Yes to Fluoride: A Smart Health Equity tool.
By Coalition of Communities of Color in Portland, Oregon. By Gerald Delany (SEI, Co-Chair), Carmen Rubio (Latino Network, Co-Chair), Lee Po Cha (IRCO), Matt Morton (NAYA) and Joseph Santos-Lyons (APANO).
In a typical Oregon third grade classroom of 25 kids, at least eight have untreated dental decay and five of those students have seven or more decaying teeth. If that’s not enough to make your mouth hurt, consider that children from low-income and communities of color, and especially immigrants and refugees, have two to three times more dental decay. Clearly, we are in a crisis and so we’ve joined the Everyone Deserves Healthy Teeth coalition to call on our policymakers enact water fluoridation. Its about time.
For a city that values equity and justice, we can no longer turn our backs on the disparities and lifelong health, education and economic consequences. Fluoridated water is the right answer we need to improve dental health for everyone, regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin or income.
This is about more than “just” a toothache or a cavity. Untreated dental decay contributes to a host of health problems including ear and sinus infections, the ability to eat nutritious foods, and heart disease. It is also a major barrier to education and a driver of school dropout because kids, particularly the 1 in 5 with rampant decay, are in pain and miss school or can’t concentrate when they’re there.
Preventative fluoride saves us the cost of expensive medical treatment. For families struggling to make ends meet, the cost of going to dentist, combined with cultural and language barriers, can keep them from seeking help until the problem is severe. As a result, more children are having multiple fillings or root canals in the emergency room.
Some people ask why we don’t just improve those school programs, teach better dental hygiene, or find another way to help those most in need. There are three problems that underline why universal access to fluoride is important: we’re already doing those things and we still have a dental health crisis, no matter how well parents care for their children’s teeth they still need the added protection of fluoride, and fluoridated water is by far the most affordable solution.
We know that fluoride improves our dental and general health.
Studies have shown that fluoridated water reduces dental decay by 25 percent. Children, whose adult teeth can erupt with decay, benefit. Pregnant women, whose gums are more prone to disease, benefit. Older adults, who often take medications that dry their mouth and lead to decay, benefit. Fluoridation is a public health benefit for the all our communities, and at the same time is part of the solution to the serious racial and economic dental decay disparities we face.
Over 60 years of scientific and health evidence shows that fluoridated water is safe for people and our environment. More than 200 million people across the U.S. drink it every day including in places like Beaverton, Vancouver, Salem, and Corvallis. It’s time to stop depriving Portlanders of this basic benefit.
We urge our Mayor and Portland City Council to adopt fluoridation as a matter of equity, and we oppose a voter referral as expensive and unnecessary.
Read more at EveryoneDeservesHealthyTeeth.org
|
Sept. 04, 2012
Posted in guest column. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
1:41 p.m.
Sep 4, '12
This group probably made a decision based on one-sided information. They need to re-consider
Fluoridation Opposition is Scientific, Respectable & Growing
More than 4,176 professionals (including 341 dentists and 531 MD’s) urge that fluoridation be stopped citing scientific evidence that ingesting fluoride is ineffective at reducing tooth decay and has serious health risks. See statement: http://www.fluoridealert.org/researchers/professionals-statement/text/
In 2006, a National Research Council expert panel published a fluoride report which revealed that fluoride, even at low doses added to water supplies, can be especially harmful to the thyroid gland, kidney patients, babies, seniors and people who drink high amounts of water. They also revealed critical fluoride safety studies have never been done and studies linking fluoride to cancer and lower IQ are plausible. Forty studies link fluoride to lower IQ,
Over 40 human studies link moderately high fluoride exposures with reduced intelligence and/or neurobehavioral deficits. See http://www.FluorideAction.Net/issues/health/brain
After 67 years of water fluoridation, the Centers for Disease Control reports that 60% of 12-15 year-olds are affected with fluoride overdose symptoms – dental fluorosis, white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth. Yet, the CDC says More young kids face cavity crisis in US
Tooth decay crises are occurring in all fluoridated cities, states and countries because Americans can’t afford dental care. New dental professionals are being created. New dental schools opened and others are planned, according to the American Dental Association. There is zero evidence that any Portland child, rich or poor, is fluoride deficient.
80% of dentists refuse Medicaid patients, 130 million Americans don’t have dental insurance. Many of those that do can’t afford dentistry’s high out-of-pocket costs. Low-income Portland children are dentist deficient. No amount of fluoride in their bellies will fill their tooth cavities.
Ask any fluoridation-promoting dentist how many Medicaid patients they accept. Then tell them to take more and see how much they really care about poor children's untreated tooth decay.
11:46 p.m.
Sep 4, '12
I trust the CDC.
1:50 p.m.
Sep 4, '12
"Over 60 years of scientific and health evidence shows that fluoridated water is safe for people and our environment."
That's not true. Science isn't in the business of proving anything. The proper way to frame that -- if you're interested in using science as it is intended -- is that there is not much evidence around harm to humans from artificially fluoridated water. Note that the lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack of harm. This is a lesson that everyone should be learning in 3rd grade. Alas, this is America where we just throw around anything as authority when it suits our political positions.
In addition, there's a growing amount of evidence as to the bioaccumulative effects of fluoride. Outside of harming wildlife directly (which it apparently does in DC) you put fluoride in the environment, and it comes back to us in our food supply much higher than in the concentration we drink. So, even if don't get excess fluoride from water, we may get it from the food. And there is actually evidence that high concentrations of fluoride are correlated with lots of human harm.
Considering that this hasn't been studied on a systemic level, this is quite a risk for a city that has enshrined the precautionary principle in law as an operating principle of government.
"and we oppose a voter referral as expensive and unnecessary." Well that's certainly interesting considering how much debate is going on in Portland around the issue. One has to wonder how you can claim the social equity high ground and be against public engagement and democracy.
5:22 p.m.
Sep 4, '12
I'm not a fluoride "denier", but the benefits seem as unconvincing as the dangers. Inaction isn't harmful (especially to the city's beer, spirits, and food). And the choice to use fluoride--I do--is no farther away than the tube of Aqua-Fresh in the bathroom. This is five million dollars to an unknown end.
In times of squeezed budgets, the water bureau can probably find better uses for that money. Ratepayers probably wouldn't mind getting it back, either.
6:16 p.m.
Sep 4, '12
Please read our proposal to really solve the tooth decay problem in the city. Hint It doesn't cost 5 million dollars.
http://fixmypc.us/nofluoridation/proposal-dental-problems-city/
9:59 p.m.
Sep 4, '12
A topical application to a child's tooth after age six is ok. Putting it in the drinking water? Well, if a sunscreen is good to reduce skin cancer and sun burn do I drink it? I think that the answer on flouride is in. It is what makes up about 18 percent of prozac. And goodness knows that dumbing down the population is important. Hitler thought it was good so I guess it must be fine. On topic enough for ya?
7:25 a.m.
Sep 5, '12
The issue here is a sick process, not healthy teeth.
Traditionally in Portland, we've always gone to great pains to get public input on major questions. The meetings, with the opinion clickers, during the drafting of the long-range Portland Plan were a fine example of democratic process.
Personally, I don't mind fluoridation, but many people do. I think that fluoridation will have a greater impact on people's lives than the Portland Plan will. It seems to be a natural candidate for a series of meetings that will allow the public to express their opinions.
The issue came out of left field. No one on the Council campaigned in recent elections on a pro-fluoridation platform.
The fact that the two major players pushing this issue are lame ducks, one of whom, Mr. Leonard, is explicitly looking for a legacy, adds to the process problem. I mean, the Mayor and Mr. Leonard can't be held accountable because they aren't seeking re-election. Accountability is important, and I think that is a good argument allowing the new mayor and commissioners to deal with the issue.
In addition, Mr. Leonard's people have scheduled implementation so that it will occur before the question can be put on the ballot as a referendum. Sort of a way for the Water Bureau to thumb its nose at the public, "Nyah nyah. We can do what we want and you can't stop us."
On most issues, people are content to let their representative government make the decisions. But there are times when officials need to find the wisom to slow down and build a broad public consensus before moving forward.
I think this is one of those times. I think a failure by the Council to talk to the public and develop support will make them look like a bunch of would-be oligarchs. That's not how our city should be governed.
8:48 a.m.
Sep 6, '12
The funny thing? Most people think mineral water is good for you. Funny ol' world, isn't it?
12:07 p.m.
Sep 6, '12
The thing is, there IS indeed broad consensus about adding the naturally occurring element, fluoride, to water. Every single major health organization supports it, including mine, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. There are individuals who are opposed, but based on beliefs, not facts. I have not seen any science based organizational opposition to fluoridation of water systems.The depth of the pseudoscience, misinformation and conspiracy theories of opponents is breathtaking. The reality is that fluoride is a a natural element, a beneficial nutrient, that is important to the integrity of bones and teeth. In addition, this is an equity issue, as beautifully articulated by the original post.
3:43 p.m.
Sep 6, '12
The advantage of fluoridated water is small and can be had other ways. Supporters gloss over the uncertainties and risks, such as increased rate of hip fracture due to fluorosis and the chance of overdosing infants who drink formula made with tap water. Those who take food or drink that has been greatly reduced risk higher intake, as do those who eat produce watered with fluoridated tap water.
And residents cannot opt out if they do not want fluoride. They will be dosed against their will.
The source of fluoride is the scrubber stacks of phosphate fertilizer plants. it is that industry that gains the most from wafluoridationtion, as there toxic waste would be quite costly to dispose of if cities did not add it to their drinking water supplies.
More info from Environmental Working Group: Health/Toxics: Fluoride
3:46 p.m.
Sep 6, '12
Third paragraph should be:
It is that industry that gains the most from water fluoridation, as their toxic waste would be quite costly to dispose of if cities did not add it to their drinking water supplies.
2:25 p.m.
Sep 8, '12
Just a reminder that most of the industrialized world does not fluoridate their water supply. Yes it is common to fluoridate something else like salt or milk, but the key detail is you can opt out and/or regulate how much you get.
To have this exceedingly heavy handed process in a lame duck session with zero transparency is going to haunt City Hall and has basically equated equity with 'surprise' politics.