Water fluoridation controversy
The water fluoridation controversy arises from moral, ethical, political, and safety concerns regarding the fluoridation of public water supplies. The controversy occurs mainly in English-speaking countries, as Continental Europe has ceased water fluoridation. Those opposed argue that water fluoridation may cause serious health problems, is not effective enough to justify the costs, and has a dosage that cannot be precisely controlled. In some countries, fluoride is added to table salt.
At the dosage recommended for water fluoridation, the only known adverse effect is dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of children's teeth during tooth development. Dental fluorosis is considered cosmetic and unlikely to represent any other effect on public health. Despite opponents' concerns, water fluoridation has been effective at reducing cavities in both children and adults.
Opposition to fluoridation has existed since its initiation in the 1940s. During the 1950s and 1960s, some opponents of water fluoridation suggested that fluoridation was a communist plot to undermine public health.
Many who oppose water fluoridation consider it to be a form of compulsory mass medication. They argue that consent by all water consumers cannot be achieved, nor can water suppliers accurately control the exact levels of fluoride that individuals receive, nor monitor their response.
Water fluoridation was characterized in at least one journal publication as a violation of the Nuremberg Code and the Council of Europe's Biomedical Convention of 1999. A dentistry professor and a philosopher argued in a dentistry journal that the moral status for advocating water fluoridation is "at best indeterminate" and could even be considered immoral. They asserted that it infringes upon autonomy based on uncertain evidence, with possible negative effects. Another journal article suggested applying the precautionary principle to this controversy, which calls for public policy to reflect a conservative approach to minimize risk in the setting where harm is possible (but not necessarily confirmed) and where the science is not settled.
In the United Kingdom, the Green Party refers to fluoride as a poison, claims that water fluoridation violates Article 35 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, is banned by the UK poisons act of 1972, violates Articles 3 and 8 of the Human Rights Act and raises issues under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
||This section may not properly summarize its corresponding main article.|
At the dosage recommended for water fluoridation, the only clear adverse effect is dental fluorosis, which can permanently alter the appearance of children's permanent teeth during tooth development. This effect is mildly cosmetic and is unlikely to represent any real effect on public health. Fluoridation has little effect on risk of bone fracture (broken bones); it may result in slightly lower fracture risk than either excessively high levels of fluoridation or no fluoridation. A major Australian study found no clear association between fluoridation and cancer or deaths due to cancer, both for cancer in general and also specifically for bone cancer and osteosarcoma, and other adverse effects lack sufficient evidence to reach a confident conclusion.
The WHO set a general guideline of 1.5 mg/L concentration of fluoride in drinking water to avoid adverse effects of higher concentrations including severe dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis, as these effects were minimal at this concentration or lower. In 2006, a 12-person U.S. National Research Council (NRC) committee reviewed the health risks associated with fluoride in the water and unanimously concluded that the maximum contaminant level of 4 mg/L should be lowered. Although it did not comment on water fluoridation's safety, three of the panel members, namely Robert Isaacson, Kathleen Thiessen and Hardy Limeback, expressed their opposition to water fluoridation after the study and the chair, John Doull, suggested that the issue should be reexamined.
Because fluoride concentration is not controlled on an individual basis, opponents express concern for vulnerable populations such as children, nutritionally deficient individuals, and renally impaired individuals. The National Research Council states that children have a higher daily average intake than adults per kg of bodyweight.:23 Those who perspire heavily or have kidney problems consume more water and thus also have a greater intake. A 2006 study found an association between fluoride exposure in drinking water during childhood and the incidence of osteosarcoma among males but not among females. A 2009 analysis by the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) stated that upon reviewing this and other similar studies, the weight of the evidence does not support a relationship. However, the CDC also calls for further research into this potential association to help support or refute the observation. A study performed as a doctoral thesis, which was described as the most rigorous yet by the Washington Post, found a relationship among young boys, but then the Harvard professor who advised the doctoral students determined that the results were not highly correlative enough to have evidentiary value; the professor then was investigated but exonerated by the federal government's Office of Research Integrity (ORI).
An epidemiological connection between silicofluorides, an industrial byproduct which is used to fluoridate much of the U.S. water, and lead uptake in children was observed in a 2000 study. A 2006 U.S. CDC-funded study was unable to replicate the results, which the original researchers responded to in a 2007 rebuttal. Aside from the lead connection, concerns are raised as to whether silicofluorides might have different effects on the body than sodium fluorides, and silicofluorides have not been rigorously tested for safety.
||This section may not properly summarize its corresponding main article.|
The available evidence shows that water fluoridation is effective in decreasing the likelihood of developing cavities as well as reducing the number and severity of cavities if acquired. The most comprehensive systematic review found that fluoridation was statistically associated with a decreased proportion of children with cavities (the median of mean decreases was 14.6%, the range −5 to 64%), and with a decrease in decayed, missing, and filled primary teeth (the median of mean decreases was 2.25 teeth, the range 0.5 to 4.4 teeth), which is roughly equivalent to preventing 40% of cavities. The review found that the evidence was of moderate quality: many studies did not attempt to reduce observer bias, control for confounding factors, report variance measures, or use appropriate analysis. The effect is largely due to the topical effect of fluoride ions in the mouth rather than the systemic effect of ingestion.
Fluoridation opponents have challenged the efficacy of fluoridation, although their arguments have been accused of bias. A large study of water fluoridation's efficacy was conducted by the National Institute of Dental Research in 1988, which officially found "20 percent fewer decayed tooth surfaces" corresponding to "less than one cavity per child". Arguing that the study had errors, the data was reanalyzed by fluoridation opponent John A. Yiamouyiannis, whose results indicated no statistically significant difference in tooth decay rates among children in fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities. Conversely, fluoridation proponents argued that Yiamouyiannis' work had errors.
In 1986 fluoridation opponent Mark Diesendorf pointed out the substantial declines in tooth decay in nonfluoridated European countries. This failed to account for the fluoride added to table salt in continental Europe. Although fluoridation may still be a relevant public health measure among the poor and disadvantaged, it may be unnecessary for preventing tooth decay, particularly in industrialized countries where tooth decay is rare.
The International Chiropractor's Association opposes mass water fluoridation, considering it "possibly harmful and deprivation of the rights of citizens to be free from unwelcome mass medication."
In the United States, the Sierra Club opposes mandatory water fluoridation. Some reasons cited include possible adverse health effects, harm to the environment, and risks involving sensitive populations.
Citing impacts on the environment, the economy and on health, the Green Party of Canada seeks a ban on artificial fluoridation products. The Canadian Green Party adopted in 2010 a platform position which considers water fluoridation to be unsustainable.
Arvid Carlsson, winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine, opposes water fluoridation. He took part in the debate in Sweden, where he helped to convince Parliament that it should be illegal due to ethics. He believes that it violates modern pharmacological principles, which indicate that medications should be tailored to individuals.
Sociologist Brian Martin states that sociologists have typically viewed opposition to water fluoridation as irrational, although critics of this position have argued that this rests on an uncritical attitude toward scientific knowledge.
On 15 April 2008, the United States National Kidney Foundation (NKF) updated their position on fluoridation for the first time since 1981. Formerly an endorser of water fluoridation, the group is now neutral on the practice. The report states, "Individuals with CKD [Chronic kidney disease] should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure by providing information on the NKF website including a link to the report in brief of the NRC and the Kidney Health Australia position paper." Calling for additional research, the foundation's 2008 position paper states, however, that there is insufficient evidence to recommend fluoride-free drinking water for patients with renal disease.
The fluoridation of public water has been hailed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control as one of the top medical achievements of the 20th century. It is ranked No. 9 on this list ahead of "Recognition of tobacco use as a health hazard."
The American Dental Association calls water fluoridation "unquestionably one of the safest and most beneficial, cost-effective public health measures for preventing, controlling, and in some cases reversing, tooth decay."[not in citation given]
Health Canada supports fluoridation, citing a number of international scientific reviews that indicate "there is no link between any adverse health effects and exposure to fluoride in drinking water at levels that are below the maximum acceptable concentration of 1.5 mg/L."
The World Health Organization says fluoridation is an effective way to prevent tooth decay in poor communities. "In some developed countries, the health and economic benefits of fluoridation may be small, but particularly important in deprived areas, where water fluoridation may be a key factor in reducing inequalities in dental health."
A 2008 meta-analysis of published research into fluoride's effect on osteoporosis found that daily doses of up to 20 mg fluoride significantly increased bone mineral density and reduced fracture risk.
Use throughout the world
Water fluoridation is used in the United States, United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, and Australia, and a handful of other countries. The following nations previously fluoridated their water, but stopped the practice, with the years when water fluoridation started and stopped in parentheses:
- Federal Republic of Germany (1952–1971)
- Sweden (1952–1971)
- Netherlands (1953–1976)
- Czechoslovakia (1955–1990)
- German Democratic Republic (1959–1990)
- Soviet Union (1960–1990)
- Finland (1959–1993)
- Japan (1952–1972)
In the United Kingdom a Strategic Health Authority can direct a water company to fluoridate the water supply in an area if it is technically possible. The strategic health authority must consult with the local community and businesses in the affected area. The water company will act as a contractor in any new schemes and cannot refuse to fluoridate the supply.
In 1986 the journal Nature had a commentary, "Large temporal reductions in tooth decay, which cannot be attributed to fluoridation, have been observed in both unfluoridated and fluoridated areas of at least eight developed countries."
In areas with complex water sources, water fluoridation is more difficult and more costly. Alternative fluoridation methods have been proposed, and implemented in some parts of the world. The World Health Organization (WHO) is currently assessing the effects of fluoridated toothpaste, milk fluoridation and salt fluoridation in Africa, Asia, and Europe. The WHO supports fluoridation of water in some areas.
The first large fluoridation controversy occurred in Wisconsin in 1950. Fluoridation opponents questioned the ethics, safety, and efficacy of fluoridation. New Zealand was the second country to fluoridate, and similar controversies arose there. 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. When voted upon, the outcomes tend to be negative, and thus fluoridation has had a history of gaining through administrative orders in North America. Theories for why the public tends to reject fluoridation include "alienation from mainstream" society, but evidence for that is weak. Another interpretation is confusion introduced during the referendum. Some studies of the sociology of opposition to water fluoridation have been criticized for having an uncritical attitude toward scientific knowledge.
Outside of North America, water fluoridation was adopted in European countries, but in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Denmark and Sweden banned fluoridation when government panels found insufficient evidence of safety, and the Netherlands banned water fluoridation when "a group of medical practitioners presented evidence" that it caused negative effects in a percentage of the population.
Water fluoridation has frequently been the subject of conspiracy theories. During the "Red Scare" in the United States during the late 1940s and 1950s, and to a lesser extent in the 1960s, activists on the far right of American politics routinely asserted that fluoridation was part of a far-reaching plot to impose a socialist or communist regime. They also opposed other public health programs, notably mass vaccination and mental health services. Their views were influenced by opposition to a number of major social and political changes that had happened in recent years: the growth of internationalism, particularly the UN and its programs; the introduction of social welfare provisions, particularly the various programs established by the New Deal; and government efforts to reduce perceived inequalities in the social structure of the United States.
Some took the view that fluoridation was only the first stage of a plan to control the American people. Fluoridation, it was claimed, was merely a stepping-stone on the way to implementing more ambitious programs. Others asserted the existence of a plot by communists and the United Nations to "deplete the brainpower and sap the strength of a generation of American children". Dr. Charles Bett, a prominent anti-fluoridationist, charged that fluoridation was "better THAN USING THE ATOM BOMB because the atom bomb has to be made, has to be transported to the place it is to be set off while POISONOUS FLUORINE has been placed right beside the water supplies by the Americans themselves ready to be dumped into the water mains whenever a Communist desires!" Similarly, a right-wing newsletter, the American Capsule News, claimed that "the Soviet General Staff is very happy about it. Anytime they get ready to strike, and their 5th column takes over, there are tons and tons of this poison "standing by" municipal and military water systems ready to be poured in within 15 minutes."
This viewpoint led to major controversies over public health programs in the US, most notably in the case of the Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act controversy of 1956. In the case of fluoridation, the controversy had a direct impact on local programs. During the 1950s and 1960s, referendums on introducing fluoridation were defeated in over a thousand Florida communities. Although the opposition was overcome in time, it was not until as late as the 1990s that fluoridated water was drunk by the majority of the population of the United States.
The communist conspiracy argument declined in influence by the mid-1960s, becoming associated in the public mind with irrational fear and paranoia. It was portrayed in Stanley Kubrick's 1964 film Dr. Strangelove, in which the character General Jack D. Ripper initiates a nuclear war in the hope of thwarting a communist plot to "sap and impurify" the "precious bodily fluids" of the American people with fluoridated water. Another satire appeared in the 1967 movie In Like Flint, in which a character's fear of fluoridation is used to indicate that he is insane. Some anti-fluoridationists claimed that the conspiracy theories were damaging their goals; Dr. Frederick Exner, an anti-fluoridation campaigner in the early 1960s, told a conference: "most people are not prepared to believe that fluoridation is a communist plot, and if you say it is, you are successfully ridiculed by the promoters. It is being done, effectively, every day ... some of the people on our side are the fluoridators' 'fifth column'."
In 2004, on the U.S. television program Democracy Now, investigative journalist and author of the book The Fluoride Deception, Christopher Bryson claimed that, “the post-war campaign to fluoridate drinking water was less a public health innovation than a public relations ploy sponsored by industrial users of fluoride–including the government’s nuclear weapons program.”
Water was fluoridated in large parts of the Netherlands from 1960 to 1973, at which point the Supreme Court of the Netherlands declared fluoridation of drinking water unauthorized. The Dutch Court decided that authorities had no legal basis for adding chemicals to drinking water if they also did not improve safety. It was also stated as support that consumers cannot choose a different tap water provider. Drinking water has not been fluoridated in any part of the Netherlands since 1973.
In Ryan v. Attorney General (1965), the Supreme Court of Ireland held that water fluoridation did not infringe the plaintiff's right to bodily integrity. However, the court found that such a right to bodily integrity did exist, despite the fact that it was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution of Ireland, thus establishing the doctrine of unenumerated rights in Irish constitutional law.
Fluoridation has been the subject of many court cases wherein activists have sued municipalities, asserting that their rights to consent to medical treatment and due process are infringed by mandatory water fluoridation. Individuals have sued municipalities for a number of illnesses that they believe were caused by fluoridation of the city's water supply. In most of these cases, the courts have held in favor of cities, finding no or only a tenuous connection between health problems and widespread water fluoridation. To date, no federal appellate court or state court of last resort (i.e., state supreme court) has found water fluoridation to be unlawful.
- Cross DW, Carton RJ (2003). "Fluoridation: a violation of medical ethics and human rights". Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 9 (1): 24–9. PMID 12749628.
- Martin B. (1989) The sociology of the fluoridation controversy: a reexamination. Sociological Quarterly.
- American Public Health Association Community Water Fluoridation in the United States 10-28-’08 http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1373
- Recommendations for using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States, Centers for Disease Control 8-17-’01 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm
- Autio-Gold, Jaana; Courts, Frank, Assessing the effect of fluoride varnish on early enamel carious lesions in the primary dentition, J. Amer. Dent. Assn. http://www.jada.info/cgi/content/full/132/9/1247
- "Critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water"., citing Götzfried, Franz (2006). "Production of fluoridated salt". Schweizer Monatsschrift fur Zahnmedizin 116 (4): 367–370. PMID 16708522.
- "A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of fluoridation". National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia). 2007. Retrieved 25 November 2010. Summary: Yeung CA (2008). "A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of fluoridation". Evid Based Dent 9 (2): 39–43. doi:10.1038/sj.ebd.6400578. PMID 18584000. Lay summary – NHMRC (2007).
- Parnell C, Whelton H, O'Mullane D. Water fluoridation. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2009;10(3):141–8. PMID 19772843.
- Johnston, Robert D (2004). The Politics of Healing. Routledge. p. 136. ISBN 0-415-93339-0.
- UK Green Party. (2003). Water fluoridation contravenes UK law, EU directives and the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. Press office briefing. accessdate 2008-08-03
- Cohen H, Locker D. (2002). The Science and Ethics of Water Fluoridation. J. Can. Dent. Assoc., 2001; 67(10):578–80.
- Tickner J, Coffin M (March 2006). "What does the precautionary principle mean for evidence-based dentistry?". J. Evid. Based Dent. Pract. 6 (1): 6–15. doi:10.1016/j.jebdp.2005.12.006. PMID 17138389.
- McDonagh MS, Whiting PF, Wilson PM, Sutton AJ, Chestnutt I, Cooper J, Misso K, Bradley M, Treasure E, Kleijnen J (7 October 2000). "Systematic review of water fluoridation" (PDF). BMJ 321 (7265): 855–9. doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7265.855. PMC 27492. PMID 11021861. Full report: McDonagh MS, Whiting PF, Bradley M, Cooper J, Sutton AJ, Chestnutt I, Misso K, Paul Wilson P, Treasure E, Kleijnen J (September 2000). A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. ISBN 1-900640-16-3. Authors' commentary: Treasure ET, Chestnutt IG, Whiting P, McDonagh M, Wilson P, Kleijnen J (2002). "The York review—a systematic review of public water fluoridation: a commentary". Br Dent J 192 (9): 495–7. doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.4801410a. PMID 12047121.
- Fawell J, Bailey K, Chilton J, Dahi E, Fewtrell L, Magara Y (2006). "Human health effects" (PDF). Fluoride in Drinking-water. World Health Organization. pp. 29–36. ISBN 92-4-156319-2. Retrieved 28 February 2009.
- National Research Council (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. ISBN 0-309-10128-X. Lay summary – NRC (24 September 2008).. See also the CDC statement on the NRC report.
- Budnick N (2006). "Fluoride foes get validation". Portland Tribune.
- Limeback H (14 May 2006). "GUEST VIEW: The evidence that fluoride is harmful is overwhelming". The Standard Times (South Coast, MA).
- Fagin D (January 2008). "Second thoughts about fluoride". Scientific American 298 (1): 74–81. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0108-74. PMID 18225698.
- Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA (2006). "Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States)". Cancer Causes and Control 17: 421–8. PMID 16596294.
- "CDC Statement on Water Fluoridation and Osteosarcoma". U.S. Centers for Disease Control. 24 August 2009. Retrieved 8 December 2010.
- Juliet Eilperin (12 July 2005). "Professor at Harvard Is Being Investigated". The Washington Post.
- A. Haven Thompson (27 September 2006). "At the Harvard School of Dental Medicine, One Professor’s Flouride [sic] Scandal Stinks". The Harvard Crimson.
- Masters, R. D.; Coplan, M. J.; Hone, B. T.; Dykes, J. E. (2000). "Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead.". Neurotoxicology 21 (6): 1091–100. PMID 11233755. Dartmouth press release
- Macek MD, Matte TD, Sinks T, Malvitz DM (2006). "Blood lead concentrations in children and method of water fluoridation in the United States, 1988–1994". Environ Health Perspect 114 (1): 130–4. doi:10.1289/ehp.8319. PMC 1332668. PMID 16393670.
- Coplan, M. J.; Patch, S. C.; Masters, R. D.; Bachman, M. S. (2007). "Confirmation of and explanations for elevated blood lead and other disorders in children exposed to water disinfection and fluoridation chemicals". Neurotoxicology 28 (5): 1032–1042. doi:10.1016/j.neuro.2007.02.012. PMID 17420053.
- Yeung CA (2007). "Fluoride prevents caries among adults of all ages". Evid Based Dent 8 (3): 72–3. doi:10.1038/sj.ebd.6400506. PMID 17891121.
- Pizzo G, Piscopo MR, Pizzo I, Giuliana G (2007). "Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review". Clin Oral Investig 11 (3): 189–93. doi:10.1007/s00784-007-0111-6. PMID 17333303.
- Spencer AJ (1998). "New, or biased, evidence on water fluoridation?". Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 22 (1): 149–154. doi:10.1111/j.1467-842X.1998.tb01161.x. PMID 9599869.
- Horowitz HS (2000). "Why I continue to support community water fluoridation". J Public Health Dent 60 (2): 67–71. doi:10.1111/j.1752-7325.2000.tb03297.x. PMID 10929563.
- Diesendorf M (1986). "The mystery of declining tooth decay". Nature 322 (6075): 125–9. doi:10.1038/322125a0. PMID 3523258.
- J Yiamouyiannis, D Burk "Fluoridation and cancer, age-dependence of cancer mortality related to artificial fluoridation" Fluoride 1977.
- Co9nsummer Health Articles: FLUORIDATION
- 619 F. 2d 932 – Yiamouyiannis v. Consumers Union of United States Inc
- John Yiamouyiannis, Appellant, v. Consumers Union of the United States
- "ICA Policy Position Statements". International Chiropractors Association. Retrieved 2008-08-28.
- Board of Directors (19 June 2008). "Sierra Club Policy on Fluoride in Drinking Water".
- Rodriguez-Larrain, Claudia. "Ban on artificial water fluoridation, a new policy". Green Party of Canada.
- "(title in Swedish)" [Fluoride in drinking water can cause cancer]. Svenska Dagbladet (in Swedish).
- Torell, P.; Forsman, B. (February 1979). "(title in Swedish)" [Arvid Carlsson's fluoride ponderings 1978]. Tandlakartidningen (in Swedish) 71 (3): 142–57. PMID 287207.
- Bryson, Christopher. The Fluoride Deception. p. 240.
- "Kidney Patients Should be Notified of Potential Risk from Fluorides and Fluoridated Drinking Water". Organic Consumers Association. 3 June 2008. Retrieved 2008-06-16.
- "The risks of consumption of fluoridated water for people with chronic kidney disease". Kidney Health Australia. 2007.
- "2011 Review of Kidney Health Australia fluoride position statement".
- "Fluoride Intake in Chronic Kidney Disease". National Kidney Foundation. 15 April 2008.
- "Ten Great Public Health Achievements – United States, 1900–1999". U.S. Centers for Disease Control.
- Division of Oral Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC. Achievements in public health, 1900–1999: Fluoridation of drinking water to prevent dental caries. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1999;48(41):933–40.
- "Fluoride & Fluoridation". American Dental Association.
- "Fluoride in Drinking Water". Health Canada.
- "Water fluoridation". World Water Day 2001: Oral health. World Health Organization.
- Vestergaard P, Jorgensen NR, Schwarz P, Mosekilde L (March 2008). "Effects of treatment with fluoride on bone mineral density and fracture risk—a meta-analysis". Osteoporos Int. 19 (3): 257–68. PMID 17701094.
- "About your water". United Utilities.
- Diesendorf M (10 July 1986). "The mystery of declining tooth decay". Nature 322 (6075): 125–129.
- "World Oral Health Report". World Health Organization. Retrieved 4 March 2006.
- Musto RJ (October 1987). "Fluoridation: why is it not more widely adopted?". CMAJ 137 (8): 705–8. PMC 1267306. PMID 3651941.
- Wrapson J (2005). "Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies in New Zealand:‘Magic Bullet,’Rat Poison, or Communist Plot?". Health and History 7 (2): 17–29. doi:10.2307/40111610. JSTOR 40111610.
- Richmond VL (January 1985). "Thirty years of fluoridation: a review". Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 41 (1): 129–38. PMID 3917599.
- Henig, Robin Marantz (1997). The People's Health. Joseph Henry Press. p. 85. ISBN 0-309-05492-3.
- Rovere, Richard H. (1959). Senator Joe McCarthy. University of California Press. pp. 21–22. ISBN 0-520-20472-7.
- Marmor, Judd (1974). "Psychodynamics of Group Opposition to Mental Health Programs". Psychiatry in Transition. Brunner/Mazel. ISBN 0-87630-070-0.
- Bryson, Christopher. "The Fluoride Deception: How a Nuclear Waste Made its Way Into the Nation’s Drinking Water", Democracy Now, 17 June 2004
- Bram van der Lek (1976). "De strijd tegen fluoridering". De Gids 139 (2).
- Leonardus Johannes Antonius Damen, Peter Nicolaï, J.L. Boxum, K.J. de Graaf, J.H. Jans, A.P. Klap, A.T. Marseille, A.R. Neerhof, B.K. Olivier, B.J. Schueler, F.R. Vermeer, R.L. Vucsán (2005). "Deel 1: systeem, bevoegdheid, bevoegdheidsuitoefening, handhaving". Bestuursrecht [Control rights (legal)]. Boom juridische studieboeken (in Dutch). Boom Juridische uitgevers. pp. 54–55. ISBN 978-90-5454-537-8.
- "Ryan v. A.G. IESC 1; IR 294 (3 July, 1965)". Irish Supreme Court.
- Beck v. City Council of Beverly Hills, 30 Cal. App. 3d 112, 115 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1973) ("Courts through the United States have uniformly held that fluoridation of water is a reasonable and proper exercise of the police power in the interest of public health. The matter is no longer an open question." (citations omitted)).
- Pratt, Edwin, Raymond D. Rawson & Mark Rubin, Fluoridation at Fifty: What Have We Learned, 30 J.L. Med. & Ethics 117, 119 (Fall 2002)
- Connett, Paul; Beck, James; Micklem, H. Spedding (2010). The case against fluoride; how hazardous waste ended up in our drinking water and the bad science and powerful politics that keep it there. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing. p. 384. ISBN 978-1-60358-287-2.
- Fawell, John Wesley (2006). Fluoride in drinking-water. Geneva: World Health Organization. ISBN 92-4-156319-2.
- Freeze RA, Lehr JH (2009). The fluoride wars: how a modest public health measure became America's longest-running political melodrama. Hoboken: Wiley. ISBN 0-470-44833-4.
- Martin, Brian (1991). Scientific knowledge in controversy: the social dynamics of the fluoridation debate. Albany: State University of New York Press. ISBN 0-7914-0538-9.