Fluoridation: Illegal, Unethical and Must End, says Legal Scholar

Fluoridation violates numerous legal and ethical human subjects research protocols, argues Rita Barnett-Rose, Chapman University Associate Law Professor, in the William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review  (Volume 39 | Issue 1).

Using case law, legal opinions and scientific reports, Barnett-Rose argues that fluoridation schemes allow public health officials to experiment on humans without their informed consent.

Fluoride chemicals added to public water supplies, although touted as a safe and effective method to reduce tooth decay, surprisingly have never been thoroughly studied for many critical adverse and long-term health effects. 

Government agencies hoping to fill the knowledge-void recommend that research finally be done, specifically to brain, bone, kidneys, endocrine system, bladder cancer, genotoxicity, and more (NRC 2006). In effect, they are using the entire human population as unwitting guinea pigs in their failing but ongoing fluoridation experiment.

Fluoridation will certainly go down in history as the biggest public health blunder of all time.  The US government just isn’t willing to bury it, yet – probably for political reasons.

Even President Obama’s science czar was unkind to fluoridation when he wrote in 1977 “The scientific evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of mass fluoridation at the generally recommended level of 1 milligram per liter of water (1 ppm) is not as good as it ought to be…”

Barnett-Rose writes, “Claims that fluoridation is not mass medication are unpersuasive. Adding a drug to the water supply to treat or prevent the disease of tooth decay is unquestionably a medical intervention, and the fact that

the risks of this drug are still being determined by public agencies supports an argument that water fluoridation is an ongoing human medical experiment. As such, this experiment should be subject to informed consent

for each human subject affected.”

She adds, "It is no longer acceptable for public health officials to simply dismiss the accruing negative data and to continue to insist that the levels of fluoride children and adults are receiving on a daily basis are without any serious health consequences.”

‘Unfortunately, rather than considering new data objectively, public health officials and dental lobbies spearheading fluoridation schemes often ignore, reject, or suppress the evidence that does not toe the profluoride party line,” she writes.

 After scientists disproved the 1945 theory assuming ingested fluoride was essential for healthy teeth, fluoridation promoters newly speculate, without evidence, that fluoridation benefits low-income children who have the most decay and least access to dental care – a problem that persists today despite 7 decades of fluoridation. In fact, dental socioeconomic disparities have increased.

Barnett-Rose writes: “Fluoridation proponents have historically characterized those opposing or questioning fluoridation as “irrational, fanatical, unscientific and fraudulent,” regardless of the legitimate scientific credentials of those

opposing fluoridation. However, mounting scientific evidence against fluoridation has begun to persuade an increasing number of scientific researchers and dental and medical professionals, and even some formerly

avid fluoride proponents.”

“The cessation of all compulsory water fluoridation schemes should be the goal of all public health agencies, ethical lawmakers, and informed citizens," she writes.