For years, the addition of fluoride in drinking water has been hailed as a powerful agent for dental health. But the closer you look, the more cracks appear—making the truth that much harder to swallow. This Article is the first to look objectively at the benefits and risks of water fluoridation following Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. EPA. Notably, the court there held that fluoride poses an unreasonable risk to human health, marking a striking departure from those who, as recently as 2024, have continued to herald water fluoridation as one of the greatest public health interventions of the 20th Century. In light of this decision and new medical research challenging the status quo surrounding artificial water fluoridation, this Article argues that the lack of medical consensus surrounding the practice warrants a fundamental policy shift. It urges state legislators to mandate public voting regarding whether fluoride is artificially added to community water supplies. This proposal contrasts starkly with the current national majority approach, which leaves water fluoridation decisions solely in the hands of local water boards—entities often composed of unelected members. Further, legislatively mandated public voting on water fluoridation aligns with core tenets in both government and medicine. This practice also aligns with two core themes implicated in C.J. Box’s novels: government overreach and individual sovereignty. In our Republic, the people ought to be the ultimate decision-makers. In medicine, people should have a say in decisions capable of impacting their personal health. Simply put, because public voting fosters consent by making people the principal decision-makers concerning their own health, state governments must allow their citizens an opportunity to vote on the now-controversial practice of water fluoridation.
Dick et al. (Thu,) studied this question.