On the Governor's Commission of Fluoridation in the '70s, "we concluded that the claims that fluoride is allergenic, mutagenic or carcinogenic are not supported by the preponderance of available scientific data," the writer says. (Mackenzie Lad/The Associated Press)

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

The article by Peter M. Leschak, “Fluoride: It’s in the water — and in the news,” (Nov. 10) was worrisome. I am reminded of my appointment to the Governor’s Commission on Fluoridation by Minnesota Gov. Rudy Perpich with University of Minnesota pharmacology professor M.W. Anders and Mitchell Hamline School of Law professor Michael K. Steensen (chairman) and the intense effort by us to determine the veracity of unsupported challenges to the safety of fluoridating municipal water supplies.

The 1967 law enforced fluoridation in our state and regulations were enacted statewide in 1969 that municipal water supplies would contain an average concentration of fluoride at 1.2 milligrams per liter. The community of Brainerd fought against this law to fluoridate its city water supplies, but in Minnesota State Board of Health v. City of Brainerd 308 Minn. 24, 241 N.W. 2d 624 (1976), the Minnesota Supreme Court found the fluoridation law to be constitutional.

Our commission was entrusted to provide an in-depth conclusion of the safety of this practice in fact endorsed by the World Health Organization as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Dental Association.

Our exhaustive two-year evaluation of the body of fluoridation research in scientific literature culminated in a two-day open hearing of the naysayers both local and international, and the predominant scientific community. Our commission concluded (1) that that the available evidence did not suggest that fluoride (1 mg/liter) was a causal factor in human cancer, (2) that the available data did not incriminate fluoride as a causative factor in increasing the incidence of Down syndrome, and (3) that no persuasive evidence supporting an association between the ingestion of drinking water containing 1 mg/liter fluoride and allergic symptoms or intolerance was presented to the commission and, at best, the evidence appeared anecdotal or uncontrolled.

I cannot see anyone profiting since the advent of fluoridation. The cost per individual averages 64 cents annually and is unequivocally safe, effective and necessary in preventing tooth decay. Just think about the savings per capita in decreasing dental visits for both adults and children. At a more mundane level, those opposed to mandated fluoridated community water can choose alternatives like readily available distilled water, non-fluoride containing toothpaste or voluntary topical fluoride treatments.

We concluded that the claims that fluoride is allergenic, mutagenic or carcinogenic are not supported by the preponderance of available scientific data. I suggest the author examine his own tube of toothpaste more carefully. My tube of Pepsodent Complete Care Anticavity Fluoride Toothpaste warns to keep a tube “out of reach of children,” but adds, “If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help.”

I am surprised we have surrendered once again to a national conspiratorial animus. Leschak’s article brings to mind the unsubstantiated fearmongering our commission faced as well as a character’s warning in the 1964 film “Dr. Strangelove” of a “Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.” In Gen. Jack D. Ripper’s words, “Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face.” My gosh, what’s next? Putting fluoride into children’s ice cream?

Dr. Peter Dorsen was a member of the Governor’s Commission on Fluoridation, the report of which was released Feb. 26, 1979 (see tinyurl.com/mn-fluoride). He is the author of “Men Over 60: Don’t Quit Now!” and other books.