Why all the fuss about fluoride? Who was complaining about our water supply? | Our View

Like radon in our basements and alar in our apples from a few years back, Treasure Coast communities are confronting a “new” potential problem that’s both invisible and poorly understood:

Fluoride in our water supply.

Some, but not all, utility companies in our region have been adding fluoride to water as a common practice. Fluoride is supposed to help prevent tooth decay.

People who brush their teeth and regularly visit a dentist might not need it, but the thinking has been drinking water with small amounts of fluoride could help people who weren’t taking proper care of their teeth.

Until recently, when the thinking changed. Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo’s office issued a warning last year about possible health risks associated with fluoridated drinking water.

Need a break? Play the USA TODAY Daily Crossword Puzzle.

A U.S. District Court in California ruled even small amounts of fluoride — 0.7 milligrams per liter — could carry health risks. According to Ladapo, these include “children reducing IQ, cognitive impairment and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.”

The Stuart City Commission voted swiftly to stop adding fluoride to its tap water, with other local governments following suit or considering similar actions.

Other parts of Martin County are served by providers that weren’t adding fluoride.

Port St. Lucie and St. Lucie West also decided to stop adding fluoride, while Fort Pierce, which also provides water to unincorporated St. Lucie County, is studying the issue.

Drill into the research a little bit

More:Trump, Biden undermine justice with Florida Turnpike killers, Jan. 6 rioters | Editorial

More:Stuart, Martin moms-to-be must travel to Port St. Lucie, Jupiter to deliver? | Our View

Since Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald Trump’s nominee for Health and Human Services secretary, is against fluoridation, it’s likely the discussions about fluoride bans are going to continue in local council and commission chambers for a while.

There’s a “monkey see, monkey do” aspect to what’s happening now. Local governments are in a rush to become part of the anti-fluoridation trend, even though it’s not clear how this issue bubbled to the surface of public consciousness.

If fluoride has potentially harmful effects, it’s certainly reasonable to find out more about what those effects are and if they outweigh the potential benefits.

It’s reminiscent of the vaccine debate from a few years ago, when some saw potentially harmful side effects as reason to avoid getting vaccinated against COVID. Even if catching a severe case of COVID was an even greater risk for certain people.

Scientific discovery is often a balancing act. Scientists do research and find potential health benefits from drinking a couple of glasses of red wine a day. Then, they do some more research and find out there are health risks associated with that habit, too.

Deal in facts, not political talking points

The key is trying to find the right balance. Do the risks truly outweigh the rewards? Snap decisions shouldn’t be based on a single study someone cherry-picked to match a particular set of beliefs.

If scientific consensus shows fluoridation is more bad than good, then the chemical shouldn’t be added to public water supplies.

It doesn’t feel like there’s enough data out there to make such a determination yet. Much more needs to be shared with the public about the studies showing harmful effects — and how they square with earlier ones showing the benefits of fluoridation.

This shouldn’t be about politics. Banning fluoride shouldn’t be done to curry favor with Trump, Gov. Ron DeSantis or anyone else.

This is a public safety matter and should be treated as such.

If fluoride opponents have learned about dangers from the chemical that haven’t been widely known, then they shouldn’t mind sharing the information with others who aren’t “in the know.”

Fluoride bans should be able to stand up to careful scrutiny if they’re about protecting people’s health.

If the bans are being discussed for political reasons, then it’s one of the more cynical endeavors in an age of cynical political endeavors.

It’s one thing to try to render political opponents toothless in a metaphorical sense, but not in a literal one.

So there’s new research available on fluoride? Let’s discuss it in open community forums and decide if that research merits changes to longstanding practices.

After those discussions are over, hopefully, we’ll all still be able to smile and remain friends.

Editorials published by TCPalm/Treasure Coast Newspapers are decided collectively by its editorial board. To respond to this editorial with a letter to the editor, email up to 300 words to TCNLetters@TCPalm.com