|
|
|
BENEFITS ALTERNATIVES
OVERDOSE DISEASES PUBLIC COST |
PUBLIC POLICY Question
35. ADA's
Fluoridation Facts Short Answer ADA's
Fluoridation Facts Long Answer It has been the position of the American courts that a significant government interest in health and welfare of the public generally overrides individual objections to public health regulation.207 Consequently, the courts have rejected the contention that fluoridation ordinances are a deprivation of religious or individual freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution.207, 209 In reviewing the legal aspects of fluoridation, the courts have dealt with this concern by ruling that: (1) fluoride is a nutrient, not a medication, and is present naturally in the environment; (2) no one is forced to drink fluoridated water as alternative sources are available; and (3) in cases where a person believes that fluoridation interferes with religious beliefs, there is a difference between the freedom to believe, which is absolute, and the freedom to practice beliefs, which may be restricted in the public's interest.210, 211 Fluoridation is the adjustment of a naturally occurring element found in water in order to prevent dental decay. Courts have consistently ruled that water fluoridation is not a form of compulsory mass medication or socialized medicine.207, 210, 212 A medication implies a substance used to treat disease. Fluoridation simply provides an individual with an increased level of protection against developing dental disease. Water that has been fortified with fluoride is similar to fortifying salt with iodine, milk with vitamin D and orange juice with vitamin C. Repeat
of Question 35. Opposition's Response (See answer to Question 34.) In answer to the ADA statements: The FDA states specifically that fluoride is not a nutrient; fluoride is a prescription drug; sodium fluoride never occurs naturally in nature; and many people; who can't afford bottled water would be forced to drink this medicated water (against their will). Many people are already being overdosed, even in non-fluoridated areas, especially the children. Some courts have ruled against fluoridation, and many more will in the future, now that there is so much proof of its harmfulness, and that it does not prevent tooth decay. (See Benefits and Diseases sections). Judges in both Pennsylvania and Texas said "No." This is what Texas Judge Farris said was proven in court: "That the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, such as is contemplated by (Houston) City Ordinance No. 80-2530, may cause or may contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illnesses in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in doubt as to the reduction of tooth decay in man." Contrary to what has been said by promoters of artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, these findings of fact were specifically sustained and upheld as having been established at trial. Judge R. C. Tarter, 28th Judiciary, District of Kentucky also said, "No." He made the following statements: "I found the scientific facts — undisputed — that fluorine is highly corrosive, one of the most poisonous elements known, a virulent poison; it is an effective rat killer; it is cumulative in human tissues and organs; administered via the public drinking waters there is no possible way to control what some of the 'experts' called the 'dosage.' Now, in addition, these same experts failed to convince the court that fluorine is either effective in preventing caries, or safe for human consumption, even in the recommended 1 ppm. In the opinion of this court, even if the State Legislature were to pass a law giving some authority that right, it would be invalid, un-Constitutional; for our Constitution guarantees the right to pursue his own happiness to every man, and no arbitrary power exists within a Republic, even among a majority, to rob the minority, even if it be one individual, of this right. The State Board of Health has no more power than the Maharaja of Benares to order fluoridation of the public water!" (See 35-1: "Kentucky Judge Defends Rights of Minority in Fluoridation of Water," 7/2/68). The Independent Cities Association (ICA), which is comprised of forty-nine cities in the Southern California area, opposes the new fluoridation law. (See 35-2: letter to Senator Watson, dated 6/21/95, by Betty J. Ainsworth, Chairwoman). |
Jump to
the Opposition's |
| NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner. This
site and accompanying book is published by First
Edition This
information provided on this site was compiled by This
site and accompanying book was edited by Site Builder: Michelle@Jabbocat Consulting |
|