US (Washington Insider Magazine)— Across the United States, more communities are reconsidering fluoridation of drinking water—a practice established in the 1950s to combat tooth decay. While some, like Regina Barrett of Monroe, North Carolina, are concerned about the mineral’s effects, others emphasize fluoride’s long-standing public health benefits. Union County, for instance, recently voted to remove fluoride from its water, reflecting a growing movement for personal choice over community-wide measures.
Fluoride has been celebrated for reducing cavities, but opponents question its safety, arguing that products like toothpaste make water fluoridation unnecessary. Research underscores fluoride’s preventive benefits, but fluoride critics, including the Fluoride Action Network, contend it poses risks such as thyroid issues and bone conditions. This opposition has led to significant community actions—since 2010, over 240 towns worldwide have ceased fluoridation.
The debate has reached the federal level, where an ongoing case may compel the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set regulations on fluoride in water. If successful, the case could reshape policies across the country.
However, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) maintains that the low fluoride levels in water are safe and that combining topical and systemic fluoride use provides the best protection against tooth decay. Studies show increased dental issues where fluoride was removed, such as in Juneau, Alaska. Public health officials worry about the impact on low-income families, for whom water fluoridation might be their primary dental health safeguard.
The debate highlights the divide between proponents who see fluoridation as essential for public health and those, like Barrett, who view it as unnecessary. With local governments making these decisions, the fluoride debate represents a new frontier in public health autonomy.
