The Politics of Fluoridation in Seven California Cities

• Published date: 01 March 1966
• Author: John E. Mueller
• Date: 01 March 1966
• DOI: 10.1177/106591296601900106
• Subject Matter: Articles

54

THE

POLITICS

OF

FLUORIDATION

IN

SEVEN

CALIFORNIA

CITIES

JOHN

E.

MUELLER

University

of

Rochester

We

have

an

audience

of

dentists

tonight,

from

the

dental

convention

in

town.

You

know, I’ve

always

wondered....

How

many

of

you

are

in

favor

of

the

fluoridation

of

water?

...

Uh,

huh.

And

how

many

against

it?

...

Nobody?

Gee,

I

thought

it

was

a

controversial

issue.

Jack

Paar

As

HEALTH

MEASURE,

the

fluoridation

of

community

water

supplies

has

been

approved

and

enthusiastically

endorsed

for

over

a

decade

by

virtually

jL

all

the

important

health

people

and

organizations

in

the

country.

Its

value

is

being

verified

by

an

increasing

number

of

experiments,

surveys,

and

studies.

Yet

at

the

same

time

it

is

being

rejected

more

and

more

consistently

by

voters

at

the

local

level.

There

are

11

communities

in

California

which

have

voted

favor-

ably

on

fluoridation

in

referendums,

while

more

than

25

others

have

considered

the

idea

at

the

ballot

box

and

rejected

it.

Since

1957

there

have

been

at

least

16

fluorida-

tion

referendums

in

the

state,

and

in

all

but

two

of

these

the

measure

was

rejected.

It

is

the

purpose

here

to

consider

this

curious

phenomenon,

to

analyze

its

causes

and

effects,

and

to

draw

some

conclusions

about

its

implications

for

other

issues

in

the

political

arena.

Fluoridation,

its

proponents

assert,

is

a

safe,

well-tested,

economical

procedure

for

markedly

improving

the

dental

health

of

children

through

the

addition

of

fluo-

ride

salts

to

the

water

supply

in

the

ratio

of

one

part

of

fluoride

per

million.

At

higher

concentrations

a

cosmetically

undesirable

stain

appears

on

the

teeth,

a

condition

called

&dquo;fluorosis,&dquo;

but

this

problem

can

be

avoided

if

the

concentration

is

carefully

controlled.

Several

points

should

be

made

about

the

political

nature

of

this

issue:

1.

The

health

benefits

of

the

measure

are

remote

and

statistical,

and

directly

accrue

to

a

segment

of

the

population

which

is

not

included

in

the

electorate.

2.

Fluoridation

itself,

while

it

benefits

only

some,

affects

everybody

in

a

most

vital

manner -

through

the

very

water

that

is

consumed.

3.

The

measure

is

chiefly

sponsored

by

people

who

are

not

ordinarily

active

in

the

political

arena

-

health

professionals.

Thus

the

issue

is

not

linked

in

the

voter’s

mind

with

any

particular

political

personality

or

party

-

it

is,

in

this

sense,

seen

on

its

own

merits.

4.

As

it

has

developed,

the

proposal

is

not

subject

to

compromise.

The

&dquo;pros,&dquo;

after

extensive

consideration,

resolutely

reject

alternative

methods

of

mass

distribu-

tion

as

grossly

unworkable,

dangerous,

or

both.

And

there

is

no

way

of

fluoridating

only

that

part

of

the

water

supply

which

is

intended

for

children.

5.

The

measure

as

presented

to

the

electorate

is

rather

simple

and

clean-cut.

Unlike

a

political

candidate,

it

has

no

personality,

family,

or

dog.

Unlike

many

other