The City’s Current Position on Water Fluoridation

I met the Water System Manager as she graciously agreed to take part in giving me a tour of the water filtration plant located in West Olive, MI. I have edited this post subsequent to the tour.

Regarding the report titled “Fluoride in Drinking Water”, linked at the bottom, here’s my analysis.

Report Statement: “Between 1945 and today, data on fluoridated water has shown there is a significant reduction in cavities.”


  • In 1955, Procter & Gamble’s Crest launched the first clinically proven fluoride-containing toothpaste, and its use became widespread. Today, 90% of toothpaste contains fluoride.
  • The remainder of the statement paragraph goes on to laud the effects of fluoride in the water. But there are clinical studies indicating there is no difference in the number of cavities between fluoridated and non-fluoridated populations ( The linked clinical study indicates to me that it’s the toothpaste, used universally, that has made the improvement.
  • The report goes on to name various levels of government and government agencies that support the theme of the report, namely, ‘fluoride in the water is good’.

Near the end of the report, the first mention is made that there is an alternative viewpoint.

Report Statement: “In spite of the proven benefits of fluoride in drinking water, the debate on the addition of fluoride is longstanding.” And the conclusion that puts the debate to rest once and for all, “To date, the quantitative evidence demonstrates that positive benefits of fluoridated water continue to outweigh any suggested negative impacts.”

Comment: After one of my addresses before the current city commission, I spoke with the mayor. He indicated his viewpoint was that fluoride in the water is a good thing and nothing was going to change. I also spoke with a commissioner after the same meeting, and was informed that since his grandfather had been on the city commission that had originally put the fluoride into the water, his opinion wouldn’t be changed regardless of any information presented.

So I have conclude this report may not have been as comprehensive as the Water Manager wanted to present. I do have strong feelings that the report reflects the attitudes of the current mayor and many if not all of the current city commissioners.

As mayor, it would be my practice to weigh all the facts at hand, and not just succumb to the opinion of a different level of government’s (federal, state, government science agency) recommendation. I would encourage my Department Managers to give me their best assessment of an issue, and we would proceed from there. If the city government is only going to rubber stamp a different level of government’s recommendation, then what purpose does the city government serve?

Read the articles presented elsewhere on my site, then read the report below. Ask yourself which gives more comprehensive information? Which gives you more information to base your opinion on?

This is your chance to vote on an issue that has little middle ground, yet affects everyone in the city, whether they fully understand it or not. Unlike most elections, you have the ability in this one to have your vote create real, positive change in at least one area.

1 Comment

  1. Hey Grand Rapids, you don’t have to spend eternity being embarrassed by admitting to a past mistake. You CAN move on.

    We simply took Lance Armstrong’s name off of everything and that was that. No negative impact whatsoever. Similarly, you could take that statue and scrap it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.