Roughly
70% of Americans currently receive fluoridated municipal water. From
around
1950 to roughly 2000 the pro-fluoridation movement dominated the
direction of
water treatment policy with the backing of organizations like the CDC
and ADA.
However, in the past 10 years dozens of anti-fluoridation groups across
the
country have fought to end or block fluoridation. In the last two years
alone
community water fluoridation has been rejected in 10 different states (http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/04/16/dont-drink-the-water/).
This anti-fluoridation renaissance can be attributed to two trends in
that
began in the 1990s: a growth in
scientific literature that raises concerns
about fluoridation, and the
spread of the internet into American homes.
Fluoridation Battlegrounds
While
anti-fluoridation movements have coalesced under the FAN umbrella, the
bulk of
action is taking place on the community level. That being said, there
are some
national petitions and campaigns being organized by both FAN and the
EPA
Headquarters Union. This includes Professionals Statement to
End
Fluoridation which states:
“It
is time for
the US, and the few
remaining fluoridating countries, to recognize that fluoridation is
outdated,
has serious risks that far outweigh any minor benefits, violates sound
medical
ethics and denies freedom of choice. Fluoridation must be ended now.”
This statement has garnered over
2,700 signatures from scientists, lawyers, and medical professionals
including
a Nobel Laureate, presidents and past presidents of a number of oral
health
organizations, several of the authors of the 2006 NAS report, five
Goldman
prize winners, and Pete Seeger.
Locally, the movement takes the form
of grassroots organizations such as Fluoride Leave Our Water (FLOW) in
Portland, Maine, Citizens Against Forced Fluoride in Bellingham,
Washington,
and Fluoride Free New York in New York state.
Tactics differ depending on the
group and the situation. In Bellingham in 2005 citizens organized a
grassroots
movement to reject a ballot measure that would have resulted in
community water
fluoridation. Tactics included conventional grass roots door knocking,
protesting, and posting signs. Some citizens went further, anonymously
putting
a dead rat in the mailbox of Curtis Smith (a retired dentist who led
the ballot
initiative) and making anonymous phone calls to his home accusing him
of trying
to poison his neighbors (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1118379,00.html).
Ultimately, anti-fluoridation activists won the vote 53-47%, despite a
fundraising difference of $17,000 to over $250,000 (predominantly from
sources
outside of Bellingham, presumably industry) (http://www.noforcedfluoride.org/).
In Portland, Maine FLOW
has had less success. In 2009 they failed to get their desired ballot
initiative on Maine’s ballot, and also were unable to elect their
leader,
Oliver Outerbridge, to a seat on the local Water District Board.
However,
Outerbridge feels that the national tide is moving in his favor, and
anticipates more success in the future (http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/04/16/dont-drink-the-water/).
This ABC report covers the Professionals
Statement to End Fluoridation, organized by the FAN.
Last
updated: 5/2/2010
Macalester College · 1600 Grand Avenue,
St. Paul, MN 55105 USA · 651-696-6000
Comments and questions to ZacharyRyanLazar@gmail.com