Opposition to water fluoridation

Fluoridation began during a time of great optimism and faith in science and experts (the 1950s and 1960s); even then, the public frequently objected. Opponents drew on distrust of experts and unease about medicine and science.{{cite journal | vauthors = Carstairs C, Elder R |title=Expertise, health, and popular opinion: debating water fluoridation, 1945–80 |journal=Can. Hist. Rev. |volume=89 |issue=3 |pages=345–371 |year=2008 |doi=10.3138/chr.89.3.345 }} Controversies include disputes over fluoridation's benefits and the strength of the evidence basis for these benefits, the difficulty of identifying harms, legal issues over whether water fluoride is a medicine, and the ethics of mass intervention.

Fluoridation began during a time of great optimism and faith in science and experts (the 1950s and 1960s); even then, the public frequently objected. Opponents drew on distrust of experts and unease about medicine and science.{{cite journal | vauthors = Carstairs C, Elder R |title=Expertise, health, and popular opinion: debating water fluoridation, 1945–80 |journal=Can. Hist. Rev. |volume=89 |issue=3 |pages=345–371 |year=2008 |doi=10.3138/chr.89.3.345 }} Controversies include disputes over fluoridation's benefits and the strength of the evidence basis for these benefits, the difficulty of identifying harms, legal issues over whether water fluoride is a medicine, and the ethics of mass intervention.

The first large fluoridation controversy occurred in Wisconsin in 1950. Fluoridation opponents questioned the ethics, safety, and efficacy of fluoridation.{{cite journal | vauthors = Musto RJ | title = Fluoridation: why is it not more widely adopted? | journal = CMAJ | volume = 137 | issue = 8 | pages = 705–708 | date = October 1987 | pmid = 3651941 | pmc = 1267306 }} New Zealand was the second country to fluoridate, and similar controversies arose there.{{cite journal | doi = 10.2307/40111610 | year = 2005 | title = Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies in New Zealand:'Magic Bullet,'Rat Poison, or Communist Plot? | journal = Health and History | volume = 7 | issue = 2 | pages = 17–29 | url = http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/hah/7.2/wrapson.html | vauthors = Wrapson J | jstor = 40111610 | access-date = 3 March 2009 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080821170339/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/hah/7.2/wrapson.html | archive-date = 21 August 2008 | url-access = subscription }} Fears about fluoride were likely exacerbated by the reputation of fluoride compounds as insect poisons and by early literature which tended to use terms such as "toxic" and "low grade chronic [[fluoride poisoning]]" to describe mottling from consumption of 6 mg/L of fluoride prior to tooth eruption, a level of consumption not expected to occur under controlled fluoridation.{{cite journal | vauthors = Richmond VL | title = Thirty years of fluoridation: a review | journal = The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition | volume = 41 | issue = 1 | pages = 129–138 | date = January 1985 | pmid = 3917599 | doi = 10.1093/ajcn/41.1.129 }} When voted upon, the outcomes tend to be negative, and thus fluoridation has had a history of gaining through administrative orders in North America.

The first large fluoridation controversy occurred in Wisconsin in 1950. Fluoridation opponents questioned the ethics, safety, and efficacy of fluoridation.{{cite journal | vauthors = Musto RJ | title = Fluoridation: why is it not more widely adopted? | journal = CMAJ | volume = 137 | issue = 8 | pages = 705–708 | date = October 1987 | pmid = 3651941 | pmc = 1267306 }} [[Rio Vista, California|Rio Vista,]] the first city in California to [[Water fluoridation|fluoridate]] its water in 1951{{Cite journal |date=February 1, 1952|title=More Communities Take Favorable Action on Water Fluoridation Process|url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0002817752420127|journal=The Journal of the American Dental Association|language=en|volume=44|issue=2|pages=204–207|doi=10.14219/jada.archive.1952.0063}}, voted to remove their fluoridation equipment in 1956{{Cite web |title=City of Rio Vista Municipal Code § OL.010.198|url=https://ecode360.com/42831373|website=eCode360}}. New Zealand was the second country to fluoridate, and similar controversies arose there.{{cite journal | doi = 10.2307/40111610 | year = 2005 | title = Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies in New Zealand:'Magic Bullet,'Rat Poison, or Communist Plot? | journal = Health and History | volume = 7 | issue = 2 | pages = 17–29 | url = http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/hah/7.2/wrapson.html | vauthors = Wrapson J | jstor = 40111610 | access-date = 3 March 2009 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080821170339/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/hah/7.2/wrapson.html | archive-date = 21 August 2008 | url-access = subscription }} Fears about fluoride were likely exacerbated by the reputation of fluoride compounds as insect poisons and by early literature which tended to use terms such as "toxic" and "low grade chronic [[fluoride poisoning]]" to describe mottling from consumption of 6 mg/L of fluoride prior to tooth eruption, a level of consumption not expected to occur under controlled fluoridation.{{cite journal | vauthors = Richmond VL | title = Thirty years of fluoridation: a review | journal = The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition | volume = 41 | issue = 1 | pages = 129–138 | date = January 1985 | pmid = 3917599 | doi = 10.1093/ajcn/41.1.129 }} When voted upon, the outcomes tend to be negative, and thus fluoridation has had a history of gaining through administrative orders in North America.

[[Conspiracy theory|Conspiracy theories]] involving fluoridation are common, and include claims that fluoridation was motivated by protecting the U.S. atomic bomb program from litigation, that (as famously parodied in the film ''[[Dr. Strangelove]],'' where a deranged U.S. Air Force general claimed that it would "sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids") it is part of a [[Communist]] or [[New World Order (conspiracy theory)|New World Order]] plot to take over the world, that it was pioneered by a German chemical company to make people submissive to those in power, that behind the scenes it is promoted by the sugary food or phosphate fertilizer or aluminium industries, or that it is a smokescreen to cover failure to provide dental care to the poor. One such theory is that fluoridation was a [[public-relations]] ruse sponsored by fluoride polluters such as the aluminium maker [[Alcoa]] and the [[Manhattan Project]], with conspirators that included industrialist [[Andrew Mellon]] and the [[Mellon Institute]]'s researcher Gerald J. Cox, the Kettering Laboratory of the [[University of Cincinnati]], the [[Federal Security Agency]]'s administrator Oscar R. Ewing, and public-relations strategist [[Edward Bernays]].{{sfn|Freeze|Lehr|2009|pp=127–169}} Specific antifluoridation arguments change to match the spirit of the time.{{cite journal | vauthors = Newbrun E | title = The fluoridation war: a scientific dispute or a religious argument? | journal = Journal of Public Health Dentistry | volume = 56 | issue = 5 Spec No | pages = 246–252 | year = 1996 | pmid = 9034969 | doi = 10.1111/j.1752-7325.1996.tb02447.x }}

[[Conspiracy theory|Conspiracy theories]] involving fluoridation are common, and include claims that fluoridation was motivated by protecting the U.S. atomic bomb program from litigation, that (as famously parodied in the film ''[[Dr. Strangelove]],'' where a deranged U.S. Air Force general claimed that it would "sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids") it is part of a [[Communist]] or [[New World Order (conspiracy theory)|New World Order]] plot to take over the world, that it was pioneered by a German chemical company to make people submissive to those in power, that behind the scenes it is promoted by the sugary food or phosphate fertilizer or aluminium industries, or that it is a smokescreen to cover failure to provide dental care to the poor. One such theory is that fluoridation was a [[public-relations]] ruse sponsored by fluoride polluters such as the aluminium maker [[Alcoa]] and the [[Manhattan Project]], with conspirators that included industrialist [[Andrew Mellon]] and the [[Mellon Institute]]'s researcher Gerald J. Cox, the Kettering Laboratory of the [[University of Cincinnati]], the [[Federal Security Agency]]'s administrator Oscar R. Ewing, and public-relations strategist [[Edward Bernays]].{{sfn|Freeze|Lehr|2009|pp=127–169}} Specific antifluoridation arguments change to match the spirit of the time.{{cite journal | vauthors = Newbrun E | title = The fluoridation war: a scientific dispute or a religious argument? | journal = Journal of Public Health Dentistry | volume = 56 | issue = 5 Spec No | pages = 246–252 | year = 1996 | pmid = 9034969 | doi = 10.1111/j.1752-7325.1996.tb02447.x }}