Wednesday, January 7, 2009
To Fluoridate, or Not to Fluoridate - Is that the Question?
Recently, an article appeared in the Dexter Leader regarding the lack of fluoride in the Village water supply. Basic summary: Local dentist notices high incidence of cavities in area (specifically the Village), remembers a few decades ago when she was told Village water was fluoridated, runs tests of water and finds it low in fluoride (.3 ppm vs. recommended .7 - 1.0 ppm), calls paper regarding issue, paper publishes “expose” on the Village water system with local dentist recommending fluoride tablets and other measures to increase fluoride.
A flurry of emails were traded between activists in the “anti-fluoridation” movement, the newspaper, and Council members. On the pro side, there is a reduced number of cavities in communities with fluoridated water. The cost / benefit ratio is very high as the cost to add fluoride to the water system is relatively low. It is the easiest way to ensure fluoride is getting to people in the community. On the con side, excess fluoride can cause issues with fluoridosis and cosmetic issues with teeth in some percentage of the population. The FDA has come out and said infants should not have their formula prepared with fluoridated water until further studies are completed. There is also some contention that topical application (toothpaste with fluoride) is more effective than fluoridated water as a very small percentage of water is actually consumed (much more is used in showers, toilets, and watering lawns), but it is still cost effective for people if the water consumed is from the tap. Some European countries have stopped fluoridating and still seen an improvement in reducing the number of cavities, which is believed to be due to toothpaste with fluroide.
So the question is, “Should the Village fluoridate the water system or not?” Or is that the question? I have two major issues with this story and the surrounding issue:
1) The dentist in the story reports that children in the Village have a higher incidence of tooth decay than those children outside the Village. She attributes this fact to the water not being fluoridated. However, the water outside the Village is the same as the water inside the Village - from wells and NOT fluoridated! Why would children in the Village have a higher incidence of tooth decay? It should be the same as the surrounding areas since the water is essentially the same. If there is a higher incidence in the Village, it follows it is not due to the lack of fluoridation, but due to some other factor.
2) If the biggest concern was the fluoridation of the water, wouldn’t the most direct route to get that implemented in the Village be to talk directly to the Village manager or members of the Village Council? I personally have met the dentist that contacted the paper regarding this issue. My children go to this dentist for their examinations. Why not call a Council trustee directly? I find the cynical side of myself wondering if maybe it is better advertising to have an article in the paper than to get the issue resolved as quickly and directly as possible. My hope is this was not the case, but it does make me wonder.
Regardless, we have ended up in the middle of the discussion. No doubt, Council will discuss the issue and we will need to make a decision, based on the information available. I am not sure it will rate a front page article in the Leader, but we will come to a conclusion that is best for the community.
