations who may lack access to dental care or fluoridated toothpaste.
• Analyses indicate that fluoridation saves money—on average $20 saved for every $1 spent in communities over 1,000 people, and about $32 per person annually in avoided dental treatments. [CDC]
• The CDC has recognized community water fluoridation as one of the ten greatest public health achievements of the 20th century, alongside vaccinations and motor-vehicle safety.
• Virtually all leading public health bodies—including the CDC, ADA, US Public Health Service, WHO, and IADR—support water fluoridation as a safe, effective, and evidence-based method to prevent dental caries and reduce oral-health disparities.
• For disadvantaged communities, the health benefits of fluoridation are more significant than individual liberty concerns, making it ethically permissible without explicit consent.
• Fluoride is generally dosed in water at around 1 ppm (parts per million), which is considered healthy for dental hygiene and safe for consumption.
• Suggestions that fluoride ingestion is linked to osteosarcoma (a type of bone cancer) are supported by weak evidence, as “researchers found “equivocal” (uncertain) evidence of cancer-causing potential of fluoridated drinking water in male rats, based on a higher than expected number of cases of osteosarcoma (a type of bone cancer).” [American Cancer Society]

Stance 2: Support with conditions, calling for regulation and individual choice

Core Argument: While fluoride offers dental advantages, concerns exist regarding appropriate dosage, potential overexposure, and the individual’s right to choose whether or not to be exposed.

Supporting Arguments:

• Countries with fluoridated water have seen a reduced number of people suffering from tooth decay, however countries that do not fluoridate their water have similarly seen a decrease in tooth decayover the last 40 years. [Harvard]
• Correlational data does not prove (or disprove) fluoride’s effects on cavity reduction.
• “Since dental cavities have decreased in countries both with and without water fluoridation, we need to make sure we are dosing our water with the proper amount of fluoride for dental medicine purposes, but no more”.
• Fluoridation gives individuals “no choice in the water that they use—unless they buy expensive bottled water”.
• Depending on the amount consumed, fluoride can cause minimal side effects such as dental fluorosis, potentially discoloring teeth; or in large doses can cause chronic skeletal fluorosis making bones more brittle. [John Hopkins]
• The effects of fluoride vary from person to person. Elderly people who have been exposed to fluoride their entire lives are potentially more prone to hip fractures, while those who drink larger amounts of water due to lifestyle or medical conditions may be exposed to excessive amounts of fluoride.

Stance 3: Opposition due to health risks and ethical concerns

Core Argument: Fluoridation should be banned due to potential neurological and thyroid risks. It also violates consent by forcefully medicating the public.

Supporting Arguments:

• Fluoridation violates an “individual’s right to informed consent to medication”.
• Local governments cannot control dosage or track individual reactions to the medication, and regardless of age, health status, and individualized therapy, people are receiving varying doses. Doses vary depending on individual intake of fluoridated water.
• Individuals possess the right to decide what they are exposed to, and should not be forced to endure fluoride and the associated health risks. Personal liberty should take precedence over potential health benefits, as people are capable of evaluating the advantages and disadvantages for themselves.
• Some evidence suggests that “high levels of fluoride may be toxic to brain and nerve cells,” resulting in deficits in cognitive function, memory, and learning. [Harvard]
• High exposure to fluoride can affect thyroid function and increase the likelihood of developing thyroid diseases. [National Institutes of Health]
• Concern about a link between cancer and fluoride partially stems “from a study of lab animals reported by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) in 1990,” according to the American Cancer Society.
• While rare, it is possible to be allergic to fluoride.
• Low income communities may be forced to drink fluoridated water as they may not be able to afford bottled or purified water.

Stance 4: Undecided due to debated or conflicted evidence.

Core Argument: A plethora of data suggests significant dental benefits of fluoridation while a similarly significant amount of data suggests serious health risks or ineffectiveness, leading to difficulty in taking a definitive stance.

Supporting Arguments:

• Health organizations like the CDC have praised the effectiveness of fluoridation on dental health, however no randomized controlled trialhas validated the effectiveness of fluoridation.
• While numerous health organizations have praised fluoridation, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) categorizes fluoride as an “unapproved new drug.”
• Health professionals have proclaimed water fluoridation one of the greatest health achievements of the 21st century, however in 2012, more than 4,000 professionals globally had signed a memorandumcalling for its end.

Original article online at: https://www.allsides.com/blog/allstances-should-fluoride-be-public-water