Fluoridation Revisited by Murray N. Rothbard

Fluoridation=20 Revisited

by Murray=20 N. Rothbard
by Murray = N.=20 Rothbard

This essay originally = appeared=20 in the January 1993 issue of The=20 Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

Yes,=20 I confess: I'm a veteran anti-fluoridationist, thereby =96 = not for the=20 first time =96 risking placing myself in the camp of = "right-wing kooks=20 and fanatics." It has always been a bit of mystery to me why = left-environmentalists, who shriek in horror at a bit of = Alar on=20 apples, who cry "cancer" even more absurdly than the boy = cried=20 "Wolf," who hate every chemical additive known to man, still = cast=20 their benign approval upon fluoride, a highly toxic and = probably=20 carcinogenic substance. And not only let fluoride emissions = off the=20 hook, but endorse uncritically the massive and continuing = dumping of=20 fluoride into the nation's water supply.

First: the = generalized case for=20 and against fluoridation of water. The case for is almost = incredibly=20 thin, boiling down to the alleged fact of substantial = reductions in=20 dental cavities in kids aged 5 to 9. Period. There are no = claimed=20 benefits for anyone older than nine! For this the entire = adult=20 population of a fluoridated area must be subjected to mass=20 medication!

The=20 case against, even apart from the specific evils of = fluoride, is=20 powerful and overwhelming.

(1)=20 Compulsory mass medication is medically evil, as well as=20 socialistic. It is starkly clear that one key to any = medication is=20 control of the dose; different people, at different = stages of=20 risk, need individual dosages tailored to their needs. And = yet with=20 water compulsorily fluoridated, the dose applies to = everyone, and is=20 necessarily proportionate to the amount of water one=20 drinks.

What=20 is the medical justification for a guy who drinks ten = glasses of=20 water a day receiving ten times the fluorine dose of a guy = who=20 drinks only one glass? The whole process is monstrous as = well as=20 idiotic.

(2)=20 Adults, in fact children over nine, get no benefits from = their=20 compulsory medication, yet they imbibe fluorides = proportionately to=20 their water intake.

(3)=20 Studies have shown that while kids 5 to 9 may have their = cavities=20 reduced by fluoridation, said kids ages 9 to 12 have = more=20 cavities, so that after 12 the cavity benefits disappear. So = that,=20 at best, the question boils down to: are we to = subject=20 ourselves to the possible dangers of fluoridation = solely to=20 save dentists the irritation of dealing with squirming kids = aged 5=20 to 9?

(4)=20 Any parents who want to give their kids the dubious benefits = of=20 fluoridation can do so individually: by giving their = kids=20 fluoride pills, with doses regulated instead of haphazardly=20 proportionate to the kids' thirst; and/or, as we all know, = they can=20 brush their teeth with fluoride-added toothpaste. How about = freedom=20 of individual choice?

(5)=20 Let us not omit the long-suffering taxpayer, who has to pay = for the=20 hundreds of thousands of tons of fluorides poured into the = nation's=20 socialized water supply every year. The days of private = water=20 companies, once flourishing in the U.S., are long gone, = although the=20 market, in recent years, has popped up in the form of = increasingly=20 popular private bottled water even though far more expensive = than=20 socialized free water.

Nothing loony or = kooky about=20 any of these arguments, is there? So much for the general = case pro=20 and con fluoridation. When we get to the specific ills of=20 fluoridation, the case against becomes even more = overpowering, as=20 well as grisly.

During the 1940s and = 50s, when=20 the successful push for fluoridation was underway, the = pro-forces=20 touted the controlled experiment of Newburgh and Kingston, = two=20 neighboring small cities in upstate New York, with much the = same=20 demographics. Newburgh had been fluoridated and Kingston had = not,=20 and the powerful pro-fluoridation Establishment trumpeted = the fact=20 that ten years later, dental cavities in kids 5 to 9 in = Newburgh=20 were considerably lower than in Kingston (originally, the = rates of=20 every disease had been about the same in the two places). = OK, but=20 the antis raised the disquieting fact that, after ten years, = both=20 the cancer and the heart disease rates were now = significantly higher=20 in Newburgh. How did the Establishment treat this criticism? = By=20 dismissing it as irrelevant, as kooky scare tactics.=20 Oh?

Why=20 were these and later problems and charges ignored and = overridden,=20 and why the rush to judgment to inflict fluoridation on = America? Who=20 was behind this drive, and how did the opponents acquire the = "right-wing kook" image?

THE DRIVE FOR = FLUORIDATION=20

The=20 official drive began abruptly just before the end of World = War II,=20 pushed by the U.S. Public Health Service, then in the = Treasury=20 Department. In 1945, the federal government selected two = Michigan=20 cities to conduct an official "15-year" study; one city, = Grand=20 Rapids, was fluoridated, a control city was left = unfluoridated. (I=20 am indebted to a recent revisionist article on fluoridation = by the=20 medical writer Joel Griffiths, in the left-wing muckraking = journal=20 Covert Action Information Bulletin: "Fluoride: Commie = Plot or=20 Capitalist Ploy?" [Fall 1992], pp. 26=9628, 63=9666.) Yet, = before five=20 years were up, the government killed its own "scientific = study," by=20 fluoridating the water in the second city in Michigan. Why? = Under=20 the excuse that its action was caused by "popular demand" = for=20 fluoridation; as we shall see, the "popular demand" was = generated by=20 the government and the Establishment itself. Indeed, as = early as=20 1946, under the federal campaign, six American cities = fluoridated=20 their water, and 87 more joined the bandwagon by = 1950.

A=20 key figure in the successful drive for fluoridation was = Oscar R.=20 Ewing, who was appointed by President Truman in 1947 as head = of the=20 Federal Security Agency, which encompassed the Public Health = Service=20 (PHS), and which later blossomed into our beloved Cabinet = office of=20 Health, Education, and Welfare. One reason for the left's = backing of=20 fluoridation =96 in addition to its being socialized = medicine and mass=20 medication, for them a good in itself =96 was that Ewing was = a=20 certified Truman Fair Dealer and leftist, and avowed = proponent of=20 socialized medicine, a high official in the then-powerful = Americans=20 for Democratic Action, the nation's central organization of=20 "anti-Communist liberals" (read: Social Democrats or = Mensheviks).=20 Ewing mobilized not only the respectable left but also the=20 Establishment Center. The powerful drive for compulsory = fluoridation=20 was spearheaded by the PHS, which soon mobilized the = nation's=20 establishment organizations of dentists and = physicians.

The=20 mobilization, the national clamor for fluoridation, and the = stamping=20 of opponents with the right-wing kook image, was all = generated by=20 the public relations man hired by Oscar Ewing to direct the = drive.=20 For Ewing hired none other than Edward L. Bernays, the man = with the=20 dubious honor of being called the "father of public = relations."=20 Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, was called "The = Original Spin=20 Doctor" in an admiring article in the Washington Post = on the=20 occasion of the old manipulator's 100th birthday in late = 1991. The=20 fact that right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society = correctly=20 called fluoridation "creeping socialism" and blamed Soviet = Communism=20 as the source of the fluoridation campaign (no, not=20 Bolsheviks, guys: but a Menshevik-State Capitalist = alliance,=20 see below) was used by the Bernaysians to discredit all the=20 opposition.

As a=20 retrospective scientific article pointed out about the = fluoridation=20 movement, one of its widely distributed dossiers listed = opponents of=20 fluoridation "in alphabetical order reputable scientists, = convicted=20 felons, food faddists, scientific organizations, and the Ku = Klux=20 Klan." (Bette Hileman, "Fluoridation of Water," Chemical = and=20 Engineering News 66 [August 1, 1988], p. 37; quoted in=20 Griffiths, p. 63) In his 1928 book P= ropaganda,=20 Bernays laid bare the devices he would use: Speaking of the=20 "mechanism which controls the public mind," which people = like=20 himself could manipulate, Bernays added that "Those who = manipulate=20 the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible = government=20 which is the true ruling power of our country...our minds = are=20 molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by = men we=20 have never heard of..." And the process of manipulating = leaders of=20 groups, "either with or without their conscious = cooperation," will=20 "automatically influence" the members of such = groups.

In=20 describing his practices as PR man for Beech-Nut Bacon, = Bernays=20 tells how he would suggest to physicians to say publicly = that "it is=20 wholesome to eat bacon." For, Bernays added, he "knows as a=20 mathematical certainty that large numbers of persons will = follow the=20 advice of their doctors because he (the PR man) understands = the=20 psychological relationship of dependence of men on their=20 physicians." (Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda [New = York:=20 Liveright, 1928], pp. 9, 18, 49, 53. Quoted in Griffiths, = p.63) Add=20 "dentists" to the equation, and substitute "fluoride" for = "bacon,"=20 and we have the essence of the Bernays propaganda=20 campaign.

Before the Bernays = campaign,=20 fluoride was largely known in the public mind as the chief=20 ingredient of bug and rat poison; after the campaign, it was = widely=20 hailed as a safe provider of healthy teeth and gleaming=20 smiles.

After the 1950s, it = was all=20 mopping up =96 the fluoridation forces had triumphed, and = two-thirds=20 of the nation's reservoirs were fluoridated. There are still = benighted areas of the country left however (California is = less than=20 16 percent fluoridated) and the goal of the federal = government and=20 its PHS remains as "universal fluoridation."

DOUBTS CUMULATE=20

Despite the = blitzkrieg victory,=20 however, doubts have surfaced and gathered in the scientific = community. Fluoride is a non-biodegradable substance, which, = in=20 people, accumulates in teeth and bone =96 perhaps = strengthening=20 kiddies' teeth; but what about human bones? Two crucial bone = problems of fluorides =96 brittleness and cancer =96 began = to appear in=20 studies, only to be systematically blocked by governmental = agencies.=20 As early as 1956, a federal study found nearly twice as many = premalignant bone defects in young males in Newbergh as in=20 unfluoridated Kingston; but this finding was quickly = dismissed as=20 "spurious."

Oddly enough, despite = the 1956=20 study and carcinogenic evidence popping up since the 1940s, = the=20 federal government never conducted its own beloved animal=20 carcinogenicity test on fluorides. Finally, in 1975, = biochemist John=20 Yiamouyiannis and Dean Berk, a retired official of the = federal=20 government's own National Cancer Institute (NCI), presented = a paper=20 before the annual meeting of the American Society of = Biological=20 Chemists. The paper reported a 5 to 10 percent increase in = total=20 cancer rates in those U.S. cities which had fluoridated = their water.=20 The findings were disputed, but triggered congressional = hearings two=20 years later, where the government revealed to shocked = Congressmen=20 that it had never tested fluoride for cancer. Congress = ordered the=20 NCI to conduct such tests.

Talk=20 about foot-dragging! Incredibly, it took the NCI twelve = years to=20 finish its tests, finding "equivocal evidence" that fluoride = caused=20 bone cancer in male rats. Under further direction of = Congress, the=20 NCI studied cancer trends in the U.S., and found nationwide = evidence=20 of "a rising rate of bone and joint cancer at all ages," = especially=20 in youth, in counties that had fluoridated their water, but = no such=20 rise was seen in "non-fluoridated" counties.

In=20 more detailed studies, for areas of Washington state and = Iowa, NCI=20 found that from the 1970s to the 1980s bone cancer for males = under=20 20 had increased by 70 percent in the fluoridated areas of = these=20 states, but had decreased by 4 percent in the = non-fluoridated=20 areas. Sounds pretty conclusive to me, but the NCI set some = fancy=20 statisticians to work on the data, to conclude that these = findings,=20 too, were "spurious." Dispute over this report drove the = federal=20 government to one of its favorite ploys in virtually every = area: the=20 allegedly expert, bipartisan, "value-free" = commission.

The=20 government had already done the commission bit in 1983, when = disturbing studies on fluoridation drove our old friend the = PHS to=20 form a commission of "world-class experts" to review safety = data on=20 fluorides in water. Interestingly, the panel found to its = grave=20 concern that most of the alleged evidence of fluoride's = safety=20 scarcely existed. The 1983 panel recommended caution on = fluoride=20 exposure for children. Interestingly, the panel strongly = recommended=20 that the fluoride content of drinking water be no greater = than two=20 parts per million for children up to nine, because of = worries about=20 the fluoride effect on children's skeletons, and potential = heart=20 damage.

The=20 chairman of the panel, Jay R. Shapiro of the National = Institute of=20 Health, warned the members, however, that the PHS might = "modify" the=20 findings, since "the report deals with sensitive political = issues."=20 Sure enough, when Surgeon General Everett Koop released the = official=20 report a month later, the federal government had thrown out = the=20 panel's most important conclusions and recommendations, = without=20 consulting the panel. Indeed, the panel never received = copies of the=20 final, doctored, version. The government's alterations were = all in a=20 pro-fluoride direction, claiming that there was no = "scientific=20 documentation" of any problems at fluoride levels below 8 = parts per=20 million.

In=20 addition to the bone cancer studies for the late 1980s, = evidence is=20 piling up that fluorides lead to bone fractures. In the past = two=20 years, no less than eight epidemiological studies have = indicated the=20 fluoridation has increased the rate of bone fractures in = males and=20 females of all ages. Indeed, since 1957, the bone fracture = rate=20 among male youth has increased sharply in the United States, = and the=20 U.S. hip fracture rate is now the highest in the world. In = fact, a=20 study in the traditionally pro-fluoride Journal of the = American=20 Medical Association (JAMA), August 12, 1992, = found that=20 even "low levels of fluoride may increase the risk of hip = fracture=20 in the elderly." JAMA concluded that "it is now = appropriate=20 to revisit the issue of water fluoridation."

Clearly, it was high = time for=20 another federal commission. During 1990=9691, a new = commission,=20 chaired by veteran PHS official and long-time = pro-fluoridationist=20 Frank E. Young, predictably concluded that "no evidence" was = found=20 associating fluoride and cancer. On bone fractures, the = commission=20 blandly stated that "further studies are required." But no = further=20 studies or soul-searching were needed for its conclusion: = "The U.S.=20 Public Health Service should continue to support optimal=20 fluoridation of drinking water." Presumably, they did not = conclude=20 that "optimal" meant zero.

Despite the Young = whitewash,=20 doubts are piling up even within the federal government. = James Huff,=20 a director of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental = Health=20 Sciences, concluded in 1992 that animals in the government's = study=20 developed cancer, especially bone cancer from being given = fluoride =96=20 and there was nothing "equivocal" about his = conclusion.

Various scientists = for the=20 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have turned to=20 anti-fluoridation toxicologist William Marcus's warning that = fluoride causes not just cancer, but also bone fractures, = arthritis,=20 and other disease. Marcus mentions, too, that an unreleased = study by=20 the New Jersey Health Department (a state where only 15 = percent of=20 the population is fluoridated) shows that the bone cancer = rate among=20 young males is no less than six times higher in fluoridated = than in=20 non-fluoridated areas.

Even=20 coming into question is the long-sacred idea that = fluoridated water=20 at least lowers cavities in children five to nine. Various = top=20 pro-fluoridationists highly touted for their expertise were = suddenly=20 and bitterly condemned when further study led them to the = conclusion=20 that the dental benefits are really negligible. New = Zealand's most=20 prominent pro-fluoridationist was the country's top dental = officer,=20 Dr. John Colquhoun.

As=20 chairman of the Fluoridation Promotion Committee, Colquhoun = decided=20 to gather statistics to show doubters the great merits of=20 fluoridation. To his shock, he found that the percentage of = children=20 free of dental decay was higher in the = non-fluoridated part=20 than in the fluoridated part of New Zealand. The national = health=20 department refused to allow Colquhoun to publish these = findings, and=20 kicked him out as dental director. Similarly, a top=20 pro-fluoridationist in British Columbia, Canada, Richard G. = Foulkes,=20 concluded that fluoridation is not only dangerous, but that = it is=20 not even effective in reducing tooth decay. Foulkes was = denounced by=20 former colleagues as a propagandist "promoting the quackery = of=20 anti-fluoridationists."

WHY THE = FLUORIDATION DRIVE?=20

Since the case for = compulsory=20 fluoridation is so flimsy, and the case against so = overwhelming, the=20 final step is to ask: why? Why did the Public Health Service = get=20 involved in the first place? How did this thing get started? = Here we=20 must keep our eye on the pivotal role of Oscar R. Ewing, for = Ewing=20 was far more than just a social democrat Fair = Dealer.

Fluoride has long = been=20 recognized as one of the most toxic elements found in the = earth's=20 crust. Fluorides are by-products of many industrial = processes, being=20 emitted in the air and water, and probably the major source = of this=20 by-product is the aluminum industry. By the 1920s and 1930s, = fluorine was increasingly being subject to lawsuits and = regulations.=20 In particular, by 1938 the important, relatively new = aluminum=20 industry was being placed on a wartime footing. What to do = if its=20 major by-product is a dangerous poison?

The=20 time had come for damage control; even better, to reverse = the public=20 image of this menacing substance. The Public Health Service, = remember was under the jurisdiction of the Treasury = Department, and=20 treasury secretary all during the 1920s and until 1931 was = none=20 other than billionaire Andrew J. Mellon, founder and head of = the=20 powerful Mellon interests, "Mr. Pittsburgh," and founder and = virtual=20 ruler of the Aluminum Corporation of America (ALCOA), the = dominant=20 firm in the aluminum industry.

In=20 1931, the PHS sent a dentist named H. Trendley Dean to the = West to=20 study the effects of concentrations of naturally fluoridated = water=20 on people's teeth. Dean found that towns high in natural = fluoride=20 seemed to have fewer cavities. This news galvanized various = Mellon=20 scientists into action. In particular, the Mellon Institute, = ALCOA's=20 research lab in Pittsburgh, sponsored a study in which = biochemist=20 Gerald J. Cox fluoridated some lab rats, decided that = cavities in=20 those rats had been reduced and immediately concluded that = "the case=20 (that fluoride reduces cavities) should be regarded as = proved."=20 Instant science!

The=20 following year, 1939, Cox, the ALCOA scientist working for a = company=20 beset by fluoride damage claims, made the first public = proposal for=20 mandatory fluoridation of water. Cox proceeded to stump the = country=20 urging fluoridation. Meanwhile, other ALCOA-funded = scientists=20 trumpeted the alleged safety of fluorides, in particular the = Kettering Laboratory of the University of = Cincinnati.

During World War II, = damage=20 claims for fluoride emissions piled up as expected, in = proportion to=20 the great expansion of aluminum production during the war. = But=20 attention from these claims was diverted, when, just before = the end=20 of the war, the PHS began to push hard for compulsory = fluoridation=20 of water. Thus the drive for compulsory fluoridation of = water=20 accomplished two goals in one shot: it transformed the image = of=20 fluorine from a curse to a blessing that will strengthen = every kid's=20 teeth, and it provided a steady and substantial monetary = demand for=20 fluorides to dump annually into the nation's = water.

One=20 interesting footnote to this story is that whereas fluorine = in=20 naturally fluoridated water comes in the form of = calcium=20 fluoride, the substance dumped into every locality is = instead=20 sodium fluoride. The Establishment defense that = "fluoride is=20 fluoride" becomes unconvincing when we consider two points: = (a)=20 calcium is notoriously good for bones and teeth, so the = anti-cavity=20 effect in naturally fluoridated water might well be due to = the=20 calcium and not the fluorine; and (b) sodium fluoride = happens to be=20 the major by-product of the manufacture of = aluminum.

Which brings us to = Oscar R.=20 Ewing. Ewing arrived in Washington in 1946, shortly after = the=20 initial PHS push began, arriving there as long-time counsel, = now=20 chief counsel, for ALCOA, making what was then an = astronomical legal=20 fee of $750,000 a year (something like $7,000,000 a year in = present=20 dollars). A year later, Ewing took charge of the Federal = Security=20 Agency, which included the PHS, and waged the successful = national=20 drive for water fluoridation. After a few years, having = succeeded in=20 his campaign, Ewing stepped down from public service, and = returned=20 to private life, including his chief counselship of the = Aluminum=20 Corporation of America.

There is an = instructive lesson=20 in this little saga, a lesson how and why the Welfare State = came to=20 America. It came as an alliance of three major forces: = ideological=20 social democrats, ambitious technocratic bureaucrats, and = Big=20 Businessmen seeking privileges from the State. In the = fluoridation=20 saga, we might call the whole process "ALCOA-socialism." The = Welfare=20 State redounds to the welfare not of most of society but of = these=20 particular venal and exploitative groups.

Ed.: See also, = from 2005,=20 Fluoride=20 Follies by Donald W. Miller, MD. =

This=20 essay is included, with many others, in the Lew=20 Rockwell-edited Irrepressible=20 Rothbard

Buy=20 = it

Murray N.=20 Rothbard (1926=961995) was the author of M= an,=20 Economy, and State, C= onceived=20 in Liberty, W= hat=20 Has Government Done to Our Money, For a = New=20 Liberty, T= he=20 Case Against the Fed, and many other books = and=20 articles. He was also = the editor=20 =96 with Lew Rockwell =96 of The=20 Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

Murray=20 Rothbard Archives=20 =