The Fluoride Debate







Question 1
Question 2
Question 3
Question 4
Question 5
Question 6
Question 7
Question 8

Question 9
Question 10
Question 11
Question 12

Question 13
Question 14

Question 15
Question 16
Question 17

Question 18
Question 19
Question 20
Question 21
Question 22
Question 23
Question 24
Question 25
Question 26
Question 27
Question 28
Question 29
Question 30
Question 31
Question 32
Question 33


Question 34
Question 35
Question 36
Question 37
Question 38
Question 39
Question 40

Question 41
Question 42
Question 43



Question 35.
Has the legality of fluoridation been upheld by the courts?

ADA's Fluoridation Facts Short Answer
Yes. Fluoridation has been thoroughly tested in the United States' court system, and found to be a proper means of furthering public health and welfare. No court of last resort has ever determined fluoridation to be unlawful. Moreover, fluoridation has been clearly held not to be an unconstitutional invasion of religious freedom or other individual rights guaranteed by the First, Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

ADA's Fluoridation Facts Long Answer
During the last fifty years, the legality of fluoridation in the United States has been thoroughly tested in our court systems. Fluoridation is viewed by the courts as a proper means of furthering public health and welfare.206 No court of last resort has ever rendered an opinion against fluoridation. The highest courts of more than a dozen states have confirmed the constitutionality of fluoridation.207 In 1984, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state's mandatory fluoridation law, culminating 16 years of court action at a variety of judicial levels.208 Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court has denied review of fluoridation cases thirteen times, citing that no substantial federal or constitutional questions were involved.207

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.
Has the legality of fluoridation been upheld by the courts?

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).

The Fluoride

as a .pdf

Jump to the Opposition's

for this



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
Health Way House | 403 Marcos St | San Marcos, CA 92069

First Edition
February 2001

This information provided on this site was compiled by
Anita Shattuck | Tel: 760-752-1621 |

This site and accompanying book was edited by
Edward Bennett

Site Builder: Michelle@Jabbocat Consulting