The Pollution Story Behind Artificial Water Fluoridation (Part 1) - Public Goods Blog The Pollution Story Behind Artificial Water Fluoridation (Part 1) - Public Goods Blog

The Pollution Story Behind Artificial Water Fluoridation (Part 1)

This year marks the 75th anniversary of artificial fluoridation of the public water supply, a controversial program that affects what is arguably our most basic public good.

marsh with cattails and trees in the distance

Opponents of fluoridation claim it causes a long list of health problems, from hypothyroidism and ADHD to cancer and acne. But it can be hard to fathom why government officials and the entire mainstream dental establishment would promote the addition of fluoride to public water supplies if there is scientific evidence of harm.

If fluoride is as hazardous as critics claim, why has it been endorsed by so many respected health authorities for over 70 years?

Even opponents of fluoridation find it difficult to answer this question without resorting to unfounded conspiracy theories. But the motivating forces behind fluoridation become apparent once an overlooked footnote of American history comes to light: the complex pollution story at the heart of public water fluoridation in the United States.

Many Americans are surprised to learn that fluoride is a common and highly toxic form of air pollution. In its 1971 handbook on airborne pollutants, the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) begins its chapter on fluoride with a simple statement of fact: “Airborne fluorides (F) have caused more worldwide damage to domestic animals than any other air pollutant.”

Because fluoride is a common element deep in the earth’s crust, it is a byproduct of many industrial manufacturing operations, from aluminum and iron factories to brick kilns and phosphate fertilizer plants.

Public health officials in Europe were first to document the negative health effects of fluoride air pollution when they observed its debilitating impact on local factory workers. Symptoms included skin rashes, gastrointestinal ailments, respiratory conditions and a bone disorder called osteosclerosis.

In the mid-twentieth century, the Deputy Health Commissioner of Denmark, a medical doctor named Kaj Roholm, quickly became the world’s foremost authority on fluoride toxicity. In 1937, he published his seminal work on the subject entitled Fluorine Intoxication.

Roholm was aware that dental researchers in the United States were studying fluoride’s effect on teeth. They had recently discovered that excess fluoride in the diet causes a disfiguring of the tooth enamel called dental fluorosis, but some were also suggesting dietary fluoride might inhibit tooth decay. Roholm disagreed.

The final chapter of Kaj Roholm’s book concludes with an italicized warning: not only is fluoride not necessary for healthy tooth enamel, he writes, “but on the contrary, the enamel organ is selectively sensitive to the deleterious effects of fluoride.”

With industry-funded scientists at the forefront, research on fluoride in the United States took a different turn. Corporate polluters were acutely aware of the high amounts of fluoride released into the environment from their manufacturing processes. It was H. V. Churchill, the chief chemist for the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa), who is credited with the discovery that fluoride in water is the cause of dental fluorosis.

Another industry chemist, Francis Frary, was responsible for prompting the initial research on the idea that fluoride might be beneficial to teeth. The notion ran contrary to public opinion at the time, as many communities were focused on decreasing the amount of fluoride in water because of dental fluorosis.

Federal guidelines issued by the U. S. Public Health Service (PHS) restricted fluoride levels to 1.0 parts per million, or ppm. The current limit set by the Environmental Protection Agency is four times that amount.

Moreover, the first proposal to add fluoride to public water supplies was made by Gerald Cox, a former researcher for Alcoa whose work on cavities was funded by the sugar industry.

These scientists who worked for one of the biggest fluoride polluters in the world are scarcely mentioned in modern tellings of the history of fluoridation. Instead, in the official “Story of Fluoridation” told on the website for the National Institute of Health (NIH), the role of corporate polluters is obscured by the presence of public health dentists.

According to the NIH version of events, the scientists behind fluoridation were two dentists named Frederick McKay and H. Trendley Dean. McKay is cited as readily observing the fact that tooth enamel with dental fluorosis was “inexplicably resistant to decay,” while Dean is credited with first proposing the hypothesis that fluoride added to water would prevent cavities.

As the NIH story goes, Dean longed to test his fluoride hypothesis and “got his wish” in 1945 when officials in Grand Rapids, Michigan agreed to add the chemical to their water supply.

This is a nice origin story — and perhaps it’s the way Dean himself remembered it decades later when he was being lauded as the “father” of one of the “greatest public health achievements of the twentieth century”— but this version of the history of fluoridation is not supported by contemporaneous historical evidence.

An extensive series of letters between Dean and McKay reveals the evolution of their thinking on fluoride. The letters are housed at the U. S. National Library of Medicine in Bethesda, Maryland where they were dug up by former BBC journalist Christopher Bryson while researching for his book, “The Fluoride Deception.”

Throughout the 1930s, the years between when fluoride was identified as the cause of dental fluorosis and the first call to add fluoride to public water supplies, there is not a single mention of the “inexplicable” resistance to cavities the NIH story claims McKay readily observed.

Instead, for the first several years after fluoride’s effect on tooth enamel was discovered, Dean and McKay spent a lot of time discussing the toxic limit for fluoride in water, a level they came to identify as roughly 1.3 ppm (PHS would later cite 1.2 ppm as “optimal”). By the end of the decade, it was still not clear to McKay whether fluoride might accelerate cavities rather than prevent them.

But by 1940, one thing was clear to both Dean and McKay: someone was sensationalizing their research on fluoride in the press.

In multiple letters, the two dentists lament how fluoride and its effect on teeth was being portrayed in the media:
“I fail to see why there should be such public interest in a paper that reaches no conclusions and makes no recommendations,” Dean wrote.

“I agree it is inopportune just now to represent that method of dealing with [cavities] with so much assurance,” McKay responded.

Even just a few months before the commencement of the first fluoridation trial in Grand Rapids — an endeavor Dean oversaw as the head dentist at the U. S. Public Health Service — a government transcript Bryson uncovered in his research shows Dean was against public fluoridation trials because of a lack of safety studies.

“We’ve looked at nothing but teeth,” Dean warned.

In the transcript of the meeting that took place in April, 1944, Dean expressed concern that long-term exposure, even to low doses of fluoride in drinking water, could have negative health effects. For example, he mentioned evidence of increased risk for cataracts and questioned the cumulative effect of fluoridated drinking water on people with impaired kidney function.

Despite Dean’s opposition, local authorities voted to start the trial anyway. They pointed to public pressure as a driving factor in their decision:

“As you know, public interest in it has been very great through the publicity which was given out before we got into it at all… if communities are getting ready to do it, it had far better be done under careful control conditions…”

Once the Grand Rapids fluoridation trial was underway, other cities quickly followed suit, including the nearby city of Muskegon that was intended to serve as a control.

Despite the lack of a control group, the U. S. Public Health Service endorsed fluoridation as safe and effective in 1950, just five years into their 15-year study. Within months, other health authorities such as the American Dental Association (ADA) and the American Medical Association (AMA) released similar statements endorsing the safety of fluoridation, even though they did not conduct safety studies of their own.

Now that local municipalities across the country were told to add fluoride to public water supplies, industry had a profitable market for their fluoride air pollution. (In a letter written decades later, the EPA Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water described fluoridation as “an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem.”)

Critics of artificial water fluoridation point to the fact that industry was now profiting from the sale to water municipalities of their former hazardous waste product, hydrofluorosilicic acid, as evidence that corporate polluters were behind the government’s rush to endorse fluoridation.

Yet even with this new national market for fluoride chemicals, the financial interests behind fluoridation were exponentially greater than any profit corporate polluters stood to gain from the sale of hydrofluorosilicic acid.

Part two of our series on the pollution story behind fluoridation explores the deeper monetary incentives held by American industry regarding fluoride in the mid-twentieth century, including why corporate leaders believed the future of their industries — and thereby, national security — relied on the government’s declaration that long-term exposure to low doses of fluoride is safe.

Download Our Free Guide to Sustainable Living.

From reducing waste to recycling and upcycling, our e-book shows simple ways to make choices you can feel good about.

Comments (8)

  • While i am not making judgement on fluoride as a whole, my close friend added a water purifier to her household that removed fluoride. She ended up with significant tooth decay, and many filled cavities. The main thing is, we don’t need flouride in toothpaste! Many people denounce water fluoridation, but happily use fluoride toothpaste. There is enough fluoride in water that having it in toothpaste is overkill. I have been using Hello non-fluoride toothpaste for over a year with no detrimental effects to my teeth, as least as of now. The city i live in discontinued water fluoridation. After 2 years they put it back because of increased tooth decay reports. Again, I’m not saying it’s good or bad, but I’ve seen evidence of the tooth decay that occurs when fluoride is removed from water.

    • Hey AJ, thanks for your comment! We totally agree that fluoride in toothpaste is unnecessary, which is why ours is fluoride free. 😁 If you’d like to give that a try, feel free to use code BLOG15 at checkout for $15 off your first order. 💸

  • I would like to see the references to the studies you are claiming exist about the deleterious effects of fluoride. I have searched over and over for peer reviewed (i.e. actually scientific) studies that suggest cancer, thyroid issues etc. At the recommended dosage of 1 ppm, fluoride is safe. It is a dose-dependent relationship. Just as certain medications can be helpful in preventing heart attack and stroke at one dosage, but are sold as rat poison at high dosages, so fluoride can be highly beneficial at low dosages rather than high dosages. Also, fluoridation programs monitor fluoride levels in water. In some areas, the naturally occurring fluoride levels are much higher than the recommended limit of 1 ppm (especially areas where well water is used as a water source), in which case some fluoride should be removed (with technologies such as reverse osmosis filtration). The main take home… cite your sources, please… and make sure they’re based on sound science, rather than hear-say or single case studies.

    • Hi Robert, thanks for your comment! All of our sources are cited as clickable links in the blog post, so you’re able to easily review those yourself.

      Thanks for taking the time to give our post a read! If you haven’t had a chance to try out our products, feel free to use BLOG15 at checkout for $15 off of your first order. 🌱

  • We have had communities remove fluoride from the water and seen the detrimental affects. https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-happened-when-a-city-in-alaska-took-fluoride-out-of-their-drinking-water

    It would be very easy to look at the current records of those same people to show the negatives of fluoride. But the conspiracy people never do that because their conspiracy is just that a conspiracy theory. There is no reality behind it. If fluoride had more negative than positive affects being in the water we would know by now. But it doesn’t. And those that are worried about it are allowed to filter their water and buy dentures.

    • Thanks so much for your perspective! We appreciate the source. We’re always happy to portray the views of our blog contributors transparently because it encourages others to do their research, and often sparks a valuable dialog about controversial issues. As a token of our thanks feel free to use code BLOG15 for $15 off of your first order with us! 😊

  • It is shameful and sad that in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic your company would choose to start a misinformation campaign about how the NIH is out to poison the public. We have already seen the effect on our nation of people trafficking in bad faith arguments to malign public health officials, millions infected and over a hundred thousand dead. Stop what you are doing here Public Goods! Melissa Gallico do not publish whatever anti-science garbage you have slated for Part 2 of this nonsense.

    • Hi Paul! Thanks for the feedback. We do our best to allow our blog contributors to express their views transparently, and we found that this article presented both sides of the argument in a thought-provoking way. We always appreciate when our blogs are on a controversial subject because we believe it encourages our readers to do their own research. We also appreciate the discussions it leads to in the comments because it’s a valuable part of our blog community, and that includes your comment as well!

      We appreciate you taking the time to read this article, and for your perspective on this issue. If you’d like to give us a try, use code BLOG15 at checkout for $15 off of your first order with us. 🌱

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *