Work

Fluorides, facts and fanatics: public health advocacy shouldn't stop at the courthouse door.

Year: 1985
Type: article
Abstract: During the past several decades, public health professionals have worked hard to educate both the public and policy makers that great care should be taken to scrutinize safety when large populations are routinely exposed to new substances or to common substances in new ways.An Illinois court accepted this principle when it declared that: Because public health is at stake the burden [of proof] is that if the addition of artificial [substances] to the public water supply may have adverse health effect, that must be weighed against the benefits alleged to determine [appropriate standards].'But last fall the Illinois Supreme Court rejected this cautious approach and held that, even where evidence for safety and for benefit is completely lacking, courts should not be the forum to seek protection from alleged health risks.The justices said debate regarding adverse health effects produced by substances introduced into the environment should occur in the legislature, and those unhappy with the result should not be allowed to shift the debate into the courts.2These conflicting judicial opinions offer some important lessons for public health professionals.Ironically, they in- volve one of the most thoroughly documented successes in public health: community water fluoridation.During the past 40 years a large body of research has attested to the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and safety of fluoride therapy in community water fluoridation, school water fluoridation, fluoridation of dentifrices, professional topical application, and self-administered rinses and tablets.A former US Surgeon General called fluoridation, along with pasteurization, water purification, and immunization, one of the four most important public health measures of our time.
Language: English
Open Access status: bronze
OpenAlex ID: W2079866605
FWCI: 7.688
Cites: 6
Cited by: 11
Related to: 10