Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 106, Issue 6, pp e413–e425 | Cite as

Public perceptions and scientific evidence for perceived harms/risks of community water fluoridation: An examination of online comments pertaining to fluoridation cessation in Calgary in 2011

  • Paulina C. PodgornyEmail author
  • Lindsay McLaren
Systematic Review

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To examine the perceived harms/risks of fluoridation as expressed in online forums relating to cessation and aftermath in Calgary, specifically, 1) which harms/risks are mentioned, 2) for those harms/risks, what kinds of evidence are cited, 3) to what extent is scientific literature cited, and what is its quality, and 4) for a subset of harms/risks, what is known from the broader scientific literature?

METHODS: Relevant online comments were identified through free-text Internet searches, and those explicitly discussing the harms/risks of water fluoridation were extracted. Types of evidence mentioned were identified, and the scientific papers cited were reviewed. Finally, the broader scientific literature on two of the harms/risks was reviewed and synthesized.

SYNTHESIS: We identified 17 distinct groups of harms/risks, which spanned human body systems, the environment and non-human organisms. Most often, no evidence was cited. When evidence was cited, types included individuals viewed as authorities and personal experiences. Reference to scientific articles was rare, and those papers (n = 9) had significant methodological concerns. Our review of scientific literature on fluoride and 1) thyroid functioning and 2) phytoplankton revealed some negative effects of fluoride at concentrations exceeding maximum recommended levels (>1.5 ppm).

CONCLUSION: The findings have implications for communication with the public about fluoridation. First, to the extent that the public consults the scientific literature, it is essential that the methodological limitations of a study, as well as its relevance to community water fluoridation, be widely and promptly communicated. Second, scientific evidence is only one component of why some people support or do not support fluoridation, and communication strategies must accommodate that reality.

Key Words

Fluoridation drinking water safety risk evidence-based practice public health 

Mots Clés

fluoration eau potable sécurité risque pratique fondée sur des éléments probants santé publique 

Résumé

OBJECTIFS: Examiner les dangers et les risques perçus de la fluoration discutés sur les tribunes en ligne portant sur l’arrêt et les répercussions de la fluoration à Calgary, plus précisément: 1) quels dangers et risques on mentionne; 2) pour ces dangers et risques, quels genres de données probantes on cite; 3) la mesure dans laquelle on cite des articles scientifiques, et leur qualité; et 4) pour un sous-ensemble de dangers et de risques, ce que l’on sait d’après la littérature scientifique en général.

Méthode: Nous avons repéré les commentaires en ligne pertinents au moyen de recherches en texte libre sur Internet, et nous en avons extrait ceux qui traitent explicitement des dangers ou des risques de la fluoration de l’eau. Nous avons identifié les types d’éléments probants mentionnés et examiné les communications scientifiques citées. Enfin, nous avons examiné et résumé la littérature scientifique en général sur deux de ces dangers ou risques.

SYNTHÈSE: Nous avons cerné 17 groupes distincts de dangers et de risques pour les systèmes et appareils du corps humain, pour l’environnement et pour les organismes non humains. Le plus souvent, aucune donnée probante n’était citée. Lorsqu’on citait des données probantes, elles pouvaient être attribuées à des personnes considérées comme des autorités ou à des expériences personnelles. Il était rare que l’on fasse référence à des articles scientifiques, et ces articles (n = 9) présentaient des problèmes méthodologiques importants. Notre examen de la littérature scientifique sur le fluorure par rapport 1) au fonctionnement de la thyroïde et 2) au phytoplancton a mis au jour quelques effets néfastes du fluorure à des concentrations supérieures aux niveaux maximum recommandés (>1,5 ppm).

CONCLUSION: Nos constatations ont des conséquences pour la communication avec le public au sujet de la fluoration. Premièrement, dans la mesure où le public consulte la littérature scientifique, il est essentiel que les contraintes méthodologiques d’une étude, ainsi que sa pertinence pour la fluoration municipale de l’eau, soient largement et rapidement communiquées. Deuxièmement, les preuves scientifiques ne sont qu’une des raisons pour lesquelles certaines personnes sont pour ou contre la fluoration, et les stratégies de communication doivent tenir compte de cette réalité.

References

  1. 1.
    Spellman, FR. Mathematics Manual for Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant Operators. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2004; pp.199–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Health Canada. Summary Report on the Findings of the Oral Health Component of the Canadian Health Measures Survey, 2007-2009. Ottawa, ON: Health Canada, 2010.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Featherstone JD. Prevention and reversal of dental caries: Role of low level fluoride. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1999;27(1):31–40. PMID: 10086924. doi: 10.1111/j.l600-0528.1999.tb01989.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wolfe J, Ishaque S, Aung YN. The State of Dental Health in Alberta: A Brief Report. Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta, School of Public Health, 2013.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McLaren L, McIntyre L. Drinking Water Fluoridation in Canada: Review and Synthesis of Published Literature. Prepared for the Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, 2011.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Iheozor-Ejiofor Z, Worthington HV Walsh T, O’Malley L, Clarkson JE, Macey R, et al. Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries (Review). The Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 6.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Understanding public decision-making on community water fluoridation. J Can Dent Assoc 2013;79:d77. PMID: 23763747.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rabb-Waytowich D. Water fluoridation in Canada: Past and present. J Can Dent Assoc 2009;75:451–54. PMID: 19627654.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Levy SM. An update on fluorides and fluorosis. J Can Dent Assoc 2003; 69(5):286–91. PMID: 12734021.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Public Health England (PHE). Water Fluoridation: Health Monitoring Report for England 2014. London: Public Health England, 2014.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carstairs C, Elder R. Expertise, health, and popular opinion: Debating water fluoridation, 1945–80. Can Hist Rev 2008;89(3):345–71. doi: 10.3138/chr.89.3.345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sandman PM. Hazard versus outrage in the public perception of risk. In: Covello VT, McCallum DB, Pavlova MT (Eds), Effective Risk Communication: The Role and Responsibility of Government and Nongovernment Organizations. New York, NY: Plenum, 1989; 45–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    “What’s Calgary drinking?” The Globe & Mail [Toronto, Canada] 17 Feb. 2011: A25. Canadian Periodicals Index Quarterly. Web Available at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/whats-calgary-drinking/article566673/ (Accessed October 29, 2015).
  14. 14.
    "Calgary’s fluoride debate goes public. City committee will decide next move after late-January meeting". CBC News, Posted: 10 Jan. 2011. Available at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-s-fluoride-debate-goes-public-1.1015138 (Accessed October 29, 2015).
  15. 15.
    McLaren L, Emery JCH, McIntyre L. “Debunking falsehoods about fluoride”. Calgary Sun, 6 Feb. 2011.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Choi AL, Sun G, Zhang Y, Grandjean P. Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Health Perspect 2012;120(10):1362–68. PMID: 22820538. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1104912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Duan J, Zhao M, Wang L, Fang D, Wang Y, Wang W. A comparative analysis of the results of multiple tests in patients with chronic industrial fluorosis. Guizhou Med J 1995;18(3):179–80.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gazzano E, Bergandi L, Riganti C, Aldieri E, Doublier S, Costamagna C, et al. Fluoride effects: The two faces of Janus. Curr Med Chem 2010;17(22):2431–41. PMID: 20491635. doi: 10.2174/092986710791698503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grandjean P, Landrigan PJ. Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. Lancet Neurol 2014;13(3):330–38. PMID: 24556010. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70278-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Justus C, Krook LP. Allergy in horses from artificially fluoridated water. Fluoride 2006;39(2):89–94.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sandhu R, Lal H, Kundu ZS, Kharb S. Serum fluoride and sialic acid levels in osteosarcoma. Biol Trace Elem Res 2011;144(1-3):1–5. PMID: 19390788. doi: 10.1007/s12011-009-8382-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sawan RM, Leite GA, Saraiva MC, Barbosa F, Tanus-Santos JE, Gerlach RF. Fluoride increases lead concentrations in whole blood and in calcified tissues from lead-exposed rats. Toxicology 2010;271(1):21–26. PMID: 20188782. doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2010.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Susheela AK, Gupta R, Ganesh K, Brahmankar S, Bhasin S, Gupta G. Effective interventional approach to control anaemia in pregnant women. Curr Sci 2010;98(10):1320–30.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tang QQ, Du J, Ma HH, Jiang SJ, Zhou XJ. Fluoride and children’s intelligence: A meta-analysis. Biol Trace Elem Res 2008;126(1-3):115–20. PMID: 18695947. doi: 10.1007/s12011-008-8204-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Community Health SciencesUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations