After three months of research and debate, the Melbourne City Council voted last Thursday to continue adding fluoride to the city’s water supply.
On Oct. 23, the topic of the fluoridation of Melbourne’s drinking water came before the Melbourne City Council with subsequent discussion. City officials scheduled a special meeting Jan. 24 and requested information and experts be available to fully vet the issue.
One thing they were particularly interested in was the rationale and evidence relied upon by the growing number of cities that have stopped fluoridating their water supply. They requested information related to the city’s process for fluoridation and presentations supporting and opposing the practice, and provided notice to the affected communities’ residents, including barrier island customers from Melbourne Beach to Satellite Beach, giving them the opportunity to provide input.
During the follow-up meeting, the council received information from all sides on the topic. Documents had previously been submitted from various national, state and local experts. After an introduction by City Manager Shannon Lewis, subject matter experts gave presentations supporting and opposing water fluoridation. The opposing presenters were Melissa Gallico, an science/technology analyst, author and activist; and Dr. Paul Connett, a retired chemistry professor emeritus at St. Lawrence University, a specialist in environmental chemistry and toxicology, author and executive director of the nonprofit Fluoride Action Network. The supporting presenter was Dr. Johnny Johnson Jr., retired pediatric dentist and president of the American Fluoridation Society. Following the presentations, the public was allowed time to provide comments on the topic before the council discussion and vote on action concerning the issue. Public utilities staff members were also present to address any questions from the council.
Melbourne has added fluoride to its water supply since 1966. The fluoridation was authorized and introduced based on recommendations by the State Board of Health. Melbourne reached its original decision based on research by the CDC, the American Dental Association and the World Health Organization regarding their positions on fluoridation of water. The ordinance was not adopted by the city after its incorporation. As it currently stands, the addition of fluoride is a practice rather than a city code requirement. There is currently no state or local law requirement for adding fluoride to a water supply. The vote of this meeting was determined to be the new policy and would be followed.
Melbourne utilizes a chemical known as hydrofluorosilicic acid 23 percent in the process. There is one introduction of the chemical feed during production for the entire distribution system. It is added at the origination site, and there are slight variations in the levels throughout the system. Currently, 117 water suppliers in Florida add fluoride to water supplies, and 74 cities nationwide have voted to remove it in response to public concerns.
Opponents to water supply fluoridation claim that fluoride deceases IQ and causes conditions like acne, anemia and Alzheimer’s. Gallico focused her presentation on her own experience with severe acne attributed to fluoride consumption, as well as adverse health effects caused by fluoride air pollution and water addition. Some of the adverse health impacts she discussed included fluorosis of teeth and bones, cancer, skin reactions, developmental neurotoxicity and thyroid function depression. She discussed special interest groups influencing current policy and decisions regarding water fluoridation; among the groups mentioned were the phosphate fertilizer industry, the sugar industry and the dental lobby. She gave reasons why all of these groups supported the fluoridation of water for the purpose of corporate gain.
Dr. Connett stressed the difference between science and public relations. His key arguments against fluoridation related to the individual’s freedom of choice/informed consent, the prevention of tooth decay by proper diet and dental hygiene, the advantage of topical fluoride over its ingestion, and fluoride’s negative impacts on childhood brain development, those with topical sensitivities, and carcinogenic toxins included in the form of fluoride used. Dr. Connett stressed the lack of toxicology training for most dentists and cited a 2017 Mexican study showing the decrease in IQ points in children born to mothers who had high urine fluoride levels during pregnancy.
Most supporters of water fluoridation cite the benefit of reduced cavities and tooth decay. Dr. Johnson stated that his own family drinks fluoridated water because he considers it safe. He dismissed the idea of fluoride allergies, as he stated that it is in all water and is twice as prevalent in saltwater without ill effects. He attributed allergies to the sudsing agent in toothpastes. He stated the addition of fluoride is important to those who cannot afford regular dental care and that there are no negative health impacts. Instead he stated that the reduction in tooth pain and infection allows children to learn easier and decreases abscess infections and deaths. He stated that no court has ever ruled fluoridation illegal, and the 2017 Mexican study concluded more fluoride was ingested from salt rather than water. In the spirit of public health being for the greater good, he said opponents to fluoridation could get a reverse osmosis filter to remove most of the fluoride.
Teresa Lopez, a former City Council member, introduced the topic for discussion in October and requested the council’s research on fluoridation. She provided her own research and a list of 20 countries and 14 Florida counties that either never fluoridated water or stopped the practice. Lopez offered the following comments Jan. 24: “My research revealed that fluoride is only a chemical added to our water for the purpose of a medical treatment and considered a drug by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. It is unethical for our city government to require our water users to digest this drug that has no real value to our bodies, including fighting tooth decay. Fluoride is consumed by all of our water users, regardless of age, health and vulnerability.”
Linda Palmisano, a resident of Satellite Beach, offered additional opposing comments. Palmisano described her personal experience of reversing her own hypothyroidism and cystic acne condition by removing fluoridated water and toothpaste from her life. “Although fluoride is considered a drug, the FDA has never approved the addition of hydroflurosilicic acid to public water systems to prevent dental decay.” She mentioned numerous cases of pediatric and adult cancer patients she knows and asked, “Why and What if? Why are these people getting cancer? And what if the fluoridation chemicals are causing it?”
Among the community members and residents giving supporting feedback was Dr. Angela McNeight, a lifelong resident of Brevard County currently living in Satellite Beach and practicing orthodontics in Melbourne. “I am proud to have no cavities because I grew up with Melbourne water. My grandparents still drink Melbourne water in Indialantic, and they have roots that are showing in their mouth because they have lost so much of their gum tissue, and our fluoridated water is preventing any decay in them as well. I went to the University of Florida for seven years, four years for dental school and then three more years for my masters in research and orthodontic training,” she continued, “but they would not be one of the top dental schools in the nation if they were not showing us the correct research that is out there. They are telling their students, their residents, their research that fluoridated community water is safe, and it is backed by all of the research that was on all of our test questions.”
Following a discussion by members of the council, a vote was taken. Overall the City Council members were impressed with the testimony of both sides. Most believed that the subject-matter experts and medical professionals would not support the addition of fluoride if it were unsafe for their own families and patients. Another point made by several members was the potential adverse health impact of removing fluoride from the water supply, specifically for the indigent population. In order to protect individual rights form being sacrificed for the best interest of all residents, the possibility of a referendum and public vote on the topic was also discussed. Based on 70-plus years of evidence from respected organizations, and ongoing studies and research supporting fluoridation, several members believed it was important to maintain the status quo of adding fluoride to the water supply. The motion was passed to keep adding fluoride to the water supply with the possibility of a future public vote. The areas affected will include Melbourne, Melbourne Beach, Indialantic, Indian Harbor each, Satellite Beach, Palm Shores, Melbourne Village, West Melbourne, as well as unincorporated areas of Brevard County south of Pineda Causeway.
Article by: Michelle Cannon Epting
