Bans on water fluoride divide communities
MONROE, N.C. – Regina Barrett, a 69year-old retiree who lives in Monroe, North Carolina, southeast of Charlotte, is not happy with her tap water. “Our water has been cloudy and bubbly and looks milky,” said Barrett.
She blames fluoride, a mineral that communities have for decades added to the water supply to help prevent cavities and improve dental health.
“I don’t want fluoride in my nothing!” said Barrett, “I’m suspicious as to why they add that to our water.”
Her reaction echoes that of a growing number of people who not only doubt the mineral’s effectiveness but also believe it may be harmful despite decades of data pointing to public health and economic benefits.
In February, the commissioners in the county where Barrett lives voted 3-2 to stop adding fluoride to drinking water at the Yadkin River Water Treatment Plant, the only water source wholly owned and operated by the county. The decision came after heated discussions in packed rooms among residents and county officials.
“My children had the blessing of growing up with fluoride in their water and … they have very little dental issues,” said Commissioner Richard Helms.
A man who spoke during public comment compared water fluoridation to a seat belt: It doesn’t “prevent the car crash, but it limits the harm done,” he said.
But a fellow commissioner saw it differently: “Let’s stop putting something in the water that’s meant to treat us, and give people the freedom to choose,” said David Williams. And a resident argued that there is no proof fluoride is safe or effective, and called on the commission “to reverse 60-plus years of poisoning the public.”
It is a scenario playing out nationwide. From Oregon to Pennsylvania, hundreds of communities have in recent years either stopped adding fluoride to their water supplies or voted to prevent its addition.
The outcome of an ongoing federal case in California could force the Environmental Protection Agency to create a rule regulating or banning the use of fluoride in drinking water nationwide. In the meantime, the trend is raising alarm bells for public health researchers who worry that, much like vaccines, fluoride may have become a victim of its own success.
Supporters of fluoride bans argue that people should be given the freedom of choice. The broad availability of overthe-counter dental products containing the mineral makes it no longer necessary to add to public water supplies, they say.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that the greatest protection comes when store-bought products are used in combination with water fluoridation. Public health officials say removing fluoride could be particularly harmful to low-income families – for whom drinking water may be the only source of preventive dental care.
Millions of people have lived with fluoridated water for years, “and we’ve had no major health problems,” said dentist Myron Allukian Jr., past president of the American Public Health Association. “It’s much easier to prevent a disease than to treat it.”
Fluoride opponents claim the mineral is responsible for everything from acne to high blood pressure to thyroid dysfunction to bone cancer. A Canadian study published in JAMA Pediatrics in 2019 associated fluoride exposure during pregnancy with lower IQ scores in children. But the study was based on self-reporting and has been criticized for its perceived methodological shortcomings.