In Monroe, North Carolina, the debate over fluoride in drinking water has divided communities, mirroring a national trend where the mineral’s presence in public utilities is being increasingly contested. [Source]
Fluoride, long added to the water supply to prevent cavities and boost dental health, is facing backlash from residents who question its safety and efficacy.
Regina Barrett, a 69-year-old retiree from Monroe, voiced her dissatisfaction with the water’s appearance and suspected fluoride as the culprit. “Our water has been cloudy and bubbly and looks milky,” Barrett explained. “I don’t want fluoride in my nothing!”
This sentiment is gaining traction as more communities, from Oregon to Pennsylvania, have stopped or prevented the addition of fluoride to their water supplies.
The driving force behind these bans is the belief in personal freedom and the argument that with the broad availability of dental products containing fluoride, adding it to water is redundant.
In Union County, North Carolina, which includes Monroe, the Board of County Commissioners voted in a narrow 3-2 decision to stop fluoridating water at the Yadkin River Water Treatment Plant.
Commissioner Richard Helms supported fluoride, citing the dental health of his own children as evidence of its benefits. Conversely, Commissioner David Williams argued for individual choice: “Let’s stop putting something in the water that’s meant to treat us, and give people the freedom to choose,” he said.
However, Barrett, whose water supply is still fluoridated, remains sceptical. “I’m suspicious as to why they add that to our water,” she told KFF Health News.
The national context is a patchwork of decisions driven by local governance. For instance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) still advocates for water fluoridation as a safe, effective, and cost-saving measure, especially crucial for low-income families who might not afford other forms of dental care.
The Fluoride Action Network points to over 240 communities worldwide that have ceased fluoridation since 2010.
Critics argue that fluoride can lead to serious health issues when consumed in excessive amounts, and some even claim, without solid evidence, that it contributes to a variety of ailments from bone cancer to thyroid dysfunction.
A 2019 study in JAMA Pediatrics, conducted across six Canadian cities, linked prenatal fluoride exposure to lower IQ scores in children. However, the study relied on self-reported data and has faced criticism for potential flaws in its methodology.
Recent actions in places like Juneau, Alaska, and Portland, Oregon—where fluoride has been consistently rejected or removed—highlight the local resistance to federal or state mandates on health policies.
The outcome of a federal case in California might change the landscape significantly. If the court decides that fluoride poses an “unreasonable risk,” the Environmental Protection Agency may have to regulate or ban its use in drinking water, which could shift the decision-making from local to federal levels, something Barrett and others might view as a loss of local autonomy.
Union County’s recent experiences with public meetings, packed with concerned citizens, show just how contentious the issue remains.
Some compare water fluoridation to a seatbelt, a preventive measure that does not eliminate the risk but reduces the harm. Others, however, see it as a freedom issue, equating fluoride in water to unconsented medication.