\n<\/p>\n
ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they\u2019re published.<\/p>\n
\n These highlights were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story. \n <\/p>\n Just 15 months after receiving an award from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for excellence in community water fluoridation, the city of Grayling, Michigan, changed course.<\/p>\n With little notice or fanfare, council members voted unanimously in May to end Grayling\u2019s decadeslong treatment program. The city shut down the equipment used to deliver the drinking water additive less than two weeks later.<\/p>\n Although it already paid for them, the town returned six unopened barrels of the fluoride treatment to the supplier.<\/p>\n Personal choice was the issue, said City Manager Erich Podjaske. \u201cWhy are we forcing something on residents and business owners, some of which don\u2019t want fluoride in their water?\u201d he said. He saw arguments for and against treatment in his research, he said, and figured that those who want fluoride can still get it at the dentist or in their toothpaste. <\/p>\n Drinking water fluoridation is widely heralded as a public health triumph, but it\u2019s had critics since it was pioneered 80 years ago in Grand Rapids, about 150 miles southwest of Grayling. While once largely on the fringes, fluoridation skeptics now hold sway in federal, state and local government, and their arguments have seeped into the mainstream.<\/p>\n Even in the state where the treatment began, communities are backpedaling. And because customer notice requirements are patchy, people may not even know about it when their fluoridation stops.<\/p>\n Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, has called fluoride \u201cindustrial waste\u201d and supports an end to community water fluoridation. The head of the Food and Drug Administration said on a newscast that the CDC\u2019s online description of water fluoridation as one of the greatest public health achievements is \u201cmisinformation.\u201d<\/p>\n The CDC, which is in the midst of a leadership exodus and staff revolt, and the Environmental Protection Agency are reviewing their respective approaches to fluoride in drinking water. At the same time, President Donald Trump\u2019s administration dismantled the CDC\u2019s Division of Oral Health, which, among other initiatives, provided research and technical assistance on fluoridation. That\u2019s the office that helped present awards for well-run programs like the one in Grayling.<\/p>\n Since Kennedy was elevated to the nation\u2019s top health post, Utah and Florida became the first states to ban communities from adding fluoride to public drinking water. The Utah ban included measures to make prescription fluoride supplements more accessible \u2014 but now, the FDA is moving to remove certain types of those supplements for children from the market.<\/p>\n Altogether, legislation was introduced this year in at least 21 states to prohibit or roll back provisions related to adding fluoride to public water systems, according to Abby Francl, policy analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures. In addition, citing Kennedy\u2019s \u201cMake America Healthy Again\u201d initiative, Oklahoma\u2019s governor issued an executive order instructing state agencies to cease promotion of fluoridation in the public water supply while it reviews the practice.<\/p>\n Some local communities across the country opted to stop treatment this year, including at least four in Alabama, the state with the second-lowest number of dentists per resident. Others are debating it. On Michigan\u2019s east side, the medical director of St. Clair County\u2019s health department urged the agency to take steps to \u201cprohibit the addition of fluoride\u201d to public water systems. Two Upper Peninsula cities with a shared water system had special council meetings this summer on fluoridation. In Hillsdale, the acting mayor has said that ending fluoridation is a top priority.<\/p>\n \u201cI want to reform the water system now that we have RFK in Health and Human Services,\u201d Joshua Paladino told a local paper in November. Paladino added in an email to ProPublica that he sees public water fluoridation as an imprecise tool because it gives a standard dose across the population.<\/p>\n According to Michigan\u2019s environmental agency, some communities had temporarily stopped fluoridation and were \u201chesitant to restart because of uncertainty.\u201d That prompted it to issue a five-page statement with the state health department in March, stressing that the levels recommended for water suppliers \u2014 0.7 milligrams per liter of water \u2014 have no adverse health effects and that fluoridation benefits everyone.<\/p>\n \u201cLocal anti-fluoride movements can be vocal and persistent, but do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the greater community,\u201d the statement said.<\/p>\n Communities that end fluoridation will see more decaying teeth, according to Margherita Fontana, a professor at the University of Michigan School of Dentistry. Young children, older adults, people with disabilities and people who are poor are especially at risk, she said, but everyone will be vulnerable. Excessive tooth decay in children can require treatment in hospitals, under anesthesia. In rare but extreme cases, it can lead to death.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s unfortunate, because we know how to prevent the disease,\u201d Fontana said. \u201cSo it just seems like we\u2019re going backwards in time rather than forward.\u201d<\/p>\n A handful of states require customer notification when fluoridation ends. New York mandates such notice, yet fluoridation in Buffalo lapsed for years before it was widely known. Outside Detroit, the city of Wyandotte suspended treatment about a decade ago, despite saying on its website until early this summer that it used fluoride. The claim was removed only after a local reporter raised the issue.<\/p>\n Michigan doesn\u2019t have a statewide protocol for notifying residents when fluoridation stops. The environmental agency\u2019s spokesperson said in an email that while it strongly recommends that communities inform customers, it doesn\u2019t have the authority to compel them.<\/p>\n Grayling\u2019s water operator, Josh Carlson, said a district engineer at the agency told him he just needed to tell the state if the town decided to stop fluoridating the water.<\/p>\n \u201cIt was almost like she was caught off guard that we actually did it,\u201d Carlson said.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n A 1952 short film on fluoridation, presented by the Division of Dental Public Health, cites Grand Rapids, Michigan, for its reduction in tooth decay.<\/span><\/p>\n Water fluoridation began in 1945 in Grand Rapids, Michigan\u2019s second-largest city, as part of a planned trial intended to last 15 years. Muskegon, on the Lake Michigan shore, served as the control, meaning its water was not treated with a fluoride additive. An Illinois city with naturally occurring fluoride in its water was another point of comparison.<\/p>\n Six years in, Muskegon officials withdrew from the trial after determining that the health benefits were so significant, they couldn\u2019t deny treatment any longer to Muskegon\u2019s children. Similar studies elsewhere continued for years, showing positive outcomes.<\/p>\n \u201cIt was very usual to have dentures at a very young age\u201d at the time, Fontana said. Fluoride treatment \u201cwas such a fantastic discovery, something so easy that nature already provided. It was already there. It was the greatest discovery, really, for oral health.\u201d<\/p>\n Grand Rapids celebrates its role in public health history with plaques and a totemic sculpture. But the treatment has been criticized since the early days as, variously, a Communist plot, forced mass medication and an industrial byproduct that causes more harm than good. (Fluoride additives are commonly derived from the processing of phosphate fertilizer.)<\/p>\n Even as fluoridation became widespread, opposition persisted. Today\u2019s critics note that fluoride is now available in toothpaste, as well as in ingestible drops and tablets like the ones for children that the FDA is working to remove from the marketplace. Dental care is also more accessible than it was in the 1940s. The need that fluoridated water was meant to address, critics say, isn\u2019t as urgent.<\/p>\n While progress has made fluoridation\u2019s effects less dramatic, they\u2019re still significant. It was initially credited with a 65% reduction in tooth decay; now, it\u2019s about 25%. No other fluoride source compares to the cost-effectiveness of drinking water, proponents say, especially for those least able to access dental care, either because of cost or because they live in areas with a shortage of dental providers.<\/p>\n \u201cSteel Water,\u201d a sculpture by artist Cyril Lixenberg, was erected in 2007 in Grand Rapids to celebrate the community\u2019s role in advancing water fluoridation.<\/span><\/p>\n Community water fluoridation is supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Dental Association and the American Medical Association. The CDC, at least for the moment, still recommends it.<\/p>\n Advocates say that its benefits are so pervasive, they\u2019ve become invisible to many.<\/p>\n \u201cKnown benefits that are not visible, they take it for granted, whereas unknown risks are what they are always worried about,\u201d said Jayanth Kumar, lead researcher on a systematic review of community water fluoridation and IQ. \u201cFlorida didn\u2019t ban alcohol. Florida didn\u2019t ban cigarettes. But they banned fluoride.\u201d<\/p>\n Critics say the National Toxicology Program\u2019s \u201cstate of the science\u201d report from last year shows an association between fluoridated drinking water and a lowered IQ in children. But that assessment \u2014 which is both contested and much-cited \u2014 involves fluoride levels that are more than twice what the federal government recommends for drinking water, and it\u2019s based on limited studies conducted outside the U.S., with different water conditions.<\/p>\n A post made on Gov. Ron DeSantis\u2019 X account, celebrating Florida\u2019s ban on local governments adding fluoride to public drinking water, was sent to ProPublica in response to a query to the governor\u2019s office about the state\u2019s policy.<\/span><\/p>\n Even the report\u2019s abstract says that \u201cmore studies are needed to fully understand the potential for lower fluoride exposure to affect children\u2019s IQ.\u201d<\/p>\n In a lawsuit brought against the EPA by groups opposed to water fluoridation, a district judge relied in part on the NTP analysis in ruling that fluoridation presents such an \u201cunreasonable risk\u201d that the agency must take action. Even as it appeals the decision, the EPA said its review of new science on fluoride in drinking water \u201cis being done in coordination with Secretary Kennedy and HHS.\u201d<\/p>\n The court ruling, the NTP report and the wavering stance of federal agencies have empowered a backlash to fluoridation in state and local governments.<\/p>\n Stuart Cooper, executive director of the Fluoride Action Network, said he\u2019s seen momentum shift over the last two decades as his group sought to eliminate fluoride treatment, not least as a plaintiff in the EPA lawsuit. Kennedy has given a jolt to the movement, he said. Now, \u201cwe have allies at every level.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cLegislators and city councilors are calling us instead of me having to do vice versa,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n In Grayling, questions about fluoridation were brewing for at least a year before the town changed course. Podjaske, the city manager, said he discussed it off and on with Carlson, the city\u2019s water operator. When it came time to reorder the fluoride additive, Podjaske wondered: Is this really necessary?<\/p>\n Carlson asked the state\u2019s environmental agency about the protocol for discontinuing treatment and was told to keep the state posted. In April, Podjaske suggested adding the fluoridation question to the City Council\u2019s agenda. At the May meeting, the council voted 4-0 to end treatment.<\/p>\n \u201cI figured the best option was don\u2019t push it on people,\u2019\u2019 council member Jack Pettyjohn said about his vote. \u201cDon\u2019t force them to have it in their water.\u201d<\/p>\n There wasn\u2019t any outreach to the public or health experts ahead of the vote. Meeting minutes say that Podjaske and Carlson discussed the removal of the fluoride additive after the water operator received \u201cadditional education and training.\u201d<\/p>\n But both men say that isn\u2019t right. Fluoridation was already on the agenda when Carlson attended a training that wasn\u2019t about the treatment, but where he had an informal conversation with an instructor that made him worry about fluoride\u2019s safety.<\/p>\n The vote would\u2019ve occurred even without Kennedy\u2019s activism, Podjaske and Pettyjohn said. Carlson, though, noted how Grayling\u2019s pivot played out in context of \u201csome of the new narratives coming out of Washington.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s a lot of mixed feelings about RFK Jr., but he seems to be anti-fluoride,\u201d Carlson said. \u201cI don\u2019t know if that\u2019s driving people\u2019s complaints about fluoride.\u201d With the proliferation of social media, he said, \u201cI could see that being a factor, in the fact there\u2019s more people with an opinion now.\u201d<\/p>\n At the same time, he said, locals are more tuned in to water issues following the Flint water crisis and the contamination of waterways with PFAS chemicals linked to a nearby military base. PFAS are a group of \u201cforever chemicals\u201d that can carry a cancer risk.<\/p>\n Carlson said that in the occasional feedback he\u2019s gotten on fluoridation over the last couple of decades, \u201cthe negatives were more than the positives in recent years.\u201d<\/p>\n Following input from the state environmental agency, Grayling posted a notice about the change online in August, 10 weeks after treatment stopped. Some people didn\u2019t see it. Mary Bobenmoyer, owner and general manager of Our Town Coffee & Treats, didn\u2019t know until a reporter asked her about it in late August. \u201cThey did it?\u201d she said.<\/p>\n Bobenmoyer spent seven years as a dental assistant. She encourages children especially to get fluoride treatment at the dentist. But, she said, \u201cI personally don\u2019t think it should be filtered in our water. We should have free and clear water.\u201d<\/p>\n Over in Grand Rapids, there\u2019s sporadic pushback on fluoridation, said water system manager Wayne Jernberg. But he hasn\u2019t noticed any recent escalation. And he doesn\u2019t see why there would be.<\/p>\n \u201cWe rely on the science of us,\u201d Jernberg said. \u201cWe\u2019ve been adding it for 80 years, OK? And we don\u2019t see any issues in our community.\u201d<\/p>\n Meanwhile, reports on dental health have caused some communities that dropped fluoridation to reconsider.<\/p>\n In Canada, just across the river from Detroit, the City Council of Windsor, Ontario, voted to stop fluoridation in 2013 after lengthy public debate. Less than six years later, the county health agency reported troubling outcomes from oral health screenings at area schools. It found that the percentage of children with decay or requiring urgent care increased 51% in five years, while the percentage of children that didn\u2019t require any care decreased by 43%. The Windsor council soon decided to reintroduce water fluoridation, citing it as \u201ca key prevention strategy.\u201d <\/p>\n In the province of Alberta, Calgary\u2019s council voted in 2011 to stop fluoridation in part because of community skepticism and because expensive repairs to the equipment were needed, according to Councillor Gian-Carlo Carr\u00e0. But in time, researchers found that local children developed significantly more cavities than their peers in Edmonton, where water is fluoridated.<\/p>\n \n Employers Have Exploited and Abused H-2A Farmworkers for Years. It Doesn\u2019t Have to Be That Way.<\/strong>\n <\/p>\n \u201cWe saved ourselves some money,\u201d said Carr\u00e0. \u201cFast-forward 10 years, and the results are clear that dental outcomes for Calgarians are worse after 10 years of not having fluoride in the water.\u201d<\/p>\n When fluoridation was put on the ballot in 2021, 62% of voters supported its reintroduction. It took more than 28 million Canadian dollars and several years to start treatment again. <\/p>\n But, Carr\u00e0 said, those costs \u2014 and the money to run the system \u2014 seem worthwhile. \u201cI\u2019m just much more interested in doing as much good as I possibly can,\u201d Carr\u00e0 said.<\/p>\n In Grayling, speaking more than two months after voting to end the treatment, Pettyjohn said he has an open mind about the future of fluoridation. \u201cI would totally look at readdressing it, especially if the people of Grayling really wanted us to,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n For now, though, he said he\u2019s heard nothing negative from residents.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they\u2019re published. Reporting Highlights Momentum for Skeptics: Fluoridation has long been heralded as a public health triumph, but skeptics increasingly hold sway in government. Public Left in the Dark: Customer notice requirements are patchy, so<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":22191,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[55],"tags":[13614,2755,13615,2969,247,2685,1183,13613],"class_list":{"0":"post-22190","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-social-issues","8":"tag-fluoridation","9":"tag-local","10":"tag-michigan","11":"tag-officials","12":"tag-propublica","13":"tag-started","14":"tag-water","15":"tag-waver"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22190","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=22190"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22190\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/22191"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=22190"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=22190"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=22190"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}From Fringe to Mainstream<\/h3>\n
\n Credit: <\/span>
\n Joel Seewald, HMdb.org
\n <\/span><\/p>\n
\n Credit: <\/span>
\n Obtained by ProPublica
\n <\/span><\/p>\nTooth Decay and Regrets<\/h3>\n