My community is in the throes of determining whether or not to continue fluoridation of the public water supply. The city of Ft. Collins, Colorado is a college town, home to Colorado State University. It has a population of approximately 125,000. Its largest employers are CSU, Hewlett Packard, Agilent, and Celestica. In April 2001, the water board actually voted to stop fluoridation, but the city council wanted more input before deciding on the matter. They convened a panel of technical experts to advise both the water board and the council as well as allowing for public input.
The advisory committee is comprised of nine people with various expertises in toxicology, public health, epidemiology, chiropractics, environmentalism, and dentistry. They include a local pedodontist, a public health physician, water utility experts, a CSU professor in epidemiology, and a chiropractor. They have meetings conducted by a team of facilitators that help direct their focus as well as supply them with reams of research. The materials cover the history of water fluoridation, as well as current research. The technical advisory board will convene three times without public output and twice allowing for public opinion. The group is expected to make their recommendations to the board and City Council in the Fall 2002. (Government does move slowly!) The City Council is then expected to make their decision. One advisory panel member pointed out that "it raises some interesting philosophical questions regarding the balance of what we do to impact health and what we consider in the realm of personal responsibility."
The technical committee's first meeting was a closed session. It established the goals and sources of materials needed to complete the task. During the second meeting, the panel discussed the benefits and risks they felt needed further analysis. They also considered the cost/benefit assessment. They reviewed literature including the CDC recommendations published in August 2001. Mostly, the facilitator directed them to narrow their focus by asking them to prioritize their concerns. This meeting was open to the public, but no input was accepted. A handful of interested parties attended, including an occupational therapist, the president of the local STOP Fluoridation Action Group who happens to be a clinical nutritionist, and myself.
A few weeks later, with no further notice in the local newspaper, the first public input meeting took place in the City Council Chambers. About 40-50 people attended. As expected, those opposed to water fluoridation outnumbered those in favor by a 2:1 margin. As is usual for cases where the status quo is emotionally and vehemently challenged, the opposition was well prepared and the side to retain fluoride in the water was under represented.
The local hygienists tried a phone tree, but it was too little too late. Only four hygienists attended. (I was the only one who spoke to the panel.) The dentists were not well represented, either. Only about four dentists showed up, but they were all vocal contributors. One dentist explained the density difference when drilling on a tooth that had been exposed to systemic fluoride compared to a nonfluoridated tooth.
All told, probably 20 people addressed the panel with their concerns. Dentists pointed out the benefits of fluoride as well as commending the city of Ft. Collins for its use, thereby making it a more caring community, which is attractive to outsiders.
Those in opposition expressed concerns ranging from: public drinking water should not be used to dispense preventive healthcare, that fluoride is widely available in various forms and products, and to follow the money. The latter baffled the hygienists, as we know it isn't the dentists that benefit from water fluoridation. There were also concerns with the possibilities of health problems associated with fluoride production and use. Others pointed out that better dental health is best achieved through better diet and preventive home care. (That's a hard one to argue with.)
It was noted that Colorado Springs recently stopped its water fluoridation program. That city boasts a population of over 500,000. It was rumored that the dental community didn't show any public support for retaining water fluoridation. There may be a lesson to learn in that. Time will tell. Our hygiene society expects to have more of a presence at the next public forum. To be continued?
Contact the author at [email protected]
