I used to be a water fluoridation advocate. I saw fluoridation as a social justice issue and wanted those children who could benefit to get the treatment. Recently, an in-depth look at new information caused me to change my view.

The type of fluoridation chemical put into public drinking water, including Sandpoint’s until recently, is a toxic waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry. According to NSF International, the entity that certifies the products, fluoridation chemicals contain contaminants including arsenic, lead, mercury and other heavy metals. They do not test each batch to determine if the contaminant levels are considered safe.

There is currently no agency that is accountable to the public which regulates, guarantees safety or enforces standards for drinking water additives, including fluoridation chemicals. Except for setting a nonenforceable “maximum contaminant level” for fluoridation chemicals in drinking water, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency relinquished oversight long ago. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention promotes the effectiveness of fluoridation chemicals in preventing cavities, but they do not determine safety. The Food and Drug Administration does not regulate or guarantee safety of drinking water additives either. The American Dental Association is concerned only with oral health and not potential impacts to other human systems. There is no publicly accountable entity that is responsible for both safety and efficacy of the fluoridation chemicals.

Lake Pend Oreille Waterkeeper, an advocacy group that works to protect the lake from pollution, proposed a drinking water accountability ordinance to the city of Sandpoint that would apply to drinking water additives intended for treatment or prevention of disease, not related to water potability. This proposal would require the city to obtain details about additive contents and contaminants, as well as any applicable toxicological studies, and would make this information available for public review. The ordinance would enable the city to make informed decisions based on detailed and accurate data about drinking water additives.

City officials requested the information and the fluoridation chemical supplier refused to provide it.

The National Academy of Sciences is currently calling for additional studies about the effects of fluoridation chemicals on Alzheimer’s disease, cancers, thyroid disease, diabetes and more. As the body of scientific study in this and related fields continues to expand, public education, opinion and policy should evolve to reflect our new insights. Yes, there are studies out there that determine these chemicals to be safe, but compelling new research raises enough new questions about fluoridation chemicals that the practice of mass medication through the public drinking water supply deserves serious reconsideration.

According to both the CDC and the ADA, fluoridation chemicals are most effective in preventing tooth decay if applied topically. This was not known in the 1950s when the practice of water fluoridation began. A litany of fluoridated toothpastes and mouth rinses is now available, at no greater cost than the nonfluoridated versions. This was also not the case when water fluoridation began. Any child can now get a free ongoing supply of pharmaceutical fluoride with a doctor’s prescription, so that the dose is appropriate to the age and needs of the child, courtesy of Yoke’s pharmacies.

When the CDC lists water fluoridation as one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century, it fails to point out the timing also correlates with the widespread use of fluoridated toothpaste. The nationwide practice of water fluoridation began long before we had these other options and is now archaic.

The people of Sandpoint argued that it is not the job of elected city officials to make the difficult decision to medicate the entire population with a nonessential, questionable substance containing undisclosed contaminants. We did not argue on the merits of “sciencelike information” using “flat-earther” tools. Shawn Vestal’s recent column in The Spokesman-Review indicating such was intellectual dishonesty at best. We argued that our city’s job is to ensure a safe drinking water supply and that we should be able to choose our own medications in consultation with health care professionals.

Admirably, the majority of the Sandpoint City Council was not distracted by hollow arguments to the contrary and voted to support the civil rights of its constituents.