On September 6, 2012 the city council of Portland, Oregon unanimously passed a vote to add fluoride to public drinking water. There was an uproar in the community against this decision due to the greater number of risks than benefits that arise with ingesting fluoride. Luckily, enough people in Oregon signed a petition to block the city from adding fluoride to the water and to bring the issue to a public vote on the ballot next year.
Oregon’s dilemma regarding water fluoridation brings up the conflict between what is morally and lawfully correct. Source: Save the Water
Supporters of fluoridation desire to increase the oral health of the poor because they believe that fluoride in the water will help improve the oral health of the population. Although it is noted by proponents and medical personal as well, that simply putting fluoride in the water will not solve the problem of poor oral hygiene.
Humana One explains that individuals must brush and floss their teeth regularly, and have their teeth cleaned at least once a year in order to reduce tooth decay and prevent gum disease. A change in diet is also an important aspect of dental health; foods with high acidity levels and high sugar content cause tooth decay and enamel erosion, Medscape provides examples of foods that are beneficial or damaging to teeth. In order to increase the quality of oral health, individuals must improve these factors.
Instead of spending $5 million dollars on fluoridating the drinking water that would only reach 900,000 people, we should take that money and invest it into education and distribution of toothpaste and toothbrushes to impoverished areas. There is evidence that supports the benefits of topical fluoride, such as in toothpaste, yet the benefits of ingested fluoride have not been proven.
Not only would it be more economically effective to distribute toothbrushes and toothpaste, it would also have a greater impact on the health of the community. Logically, it makes more sense to provide a service that is proven to improve oral health, than implement a program with inconclusive evidence.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the fluoridation approval in Oregon was the vote of the city council without a public vote on the matter. Many residents are furious because they feel that it is their right to choose whether or not they use fluoride. The inclusion of fluoride in the water is particularly relevant to parents of young children because of the health risks, supported by the CDC, that are associated with infant ingestion of fluoride.
Representation of the many people who believe “Public Water, Public Vote!”. Source: NY Times
Jay Harris Levy is “a practicing dentist for 30 years, a former faculty member and researcher at OHSU’s School of Dentistry, and someone who has worked in public health dental clinics”. In his article, “What the Research Says About Fluoride”, Levy argues that fluoride in the water is not the solution to Portland’s tooth decay problem. He believes,
The money spent for fluoridating Portland’s water supply would not help the children who need it most and would be much better spent on preventive programs in underserved areas (Levy).
Residents find it frustrating to see laws being passed without clear explanation or evidence of how the levels of fluoride in the water actually improve tooth decay. Despite numerous scientific studies there is no conclusive evidence to say that fluoride in water is, or is not, effective.
A major contributor to the high levels of tooth decay in Portland could very well be linked to the high rates of homelessness. Most people are unaware that Portland has the highest rate of homeless people per captia in the United States. According to the 2009 Annual Homeless Assessment to Congress, “Nevada has the highest number of homeless people per capita, followed by Oregon”. However, Oregon has replaced Nevada and now leads the way in homelessness. The lack of access to dental hygiene products amongst this group could explain the unprecedented high rates of tooth decay in Portland.
Perhaps Oregon officials should look into ways of decreasing the rates of homelessness and distributing resources to impoverished areas, rather than subjecting all residents to fluoride in drinking water.