Fluoride controversy is deja vu all over again

The recent paranoia swirling around fluoride proves there’s nothing new under the sun. Fluoride in Bangor’s water had been voted in, then voted out, then voted in again by the time I arrived, fresh out of dental school in 1974. I actually became the supervising dentist selected to oversee the installation of a state-of-the-art fluoride-metering device at Flood’s Pond, from which Bangor draws its water.

In the ’80s I was the “state fluoride expert” as consultant to the State Office of Dental Health. I helped to stage many successful battles aimed at adding fluoride to water supplies in communities all over Maine. One of my strongest arguments was that participating water districts add only one part of fluoride to one million parts of water. That’s the equivalent of adding one drop from a medicine dropper into a very full bathtub. That minute amount of fluoride can reduce tooth decay in children by as much as 60 percent and it costs only pennies.

In the ’80s, while I was advocating for fluoride, I was also writing for a snappy little publication called “Pediatrics for Parents,” a newsletter was owned by Dr. Leonard Leonidas. I wrote many profluoride articles, which were circulated nationally and Dr. Leo edited all my work. Back then, since he never rejected my work, I figured he was pro-fluoridation. I had great respect and admiration for him then and I still do now. Recently, something must have happened to change his mind, but heck, we’re all entitled to that, aren’t we?

As city dentist, I was so pro-fluoridation that a colleague once called me a “fluoride evangelist.” He criticized me for believing that fluoride in our water and sealants on our teeth would eradicate tooth decay. He said I was wrong because too many kids eat too many sweets, don’t brush their teeth and drink too much soda. He said fluoridation and sealants reminded him of the proverbial Dutch boy with his fingers plugging holes in a failing dike.

In the mid-’90s, it become obvious to me that I was seeing way more tooth decay than I did in the ’70s. I had erroneously believed that sealants along with fluoride in the water, in toothpaste and in mouth rinse would make tooth decay a thing of the past. About then, Dr. Jonathan Shenkin, a children’s dentist, moved to Bangor and opened a practice. I was grateful because he was the new “fluoride evangelist.” Furthermore, Dr. Shenkin shed a bright light on what I hadn’t yet grasped: he provided data that proved children in the ’90s were drinking almost five times as much soda as they did in the ’70s. At the same time, I became aware of the acid content of the most popular soft drinks. Most kids favor drinks with a similar ph (a measure of acidity) to battery acid. At five times the intake, I began to feel that the dike had burst despite the strength of my fluoridated fingers.

Today, I live in-between the Pacific Northwest and the Atlantic Northeast. When I’m in Oregon, I work in communities that are not, and never have been, fluoridated. Nonetheless, children in Oregon do not have any more decay than children in Bangor. Why? I think it’s because the high sugar and acid content of soft drinks override the 60 percent reduction in tooth decay that community water fluoridation used to provide, before the giant increase in soda consumption. This is by no means a reason to remove fluoride from city water. It is, on the other hand, a reason to find a way to curb excessive acid and sugar habits.

Does fluoride in city water harm us? I doubt it. If it did, folks in Bangor would be dying off like flies from a multitude of diseases that the antis ascribe to elemental fluoride. They call fluoride a drug, which it isn’t. It occurs naturally in our environment like carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen. It’s not a poison. One in three children do not (as the antis claim) have brown or white spots on their teeth caused by fluoride. Some kids have faint white areas on their teeth that may be caused by fluoride but these spots spontaneously fade with age. In many cases, they indicate that the teeth involved are optimally fluoridated and will very likely be decay-free for life.

What’s really striking about the arguments presented by today’s antis is how similar those arguments are to what they were 30 years ago. Today, no one is being hurt by fluoride in city water any more than they were then, though the antis would have us think so. That’s OK because everyone is entitled to an opinion. However, what’s really worrisome is that, if the antis continue vilifying fluoride in the public’s eye, fluoride toothpaste, fluoride mouth rinse and fluoride varnish could end up being maligned by association. That would be sad, dangerous to everyone’s dental health, counterproductive and headed backwards in time.

Many profluoride friends of mine didn’t want me to submit this column because things have been pretty quiet lately and anything from the pro camp will most certainly stir a rebuttal from the anti camp. The pros just want the controversy to go away. Either way, in my opinion, both sides are at risk of ignoring the real danger: too much sugar and acid, especially from soda.

It really baffles me how much energy is constantly being directed away from our mutual, true opponent: the sugar lobby in the halls of state and federal legislatures. We’re too busy bickering to notice that our children are ruining their teeth with acid so strong and sugar so bountiful that all the fluoride in the world could never help. So, off we go to attend meeting after meeting for or against fluoride while, at home, our children sip on Mountain Dew, Pepsi and Coke.

I’m not inviting a rebuttal, nor am I inclined to argue for or against anymore. I’m just calling for perspective.

Dr. John C. Frachella, former director of the Bangor Children’s Dental Clinic, currently lives in central Oregon in a yurt.