To fluoridate or not to fluoridate? 'Tis not the question

In September, Portland's City Council voted unanimously to fluoridate the city's drinking water, despite the protests of a vocal segment of the population in opposition to fluoridation.

The first I'd heard of the issue at all was a lunchtime conversation, prior to the council's vote, with a co-worker who is strongly opposed to the idea. She said that the fluoride put in drinking water was a toxic by-product of the aluminum manufacturing process, that the companies who make aluminum (and therefore fluoride) had found a clever way to sell their toxic by-product to cities rather than having to deal with safe disposal of hazardous material, and that putting fluoride into the city's water supply for dental health reasons is extremely inefficient, since we use city water for far more than just drinking or cooking. "What do my plants need fluoride for?" she asked rhetorically. Furthermore, she said it will cost $500 billion dollars to get the city set up for water fluoridation, not to mention the cost of annual maintenance. (Note: she may have said fertilizer rather than aluminum; I may be misremembering that part.)

Just before the vote, Mayor Sam Adams's office released a rather lengthy statement that went around Facebook, explaining his reasons for voting for fluoridation. He systematically addressed many of the health concerns raised by opponents and countered them with research done by his staff. His main motivation for wanting fluoridation, it seems, is wanting to support the dental health of children in low-income families.

In my attempt to become better informed about this issue, today I read the articles in the Huffington Post and the Willamette Week. I found the comments more illuminating than the articles: the crux seems to be that people have different information about this issue. (The comments from Mayor Adams's statement are interesting too.) Much like people who watch FOX News have different information than those who watch CNN or BBC. The problem is that I have no idea which side of this debate is getting its news from FOX. Both sides cite scientific studies, and both sides claim that the other's sides studies are skewed or bogus. They also leave me with several other questions:

• Why has Europe banned water fluoridation?
• How will it affect my dog's health?
• How much will it cost, both up front to set it up and annually to keep it going?
• How does the cost of water fluoridation compare to the cost of offering fluoride tablets or, as I read they do it in Germany, table salt with fluoride?

But what it really seems to come down to is this: the City Council has voted to add fluoride to the water as a public health measure, which is tantamount to making our health decisions for us. And to this I absolutely object. Some have argued that fluoride added to water is the same as folic acid added to bread, calcium added to orange juice, or Vitamin D added to milk. First of all, I have a choice about whether or not to buy fortified products; second, fluoride is not a nutrient. And even if I didn't have a choice about whether to buy fortified products, the fact that I didn't have a choice would not be proof that I shouldn't have a choice. Good lord!

I do not want my government to treat me like an ignorant or naive person who cannot be trusted to make my own health choices. I do not want to be forced to have my blood drawn, be forced to have my head exposed to electromagnetic radiation every 6 months, be forced to allow a total stranger to insert objects into my vagina every year, or be forced to take fluoride. If I choose to have my blood tested or dental x-rays taken or go to the gynecologist, it is because I am making my own choices about my own body, and not because the government has mandated it.

Furthermore, our representatives are supposed to represent ALL of us, not just some of us, or just those who happen to agree with the representative. I'm not saying we should neglect the dental health needs of low-income families; I'm saying that the needs of that population should not outweigh the needs of other populations in our community.

The fact is that we do not agree on the facts, and there are people in this community who do not want to drink fluoride in their water. In this light, the argument that water fluoridation is the cheapest and most efficient way to bring fluoride to the target population is completely beside the point. The question is not whether to fluoridate the water; the question is how to give the target population access to fluoride without trampling all over the rights of other citizens to make their own health decisions. Water fluoridation is not the only option, it is not a strategy that all citizens can agree on, and therefore it seems evident to me that a different strategy should be employed.