Other Arguments Against Fluoridation
Courts have rejected a few additional arguments opposing fluoridation without engaging in a detailed analysis. Examples of such arguments are as follows:
In Kraus v. City of Cleveland, 121 N.E.2d 311, 313 (Ohio 1954), the plaintiffs asserted, among other reasons, that a fluoridation ordinance was unconstitutional because it did not set forth the exact chemical to be used. In rejecting all of plaintiff’s assertions, the Ohio Supreme Court focused on the facts that the city council had acted properly within the power delegated to it by the legislature, and that there was sufficient evidence on the record to support the council’s decision.
In Rogowski v. City of Detroit, 132 N.W.2d 16 (Mich. 1965), the plaintiffs also claimed that the fluoridation ordinance at issue should be struck down because water fluoridation was wasteful and uneconomic. Here the Michigan Supreme Court was considering an appeal by plaintiffs from a summary judgment granted in favor of the defendants. Thus, the standard of review was whether all of plaintiffs’ claims taken together as true set forth a valid claim for relief. The Court held that they did not and affirmed summary judgment in favor of the City of Detroit.
Opponents of fluoridation alleged that it subjected citizens to mass medical or scientific experimentation in both the Rogowski and Kraus cases. Both courts resolved the cases and upheld the validity of the fluoridation measures on other grounds without getting to the experimentation arguments. Rogowski v. City of Detroit, 132 N.W.2d 16 (Mich. 1965); Kraus v. City of Cleveland, 121 N.E.2d 311 (Ohio 1954).
The plaintiffs in both Rogowski v. City of Detroit, 132 N.W.2d 16 (Mich. 1965) and Readey v. St. Louis County Water Co., 352 S.W.2d 622 (Mo. 1961) both made allegations that fluoridation measures were invalid because they were not the least intrusive means of controlling dental caries. Both the Michigan Supreme Court and the Missouri Supreme Court rejected these arguments.