The fluoridation of public water supplies to improve dental health is often cited as an example of an ‘intractable controversy’ in public health, reflecting deeply held principles about rights and the public sphere. This article examines legal mobilization to pre- vent fluoridation in Britain, from the first pilot studies in the mid-1950s through to McColl v. Strathclyde in 1983 and the subsequent Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985. I argue that efforts to evade the objections of anti-fluoridationists helped to create an ambiguous legal position from the outset, generating an opportunity for campaigners to use the law to stop fluoridation schemes. I show that, despite there being no decisive legal judgments in their favour, the legal campaigns of anti-fluoridationists were remarkably successful in terms of their indirect effects. Finally, building on recent work that highlights legal mobilization by conservative causes, this historical case study offers insight into the rights claims of a politically diverse populist movement.
Janet Weston (Tue,) studied this question.