It's not just an issue of health, but principle, too

October 29, 2000
BY BRUCE BARTON

I am in favor of personal fluoride use. I have given fluoride tablets to my children. I have had fluoride treatments given to my family by our dentist.

But I am against putting fluoride in our public water systems. Why? Because it's a matter of principle. Let me explain. Public water systems have had one purpose: to supply pure drinkable water to the public.

There is a big difference between chlorinating water, which is now being done, and fluoridating water, which is being proposed. We put chlorine in the water to purify the water. It is a chemical that treats the water. We put fluoride in the water to carry it into our bodies. Fluoride does not treat the water, but instead uses water as a carrier. Artificially adding fluoride changes the purpose of our public water systems, and that sets a new legal precedent on the use of public water systems.

What is the harm if we start to use water to carry drugs, such as fluoride, in our water? Think about it. If water is used as a carrier for fluoride, what other non-purifying drugs could water carry in the future?

What about osteoporosis-inhibiting drugs? Some people take pills to increase their bone density and reduce osteoporosis. That is a worthy health-related purpose.

Why not add those drugs to water? Who will determine what is put in the water in the future? Will we vote every time? Where do we draw the line? Fluoridate today, what tomorrow? Adding fluoride to water is not the same as adding iodine to salt, Vitamin D to milk or vitamins to enriched bread. I can get salt without iodine, make my own bread and eliminate milk from my diet. But this is water, folks -- a daily universal requirement for life.

As an attorney, I have seen well-intentioned laws become entirely different creatures over time. All it takes is a creative mind and a willing judge and you can impose a lot on the public. Look at what we are doing today that was unheard of 20 years ago. We need to be cautious in this area of mass fluoridation.

It is difficult to know the direction of the law and what future liabilities will exist for present decisions. Look at the lawsuits over FDA-accepted drugs which later were shown to have serious side-effects like Thalidomide and fen-phen. Does the fact that this issue will go to a vote of the people shield government agencies from any responsibility for future problems? I have not raised any of the specific health arguments against fluoridation because my point doesn't involve those health issues.

If all the health claims of the opponents to fluoridation were false, my point would still stand: mass fluoridation changes the purpose of public water systems and the principle of supplying pure water to the public. Public fluoridation sets a dangerous new legal precedent.

Fluoridation of water is not our only choice. The reduction of cavities is a worthwhile goal. But with other more effective and cost-efficient ways to accomplish this result, why use mass fluoridation and bring on the negative consequences? The rejection of mass fluoridation is not a rejection of good dental health. It is just saying we don't want this method of using fluoride. The main problem with other viable alternatives to fluoridating our water is they require individual responsibility and effort. We would have to remember to give our kids their fluoride tablets each day. It takes an effort to schedule a dentist to have teeth topically treated with fluoride. Yes, being a parent involves responsibility.

Mass fluoridation is a lazy way to try to accomplish a good result. It takes the cost and responsibility from parents and gives it to government. It distributes the cost across our society in the form of taxes. Is that right? It certainly is easy. Wouldn't it make more sense to use fluoride on an individual basis with younger children than putting it into our public water systems where most of it will be wasted?

I asked a friend of mine who is a dentist why there is a push to mass-fluoridate when even the dental profession agrees other alternatives may be less costly and certainly more effective. Do you know what he told me? "It's because the people aren't doing it." I replied, "Come on. Are you serious? People aren't doing a lot of things they ought to be doing. Should government step in every time they don't?" He was very sincere. When I explained my opposition to mass fluoridation based on legal precedent and principle and not just a health issue, he said, "I hadn't thought of it that way before."

I think it is time we start thinking about it. We need to take more personal responsibility for our actions. The healthy foundation of society requires it. And, we need to say "no way" to mass fluoridation -- it's a matter of principle.
_________

Bruce Barton is an attorney who makes his home in Layton.





© Copyright 2000, The Salt Lake Tribune