Santa Cruz,CA editorial encouraging fluoridation despite vote against-need reply

[Guest guest]

July 11, 2004

As We See It: Fluoride decision a first step

COURT CASE: Fluoridating the water supply is a good public-health decision.

The winners in last week’s court decision regarding fluoridation in

ville will be the children of Pajaro Valley. And our hope is that the

decision

will be the first of many that will bring better dental health to more children

all around the area — and the state.

Opponents of fluoridation have their hearts in the right place, but they’re

wrong about their position. We understand their suspicion about government

officials putting a substance into the drinking water — after all, it sounds

so

sinister.

But government officials already are putting substances in the water, like

chlorine, which is effective in keeping drinking water safe.

The reality is that putting fluoride in the drinking water is itself safe —

and that every major, reputable study done over the past two generations has

demonstrated that. A Santa Cruz County judge ruled last week that state law

calls for fluoridation, and that a local jurisdiction cannot exempt itself.

Put it this way: the public-health risk from not fluoridating water is higher

than it is to do so. The reason? Those who live in poverty typically don’t

send their children to the dentist. They’re the children who suffer over the

coming years from not having their teeth protected, and they’re the ones who

come

up with all sorts of avoidable dental problems.

The issue is so important that the state government has decided to insist

that water throughout the state be treated. The overall public health would be

served if the entire state population receives fluoridated water.

Some local officials have said that the state should not have the right to

overrule local people who have voted to ban fluoride. We don’t agree. This is

one of those issues in which the minority has a right to reasonable protection

from the government.

Besides, a vote in ville in 2002 was confusing, if not misleading. The

vote never mentioned the word " fluoride, " and only spelled out that the city

should not put anything in its water supply that’s not approved by the Food

and

Drug Administration. What the ballot didn’t explain is that the FDA has no

jurisdiction in that area, and would not be in a position to approve or reject

fluoride.

Our hope is that the matter is taken to a higher court in order for a

decision to even be more far-reaching. The city of Santa Cruz mistakenly

rejected

fluoridation several years ago. We’d like to see that ordinance overturned as

well.

After all, the real victims in this case are those who can afford tooth decay

the least: those born and raised in poverty.

The fluoridation issue ought to be decided on the basis of good science, not

by the whims of public fancy.

We understand the fears of some people regarding fluoride, because there have

been claims made against it over the years. But we shouldn’t ask for

unanimity in issues of public health. In fact, those in a position of leadership

have

a duty to protect those who aren’t in a position to help themselves. People

will be well-served by the fluoridation of water, despite any scare stories

brought up by those opposed.

In this case, scientific evidence points to the value of fluoride in the

water supply. The good has been proven; the bad has not. That’s why we hope

that

the battle will continue over fluoride throughout California, and that local

cities like ville and Santa Cruz will go along with the responsible path.

You can find this story online at:

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2004/July/11/edit/stories/01edit.htm

Letter to the editor:

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2004/July/11/edit/let.htm#let

ck

New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation

http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof

http://tinyurl.com/ad9k

Fluoride NewsTracker Blog

http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com/

Fluoride Action Network

http://www.fluoridealert.org/