Over the last 50 years, the benefits of fluoride have been established without question. Now, however, its efficacy has come into question by the appointed head of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who has no background in the health sciences. In fact, he has opposed vaccinations, such as the measles vaccine, so that measles, once virtually eliminated in the U.S., now is once again gaining some traction with a growing number of cases—including, at the time of this writing, two deaths. Now I am not saying that measles vaccines and fluoridated water are equivocal, but this individual is not making policy based on empirical data.
It is fact, not fiction, that in these last 50 years, the communities with fluoride in the drinking water have seen a reduction in the amount of decay in the population. And yes, there may have been a few anecdotal instances where fluoride may have been harmful, such as the case in Lubbock, Texas, where too much fluoride was introduced into the water system. The primary benefit of fluoride is in preventing caries, a serious disease state that damages the structure of teeth and can cause unnecessary pain and suffering to the patient.
Secretary Kennedy is calling for further investigation into the validity and efficacy of fluoride in drinking water and I have no issue with that, aside from not really thinking there is enough justification for the expense of such a study. However, telling people to discontinue fluoride pending such research is foolish considering the overwhelming years of evidence in the value of less dental disease, i.e. decay in those populations that have had fluoride in the drinking water for all these years. Unfortunately, the state of Utah has decided to eliminate fluoride in their water.* To me, this is playing politics with the health of their citizenry, especially the children. I have no doubt that in my fifty years of practice I have witnessed a reduction in the amount of decay. I particularly worry about two segments of our population, the pediatric and geriatric patients. By removing fluoride in the water, you are removing a layer of protection for those who do not necessarily have adequate home care or perhaps cannot access and/or afford professional care. The public has a right to demand and receive adequate care based on fact not whims.
If such lamentable (inexcusable) lunacy (madness) continues, it may be an appropriate time to invest in dental restoratives as we may soon be faced with a large population suffering from dental disease. It will be our responsibility to address their needs, all whilst adding revenue to our bottom line. As a man of science, I rely on empirical data and positive outcomes to formulate care for my patients and will continue to advocate for fluoride as a method for preventing decay, pain, and suffering for all patients.
*Since the time of writing, Florida has now become the second state to eliminate fluoride in their water.
About the author
Dr. Glazer is a Fellow and Past President of the Academy of General Dentistry and a former Assistant Clinical Professor in Dentistry at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, NY. Most recently, he received the Irwin Smigel Prize in Aesthetic Dentistry, presented by the New York University College of Dentistry for “Distinguished Achievement in the Art and Science of Aesthetic Dentistry.” He lectures throughout the United States, Canada, and overseas on dental materials, cosmetic dentistry, forensic dentistry and patient management.
