In the early 1900s, a young dentist named Dr. Frederick McKay moved to Colorado Springs, Colorado to open his first practice. Upon arrival, McKay was surprised to find that many of the town’s residents had extensive chocolate-colored staining on their teeth, aptly naming the disorder “Colorado Brown Stain”. Though he later learned that this condition was caused by high amounts of fluoride in the drinking water (known today as fluorosis), he noted that this contamination seemed to prevent tooth decay. After testing this idea on the population of Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1945, McKay was shown to be correct: at low enough levels, fluoride lowered the rate of cavity without cosmetic effects. From this project sprung the widespread use of water fluoridation, which is available today to two thirds of the American population and referred to by the CDC as one of the “Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century“.
As expected, the idea of adding a chemical compound to public drinking water has been a source of controversy from the very beginning. Besides worries about fluorosis, some believe that the use of fluoride impairs thyroid function, lowers IQ, causes hyperactivity, and leads to bone cancer. Pro-fluoridation groups, which include the American Medical Association, the American Dental Association, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the CDC, say these concerns may be unsubstantiated. While a number of studies have demonstrated links between fluoridation and health issues, many of these experiments were performed exclusively on animals, had failed to consider possible confounding variables, or were conducted using extremely high levels of fluoride.
Image Source: Franck Fife
One example of the dispute over fluoridation occurred as recently as 2014, when The Lancet published a paper claiming that exposure to chemicals like fluoride were to blame for the rising rates of neurodevelopment disabilities. Immediately after the paper’s publication, an article was posted on the blog of the American Chemistry Council, titled, “Authors ignore fundamental principles of science in Lancet paper, opt for alarmism“. The author of this article claimed that the Lancet study was poorly designed and badly supported, and thus did not provide “good evidence” that fluoride was causing neurological damage. Conflicts like this create an unnecessary sense of fear and confusion and make it difficult for consumers (and even some scientists) to unravel the pros and cons of fluoridation.
Despite the debate over fluoridation’s absolute benefits, many agree that its levels in public water sources can be lowered. Last month, the Department of Health and Human Services made a new recommendation, changing the suggested level of fluoride from 0.7-1.2 milligrams to 0.7 milligrams per liter of water. A lot has changed since the initial recommendation was made in 1962, especially the fact that modern Americans have access to additional sources of fluoride, like toothpaste and mouthwash. Fluoridated water may still provide some benefit, but it should be carefully monitored in light of increased personal fluoride use. While more research is certainly necessary on the potential health impacts of fluoride, especially during development, the new recommendation seems to be a step in the right direction.
Feature Image Source: Dan Lockton
Fluoridation Opposition is Scientific, Respectable & Growing
Over 4,600 professionals (including 366 dentists and 568 MD’s) urge that fluoridation be stopped because science shows fluoridation is ineffective and harmful. See statement: http://fluoridealert.org/researchers/professionals-statement/text/
Nobel Prize winner in Medicine, Dr. Arvid Carlsson, says, “Fluoridation is against
all principles of modern pharmacology. It’s really obsolete.”