water fluoridation controversy water fluoridation controversy the water fluoridation controversy arises from political, ethical, economic, and health considerations regarding the fluoridation of public water supplies. this article is part of a series onalternative medicine general information alternative medicine history terminology alternative veterinary medicine quackery (health fraud) rise of modern medicine pseudoscience antiscience skepticism scientific therapeutic nihilism fringe medicine and science acupressure acupuncture alkaline diet anthroposophic medicine apitherapy applied kinesiology aromatherapy association for research and enlightenment auriculotherapy bates method black salve bodywork bone-setting bowen technique breathwork camel urine fake covid-19 treatments cancer treatments charcoal cleanse chelation therapy chiropractic chiropractic treatment techniques vertebral subluxation christian science chromotherapy colon cleansing coffee enema colorpuncture colloidal silver craniosacral therapy crystal healing cupping therapy dental amalgam controversy detoxification foot detox dry needling ear candling energy medicine correactology esoteric energy therapeutic touch estrogen dominance fabunan antiviral injection facilitated communication feldenkrais method functional medicine hair analysis herbal medicine holistic dentistry hologram bracelet homeopathy bach flower remedies biological terrain assessment hydrotherapy hypnotherapy iridology ionized jewelry jilly juice lightning process lymphotherapy medical intuitive mesmerism magnet therapy manual therapy megavitamin therapy mind–body interventions mms myofascial release naet naturopathy oil pulling orgone orthomolecular medicine orthopathy osteomyology osteopathy ozone therapy parapsychology phrenology postural integration psychic surgery psychodermatology quantum healing radionics rapid prompting method rbop reiki reflexology rolfing scientific racism thetahealing thought field therapy urophagia vaginal steaming vision therapy vitalism vegetotherapy young blood transfusion zero balancing conspiracy theories big pharma conspiracy theories hiv/aids denialism opv aids hypothesis anti-vaccinationism in chiropractic vaccines and autism mmr vaccine and autism water fluoridation controversy covid-19 misinformation classifications alternative medical systems mind–body intervention biologically-based therapy manipulative methods energy therapy traditional medicine african muti southern africa ayurveda dosha mvah balneotherapy brazilian bush medicine cambodian chinese blood stasis chinese herbology dit da gua sha gill plate trade meridian moxibustion pressure point qi san jiao tui na zang-fu chumash curandero faith healing hilot iranian jamu kambo japanese korean mien shiang mongolian prophetic medicine shamanism shiatsu siddha sri lankan thai massage tibetan unani vietnamese diagnoses adrenal fatigue aerotoxic syndrome candida hypersensitivity chronic lyme disease electromagnetic hypersensitivity heavy legs leaky gut syndrome multiple chemical sensitivity wilson's temperature syndrome for deprived groups in both maturing and matured countries, international and national agencies and dental associations across the world support the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation. proponents of water fluoridation see it as a question of public health policy and equate the issue to vaccination and food fortification, claiming significant benefits to dental health and minimal risks. in contrast, opponents of water fluoridation view it as an infringement of individual rights, if not an outright violation of medical ethics, on the basis that individuals have no choice in the water that they drink, unless they drink more expensive bottled water. a small minority of scientists have challenged the medical consensus, variously claiming that water fluoridation has no or little cariostatic benefits, may cause serious health problems, is not effective enough to justify the costs, and is pharmacologically obsolete. opposition to fluoridation has existed since its initiation in the 1940s. during the 1950s and 1960s, conspiracy theorists claimed that fluoridation was a communist plot to undermine american public health. in recent years, water fluoridation has become a prevalent health and political issue in many countries, resulting in some countries and communities discontinuing its use while others have expanded it. the controversy is propelled by a significant public opposition supported by a minority of professionals, which include researchers, dental and medical professionals, alternative medical practitioners, health food enthusiasts, a few religious groups (mostly christian scientists in the u.s.), and occasionally consumer groups and environmentalists. organized political opposition has come from libertarians, the john birch society, and from groups like the green parties in the uk and new zealand. proponents and adversaries have been both criticized for overstating the benefits or overstating the risks, and understating the other, respectively. systematic reviews have cited the lack of high quality research for the benefits and risks of water fluoridation and questions that are still unsettled. researchers who oppose the practice state this as well. according to a 2013 congressional research service report on fluoride in drinking water, these gaps in the fluoridation scientific literature fuel the controversy. public water fluoridation was first practiced in 1945, in the us. as of 2012, 25 countries have supplemental water fluoridation to varying degrees, and 11 of them have more than 50% of their population drinking fluoridated water. a further 28 countries have water that is naturally fluoridated, though in many of them there are areas where fluoride is above the optimum level. as of 2012, about 435 million people worldwide received water fluoridated at the recommended level, of whom 57 million (13%) received naturally fluoridated water and 377 million (87%) received artificially fluoridated water. in 2014, three-quarters of the us population on the public water supply received fluoridated water, which represented two-thirds of the total us population. medical consensus national and international health agencies and dental associations throughout the world have endorsed water fluoridation as safe and effective. the views on the most effective method for community prevention of tooth decay are mixed. the australian government states that water fluoridation is the most effective means of achieving fluoride exposure that is community-wide. the world health organization states water fluoridation, when feasible and culturally acceptable, has substantial advantages, especially for subgroups at high risk, while the european commission finds no advantage to water fluoridation compared with topical use. fdi world dental federation supports water fluoridation as safe and effective. the european academy of paediatric dentistry, and the national dental associations of australia, canada, and the u.s. the american dental association calls water fluoridation "one of the safest and most beneficial, cost-effective public health measures for preventing, controlling, and in some cases reversing, tooth decay." in the english speaking nations—the united states, canada, uk, australia and new zealand, all of which practice water fluoridation—many medical associations and authorities have published position statements and endorsed water fluoridation. the u.s. surgeon general, the american public health association, the royal commission on the national health service, australian medical association, new zealand medical association, and health canada support fluoridation, citing a number of international scientific reviews that indicate "there is no link between any adverse health effects and exposure to fluoride in drinking water at levels that are below the maximum acceptable concentration of 1.5 mg/l." the centers for disease control and prevention listed water fluoridation as one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century in the u.s., along with vaccination, family planning, recognition of the dangers of smoking, and other achievements. in israel, the israeli association of public health physicians, the israel pediatric association, and the israel dental association, support fluoridation. the world health organization, looking at global public health, identifies fluoride as one of a few chemicals for which the contribution from drinking-water to overall intake is an important factor in preventing disease. this is because there is clear evidence that optimal concentrations of fluoride provide protection against cavities, both in children and in adults. minority scientific view the scientists or doctors who oppose water fluoridation argue that it has no or little cariostatic benefits, may cause serious health problems, is not effective enough to justify the costs, and is pharmacologically obsolete. arvid carlsson has argued that fluoridation violates modern pharmacological principles and does not take into account individual variations in response, which can be considerable even when the dosage is fixed. paul connett has stated "it's politics that is interfering with science in this issue ... it's a matter of political will, and you cannot change political will if you don't get the people. we must involve the people." evidence proponents and opponents have been both criticized for overstating the benefits or risks, and understating the other, respectively. systematic reviews have cited the lack of high-quality research for the benefits and risks of water fluoridation and questions that are still unsettled. a 2007 nuffield council on bioethics report concluded that good evidence for or against water fluoridation is lacking. researchers who oppose the practice state this as well. according to a 2013 congressional research service report on fluoride in drinking water, these gaps in the fluoridation scientific literature fuel the controversy. john doull, chairman of the 2006 national research council committee report on fluoride in drinking water, has stated a similar conclusion regarding the source of the controversy: "in the scientific community, people tend to think this is settled. i mean, when the u.s. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that's a hard hurdle to get over. but when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this has been going on. i think that's why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began. in the face of ignorance, controversy is rampant." safety main article: water fluoridation § safety fluoride can be present naturally in water at concentrations well above recommended levels, which can have several long-term adverse effects, including severe dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, and weakened bones. in 1984 the world health organization recommended a guideline maximum fluoride value of 1.5 mg/l as a level at which fluorosis should be minimal, reaffirming it in 2006. fluoridation has little effect on risk of bone fracture (broken bones); it may result in slightly lower fracture risk than either excessively high levels of fluoridation or no fluoridation. there is no clear association between fluoridation and cancer or deaths due to cancer, both for cancer in general and also specifically for bone cancer and osteosarcoma. in rare cases improper implementation of water fluoridation can result in overfluoridation that causes outbreaks of acute fluoride poisoning, with symptoms that include nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. three such outbreaks were reported in the u.s. between 1991 and 1998, caused by fluoride concentrations as high as 220 mg/l; in the 1992 alaska outbreak, 262 people became ill and one person died. in 2010, approximately 60 gallons of fluoride were released into the water supply in asheboro, north carolina, in 90 minutes—an amount that was intended to be released in a 24-hour period. like other common water additives such as chlorine, hydrofluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride decrease ph and cause a small increase of corrosivity, but this problem is easily addressed by increasing the ph. although it has been hypothesized that hydrofluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride might increase human lead uptake from water, a 2006 statistical analysis did not support concerns that these chemicals cause higher blood lead concentrations in children. trace levels of arsenic and lead may be present in fluoride compounds added to water; however, concentrations are below measurement limits. the effect of water fluoridation on the natural environment has been investigated, and no adverse effects have been established. issues studied have included fluoride concentrations in groundwater and downstream rivers; lawns, gardens, and plants; consumption of plants grown in fluoridated water; air emissions; and equipment noise. efficacy main article: water fluoridation § effectiveness reviews have shown that water fluoridation reduces cavities in children. a conclusion for the efficacy in adults is less clear with some reviews finding benefit and others not. studies in the u.s. in the 1950s and 1960s showed that water fluoridation reduced childhood cavities by fifty to sixty percent, while studies in 1989 and 1990 showed lower reductions (40% and 18% respectively), likely due to increasing use of fluoride from other sources, notably toothpaste, and also the "halo effect" of food and drink that is made in fluoridated areas and consumed in unfluoridated ones. a 2000 uk systematic review (york) found that water fluoridation was associated with a decreased proportion of children with cavities of 15% and with a decrease in decayed, missing, and filled primary teeth (average decreases was 2.25 teeth). the review found that the evidence was of moderate quality: few studies attempted to reduce observer bias, control for confounding factors, report variance measures, or use appropriate analysis. although no major differences between natural and artificial fluoridation were apparent, the evidence was inadequate for a conclusion about any differences. a 2002 systematic review found strong evidence that water fluoridation is effective at reducing overall tooth