Opinion: SCBWA’s decision to end fluoridation will harm most vulnerable residents
When the State College Borough Water Authority (SCBWA) recently voted to end fluoridation, they decided against the interests of residents in their service area.
Anti-fluoridation sentiment isn’t new. It was satirized in the Stanley Kubrick 1964 film “Dr. Strangelove,” and it’s been a recurring issue since widespread fluoridation initiatives were introduced in the 1950s. Many arguments have remained the same: notably, claims of forced medication and claims of toxicity or contaminated sourcing.
Seventy years later, anti-fluoridation sentiment persists, and still lacks a strong basis. Fluoridation is heavily regulated; just recently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) completed a six-year regulatory review cycle and determined no revisions were necessary for fluoridation standards – despite SCBWA Vice Chair Dr. Rachel Brennan’s basless claims on social media that it’s “only a matter of time” until the EPA bans the fluoridation of water.
Fluoride has outsized benefits even when added to water at the small level of 0.7 parts per million. Fluoridation is touted by state and federal agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as an essential public health measure that reduces cavities by about 25% in adults and children. Removal of fluoride from water has been proven to increase the incidence of dental procedures, demonstrating that addition – and removal – has clear impacts for residents and the community.
None of that persuaded the SCBWA. One justification cited by the SCBWA, aside from controversial research and the arguments of anti-fluoride advocacy groups, was the question of individual choice and medical consent. SCBWA Chair Jeffrey Kern returned to this topic in his opinion piece for the Centre Daily Times, and according to CDT reporting, Dr. Rachel Brennan earlier claimed that providing individual choice was a “social justice issue” for residents in the SCBWA’s service area.
Prioritizing “individual choice” over public health and the common good should be familiar. Over the past few years, appeals to dubious science and the rhetoric of “individual choice” have been well-trodden refrains, whether used to attack mask mandates or vaccine requirements. In this case, as in those ones, those that inevitably suffer are the most vulnerable.
That’s what the SCBWA has lost sight of: providing for the entire community. In their rush to trust new, controversial research seized upon by anti-fluoride activists claiming a theorized, unproven harm, they’ve created a measurable, clear, proven harm for those in our community without ready access to dental care. That isn’t a small or strictly cosmetic issue: According to the federal Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, poor oral health is connected to increased risk of diabetes, heart disease and stroke.
Although the SCBWA has suggested spending future savings on dental health initiatives, they’ll have to spend more than the saved $70,000 to fill the gap from lack of fluoridation, given that part of fluoridation’s benefits is low cost relative to its impact. Unless they step up with additional funding, the decision to end fluoridation will harm low-income and working families – the real “social justice” question – and strain community health initiatives like Centre Volunteers in Medicine. That’s the opposite of what good governance is supposed to accomplish, and should raise doubts as to whether the current board members – who are appointed by the State College Borough Council – should continue in their roles once their terms are ended.
Ultimately, the SCBWA decided against existing scientific consensus, their community, local dentists and medical professionals, public health and regulatory agencies, and the committed community health activists who will now struggle to pick up the slack. They did so with no clear plan to manage the negative impact of their decision. Although it may be comforting for those that voted “yes” to believe those with concerns are simply individuals outside their service area, they’re not – and the people that will bear the consequences of their decision are the people drinking our local water.