Fluoride issue biting Davis

One would think that after a year of fluoride flowing through Davis County's culinary water supply, most folks would have concluded that the cavity-fighting mineral wasn't the bogeyman it was purported to be.

But, even before the health benefits of fluoridation can be fully realized, some people in Davis County have proposed turning off the tap. On Tuesday, the Davis County Commission voted to — once again — place the issue before voters in 2004.

A slim majority of voters approved fluoridation in 2000 and the mineral was added to the water two years later. Costs were higher than estimates, which understandably angered some residents. But removing the fluoridation systems at this juncture would save no money because the bills for the equipment would continue to come due at the Weber Basin Water District whether fluoride is coursing through the culinary water system or not.

So why pursue the issue further?

In 2003, the Utah Legislature gave counties the option for countywide referenda to disallow fluoride in their water. The Legislature, wisely, left this issue to each county but did not require that they conduct another vote.

But since the Davis County Commission has voted to again place this issue before voters, it is critical that the commission follow the legislation to the letter. That means the question needs to be countywide — no exceptions.

The Deseret Morning News has long supported the fluoridation of public water supplies because of the known health benefits and the low cost of this important public health measure. Unfortunately, the public health benefits of fluoridation often are lost in the contentious debate over the issue. Another election will only fuel the fearmongering and misinformation about a naturally occurring element that has been safely added to culinary water across the country for decades.

We hope Davis County residents' short experience with water fluoridation will convince them that the science behind this issue is sound. Such issues should be guided by the best scientific information available, not politics.

Ensuring the success of this important public health initiative would seem to serve a higher purpose than placating the wishes of fluoridation opponents who refuse to accept the outcome of the 2000 vote in favor of fluoridating the water.