COMMUNITY FLUORIDATION PLANS HAVE BEEN WIDELY IMPLEMENTED
ACROSS THE U.S. IN THE LAST HALF CENTURY, AND CONSISTENT
MONITORING OF THESE PROGRAMS HAS PROVEN THAT THERE ARE NO
UNIFORM ADVERSE AFFECTS.
Arguments related to the “limited class” arguments against fluoridation are
those asserting that fluoridation may in fact hurt those it does not help. These
arguments are without merit, as scientific evidence has proven not only that
fluoridation administered at closely monitored levels causes no uniform adverse
effects, but also that it is tremendously successful at reducing the incidence of
tooth decay. (CDC). Courts considering this argument have noted the science
evidence supporting fluoridation programs, and have recognized that it is the
duty of the legislature to determine the best course of action for the public
For example, in Chapman v. City of Shreveport, 74 So.2d 142 (La. 1954), the
plaintiffs alleged that fluorides in the water may adversely affect adults, and
therefore to implement fluoridation measures without conclusive proof that no
adverse effects would occur was arbitrary and unreasonable. In responding to
this assertion, the court cited the existence of ample evidence in the record
supporting the legislature’s decision to require fluoridation. Examples of the
evidence include the opinions of professional medical and dental societies that
fluoridation was not harmful and was in fact beneficial to citizens. Focusing on
the fact that the plaintiff’s argument merely alleged that adverse effects may
be possible, and in no way provided conclusive proof that they would result,
the court rejected this argument.
Further, in Attaya v. Town of Gonzales, 192 So. 2d 188 (La.App. 1
st. Cir. 1966),
the appeals court affirmed the trial court decision not to allow the plaintiffs to
submit evidence in an attempt to prove that fluoridation may have adverse
effects on some individuals.
In the present case, [Specify government entity] held extensive hearings on the
advantages and disadvantages of water fluoridation. After thorough
consideration of the issues, the conclusion was reached that it was in the best
interest of [city of town] to implement a water fluoridation plan. The evidence
on the record is more than sufficient to support this conclusion, thus, the court
is not permitted to disturb it upon review.
NOTE: There is a case, Smith v. State of Alaska, 921 P.2d 632 (Alaska 1996),
that involves a citizen who died as a result to excessive fluoride levels in this
water. The substantive merits of water fluoridation are not before the court;
rather, the issue is the scope of the state’s liability for the death. Still, the case
is worth noting and distinguishing. Prior to the occurrence of the death, the
state was aware of excessive fluoride levels in the water and did make repairs
to the system. Id. at 633. The state also had plans to completely replace the
water system, as it was old and not functioning properly.
government entity enacting fluoridation measure] does not dispute that
fluoridation is a dangerous substance when extreme amounts are ingested.
However, [specify fluoridation measure] includes detailed provisions for
monitoring fluoride levels in the water and ensuring that it never approaches
even remotely dangerous levels. Accordingly, the
Smith case should have no
bearing on the present case.