Another excellent letter in The Oregonian

Published in today’s Oregonian:

“Of the many, many rebuttal points I could give to Susan Nielsen’s opinion piece on fluoridating Oregon’s water (“More than just a pretty smile,” Jan. 21), I offer this one: The American Dental Association itself now warns that parents of infants 12 months or younger should avoid using fluoridated water to make baby formula.

Sadly, the vast majority of infants are bottle-fed before the age of 1. Does Nielsen, whose opinion is that non-fluoridation unfairly penalizes the poor, think that our less fortunate citizens should be expected to buy bottled water to prepare all that formula?

Both sides of the fluoride argument want Americans to have healthy teeth. Those against forced fluoridation also add that they want a solution that keeps the rest of the body, and the environment, healthy too. Stop the endless, expensive arguing and find an answer that both sides can agree on.”

Writing Letters to the Editor and getting them published takes talent and skill. Writing letters that make readers think, “Wow, good point!” rather than “Why on earth did they even publish this drivel?” is even more difficult. This letter exemplifies the art. The writer makes one great point, which I can’t see that any reasonable person would disagree with. She gives verifiable facts – that the Amercian Dental Association advises against babies drinking fluoridated water, and that the majority of babies are fed formula. [I just checked – correct on the ADA recommendation. Correct on the statistics for breastfeeding – the Centers for Disease Control cite the prevalence of infants breastfed at 6 months is 18.5% and at 12 months is 14.2%]. The author cites The Oregonian‘s article, and alludes to more arguments against fluoridation, in the opening. She calls for action in the last paragraph – for a solution that meets broader needs. I’m impressed.

[Update 2/1/07: I love being ahead of the game with my blog posts! The Oregonian carries a full report today on the debate on fluoridation at the Legislature. And not only that, but Senator Alan Bates, a doctor, is quoted saying, “A better option is to reform health care, and part of that reform is better dental care for everyone in Oregon.” I especially love it when people whose opinion I respect agree with me – see below.]

On the issue of fluoridation:

I’m the daughter of a member of the first class of Dental Hygenists trained in England. I understand and agree that supplemental fluoride makes for stronger teeth and fewer cavities. But some people are allergic to fluoride. I just learned that babies of less affluent families may get too much if it’s added to tapwater. And if it’s such a good idea, why target only Portland in state legislation requiring it?

I love our Bull Run water, with almost nothing added, almost nothing taken away. I was impressed when my children were little, that prescriptions for fluoride supplements along with vitamins were part of well-baby checkups, and that all kids in Portland grade schools are offered fluoride tablets with no charge, as part of the daily routine (with parents given opt-out choices if their children receive supplements at home). Providing free supplements and instructions to parents of young children until they are using consistently fluoridated toothpaste is far cheaper than adding it to the water supply, and less damaging to river water quality.

I’d rather see the Legislature focus on providing health care to all Oregon’s children, including dental services, than requiring just Portland to add fluoride to our Bull Run water.