As more municipalities remove fluoride from their water, Peel region councillors are asking why the provincial and federal governments keep pushing fluoridation while leaving ill-equipped municipalities responsible for it.

“If they think it’s so important, that there would be such bad health and medical consequences without fluoride in the drinking water, then why don’t they take responsibility?” asked Brampton and Peel Region Councillor John Sprovieri, following a closed-session workshop where the pros and cons of fluoride were presented. A vote by Peel council on whether to remove fluoride is expected soon, councillors said.

The federal government says fluoridated water is critical to public health, but it leaves responsibility for implementation to lower levels of government.

“The Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada strongly support water fluoridation as a safe and cost effective public health measure to prevent dental decay,” said Eric Morrissette, a spokesperson for both agencies, in an email Monday. “The federal government does not have the authority to impose requirements for fluoride in drinking water in the provinces and territories.”

Ontario Health Minister Eric Hoskins likewise says fluoridated water is crucial.

“Tooth decay is the single most common chronic disease among Canadian children and can lead to a number of other health conditions. Poor oral health is linked to diabetes, heart disease, respiratory conditions, osteoporosis, rheumatoid arthritis and even low birth weight in babies,” he wrote in an email Monday.

“I urge all municipalities to ensure that they continue to protect their communities from avoidable health issues by maintaining fluoride in their drinking water.”

If Peel council drops fluoride, it would follow the lead of other Canadian cities, including Quebec City, Calgary, Waterloo, Windsor and Saint John. Israel imposed a national ban on fluoride in 2014, prompted by concerns over the mass medication of its citizens without consent.

“(The federal and provincial governments) have health ministries, all the experts and scientists on their staff. We don’t,” Sprovieri said Monday. He would like to see fluoride removed, citing a growing body of research suggesting it’s no longer necessary because of all the other ways people now receive fluoride, such as toothpaste, oral washes, cereal and other food.

And despite the increasing number of cities across North America quitting the decades-long practice — to cut costs, because of reports of negative health effects from a range of toxins in industrial fluoride such as bone problems and better ways to get fluoride on teeth — Sprovieri says the argument he and other councillors will use is that it’s an issue beyond the expertise of municipalities. “City councillors should not make this decision. It’s simply not an issue we’re capable of properly debating.”

He and the others on Peel council, who told the Star they’ll vote to have the practice suspended until Ottawa or Queen’s Park mandates it, will face stiff opposition. On Monday, all three Peel mayors — Caledon’s Allan Thompson, Brampton’s Linda Jeffrey and Mississauga’s Bonnie Crombie — released a joint statement in support of fluoridation.

“Regardless of income, education or employment, residents of all backgrounds benefit from access to safe and effective fluoridation in their drinking water,” Crombie stated.

“Removing fluoridation will widen the gap between the rich and poor. It is unacceptable and irresponsible to make life harder for our most vulnerable residents. The very families unable to afford ongoing dental care treatment will have their oral health at risk without fluoridation.”

Asked to comment on Sprovieri and other Peel councillors' theory that if fluoride is such a crucial medical issue, Ottawa or Queen’s Park should be responsible for it, Crombie responded: “In Peel, we have a system that isn’t broken. This is about putting public health before politics.”

The fluoridation debate

Anti-fluoride arguments

Many municipalities use industrial fluoride — a byproduct of various practices such as fertilizer production that can contain other toxins including arsenic — instead of pharmaceutical fluoride. As a result, opponents raise health risks such as bone decay, lowering of thyroid function and neurological damage.

Swallowing fluoride isn’t a very good way of getting it to teeth and with it now contained in cereal, canned fish, tea, wine, many fruits and vegetables, oral rinses, along with toothpaste — not to mention natural fluoride in some water supplies, some recent research suggests fluoridated water has minimal benefits compared to decades ago.

Jurisdictions around the world have dropped fluoride from their water. Here are some, among at least 50, that stopped using it in the last two years: Yoshikawa, Japan; Galway, Ireland; Prince George, B.C.; Southampton, U.K.; Hernando County, Fla.; Kingsville, Ont.

Pro-fluoride arguments

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Health organizations including Health Canada and almost every dental association in the world recommend fluoridation, citing the prevention of tooth decay and other oral health problems.

While proponents of fluoridation concede it can cause toxins to be ingested, they dispute claims that these are in amounts that exceed safe guidelines. There is little scientific evidence that fluoridation poses a risk to people’s health.

Ending fluoridation could force individuals and publicly funded health systems to spend more money treating oral decay and diseases including heart disease, diabetes and osteoporosis. The cost of adding fluoride to the public water supply is a small fraction of that.

Read more about: