Almost 70 years since the first American city –
Grand Rapids, Michigan – introduced fluoride to its
water supply, the fluoride debate continues. The
media in Albuquerque, New Mexico, has been abuzz
about fluoride because the city recently voted to stop
adding supplemental fluoride to its water supply (citing
budget constraints and that an acceptable amount
of fluoride already appears in the water), and the cities
of Portland, Oregon, and Phoenix, Arizona (my backyard,
and the city I helped fluoridate in 1989),
recently took another gander at regulating fluoride in
their own water supplies.
As a dental professional you are well aware of the
oral health benefits we all receive from fluoride. You
give fluoride to your patients during their cleanings
and you insist your patients use a fluoridated toothpaste
at home because it promotes stronger teeth and
less decay. What you might not be fully aware of is the
benefit fluoridating a city's water supply provides to its
citizens, and I am writing this column for the community
water fluoridation dentists (CWFDs) out there
who, over the course of their career, might be questioned
by either their patients or concerned citizens
about water fluoridation.
When I opened up my dental practice – Today's
Dental in Phoenix, Arizona – in 1987, tooth decay
was rampant. I couldn't understand why all of my
patients were presenting with such horrible oral health
problems. I went to dental school in Kansas City,
Missouri, and I didn't see even a tenth of the
amount of decay in the patients I worked on
there. I looked into it and found out the
difference in the areas was that the water
of Kansas City was fluoridated and the
water of Phoenix was not. For a year,
myself and some close professional friends
of mine like Jack Dillenberg, who is
currently the Dean of the Arizona School
of Dentistry & Oral Health – A.T.
Still University in Mesa, Arizona,
championed the movement
for Phoenix to fluoridate
its water, and it passed.
Once the city of Phoenix fluoridated the water supply in 1989, my practice witnessed a
noticeable drop in cavities in all of my patients.
Economists have crunched the numbers and found
that for every 40 cents spent on fluoridating a community's
water supply, it saves each patient nearly
$40 in dental care. That's why, in America, fluoridating
the water has been classified as one of the top 10
greatest public health measures in the last 100 years.
As I mentioned, the common council of the city
of Phoenix recently voted on whether or not it should
continue fluoridating its water supply, and on
September 5, 2012, I took part in a public debate
over this issue. This debate drew a large audience and
consisted of interested observers, several local dental
and health-care professionals, as well as some members
of the community who oppose fluoridating city
water supplies. I entered the debate with a side to
present, but I decided to keep an open mind, anticipating
that the opposition might provide some key
evidence to the contrary, but nothing the opposition
presented changed my opinion about fluoride.
The evidence against regulating acceptable fluoride
levels in the water doesn't add up. All legitimate
studies on water fluoridation find that it does not
cause any adverse health affects at the levels U.S. citizens
are exposed to, but what all of the studies find
is that it significantly decreases tooth decay when
compared to people who drink water containing no
fluoride in it. The fringe studies that anti-fluoridationists
often locate to bolster their arguments tend
to be based in foreign countries with water supplies
that have fluoride levels of up to 11 parts per million
(acceptable levels of fluoride in the United States are
0.7 parts per million).
Anti-fluoridationists also like to point out that
European countries don't fluoridate their water supplies.
The infrastructure of European countries is
quite a bit older than that of the United States – by
several hundred years, in fact. In the States, it's easy
and cost effective to set up a single fluoride installation
facility to treat all of the city's water, whereas in
Europe, you might have to set up 25 or 30 of them.
Not very cost effective. Europeans do get fluoride,
however, because they fluoridate their salt just like we
iodize our salt to prevent goiter!
The big flap opponents of fluoride have is about
the city adding fluoride to the water supply, but what
they tend to leave out is fluoride actually appears naturally
in water; this is actually one of the reasons
Albuquerque gave for not adding supplemental fluoride
to its water supply – it naturally appears in the
water already. The ocean, for another example, contains
fluoride! In fact it contains an even higher level
of fluoride than the water we drink. While some
cities have to add fluoride to the water supply to get
it up to an acceptable level, there are some communities
that actually have to filter the fluoride out of
their water because it naturally shows up in their supply
and the levels are higher than the acceptable
amount of .7 parts per million. When cities regulate
the amount of fluoride in the water, they're regulating
an element – not a man-made medication like
Keflex or Viagra.
Another argument I hear is that there's already
quite a bit of fluoride in toothpaste. That's true. And
that does help fight tooth decay. But what we also
need to understand is that poor children may not
have access to toothpaste. Given a choice between
spending what little money a family might have on
food, or toothpaste and a toothbrush, a family in dire
straits will choose food all day long. Fluoride in the water helps build stronger teeth so these families can actually eat their food. We also need to understand
that, while it is important to brush our teeth with
toothpaste that contains fluoride, it is equally important
that we ingest fluoride to get it into our blood
supply and help build teeth and strong bones.
I applaud the passion of anti-fluoridationists, but
a lot of their ammunition stems from misinformed
hysteria, a supreme distrust of the American government
and baseless conspiracy theories. When you
pull fluoride out of the water supply of an American
city, you see a rise of almost 25 percent in tooth
decay immediately.
You can digest this column and take my word,
but for a deeper analysis of the fluoride debate, you
really should read The Fluoride Wars: How a Modest
Public Health Measure Became America's Longest
Running Political Melodrama by authors R. Allan
Freeze and Jay H. Lehr. This book should be sitting
on the desk or nightstand of every dentist and dental
hygienist in the world. I'm not kidding. It is thoroughly
researched and well written, and I highly suggest
every single one of you read this, because if the
fluoride debate hasn't happened in your neck of the
woods, you can bank on it probably happening some
time during your life, and it will continue happening
throughout the country 100 years from now.
 |
The Fluoride Wars:
How a Modest Public
Health Measure
Became America's
Longest Running
Political Melodrama
by authors R. Allan
Freeze and Jay H. Lehr.
|
What are your thoughts about fluoridated water?
When you're done reading this, sign on to
Dentaltown.com, click on the link under my online
column this month which will take you to a message
board already in progress on this topic, and post your
response! I will see you online!
Howard Live |
Howard Farran, DDS, MBA, is an international speaker
who has written dozens of published articles. To schedule
Howard to speak to your next national, state or local
dental meeting, e-mail colleen@farranmedia.com
|
2012-2013 |
|