← Back to context

Comment by slibhb

19 days ago

How has the debate been solved by the rest of the world? My understanding is that many countries in Europe don't fluoridate the water supply.

I'm skeptical of results showing IQ loss but I also think fluoridation should be phased out as fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash are now widely available. Banning it seems like the wrong move to me...states should simply decide to continue adding it or not.

> How has the debate been solved by the rest of the world?

By having official country-level guidelines by the health ministries or similar for people to brush their teeth with toothpaste containing fluoride, and specific guidelines around it for kids, as trivial as it may sound. Along with experts' reviews providing more details on these decisions, and explaining tradeoffs properly.

Fluoride containing toothpaste is the main recommendation, even in places that fluoridate the water (which are the minority). There is not much to add to this apart from refining these guidelines. Eg in the EU where some countries fluoridate water, most don't, there is no huge debate about it overall. Most eu countries that fluoridated the water stopped doing it some point mostly because it was no longer needed in preventing cavities, and prob largely due to logistics/costs than possible risks.

Your second paragraph reflects my personal views on it, too. The "banning" is weird, esp since, according to the article, it comes from people that seem to advocate against use of fluoride in general in toothpastes etc. The discussion should be around best policies to prevent cavities etc, but it does not seem to be around that. I see nothing wrong with local communities deciding if they want to put fluoride or not in their water, based on their own opinions but also general situation. Maybe in some much poorer areas fluoridation of water could be beneficial until some other measures take place, for example.

> Banning it seems like the wrong move to me...states should simply decide to continue adding it or not.

Isn't that exactly what's happening here? A state deciding to not continue adding it?

  • Nope, the bill as written prevents local municipalities from making that decision.

    • Right. The state made the decision to stop it from being added, which is what OP proposed.

      Did OP mean that municipalities should simply decide to keep adding or not? If so, how do we decide (from our various armchairs in most cases far away from Utah) what the appropriate level of government for making this call is?

      2 replies →