Fluoride is a natural element that is already present in water and some foods. The practice of adding fluoride to municipal water supplies began in the 1940s. The assumption at that time was that supplemental fluoridation of water would decrease the incidence of dental cavities in adults and children. Most drinking water already contains fluoride at much lower levels than the amount currently under investigation.

The targeted level of fluoridation ranged from 0.9 to 1.2 parts per million (ppm). Scientific evidence shows that levels above 2 ppm are toxic. The American Dental Association and the United States Public Health Service encouraged every city in the United States to add fluoride. However, many did not. Opponents of fluoridation cite current studies that compare the incidence of various health problems for residents of cities with or without fluoridated water supplies. The controversy over fluoridation has also caused public health agencies within the United States government to take a second look.  The resources below discuss the health effects and dangers of excess fluoridation in water:

Some propose a moratorium on fluoridation until controlled testing confirms or denies the adverse effects. Many point out that no tests were conducted prior to the nationwide adoption of fluoridation. They believe that there should be sufficient evidence, after 50 years, to determine if fluoridation is actually safe.

There is some independent and government evidence that the currently accepted fluoride levels in municipal water systems may result in fluorosis, a discoloration of tooth enamel, in children and babies. Consumer protection advocates believe that fluoridation has other adverse effects for adults and children. Fluoridation critics believe that it is linked to lower IQ, skeletal fluorosis, thyroid problems, and bone cancer.

Some consumers have filed lawsuits with Consumer Lawyers claiming damages from the detrimental effects of long-term consumption of fluoridated water similarly to a denture cream lawsuit or a Hydroxycut lawsuit where there are consumers facing long-term effects. The courts have weighed in on both sides of the issue, largely due to the body of evidence presented at the hearings. Without valid documentation from federal agencies for the safety of fluoridation, judges must make rulings that reflect the degree to which the opponent’s claims seem to be justified.

Published November 17, 2011 by