Antifluoridationists persist: the constitutional basis for fluoridation.
The controversy surrounding fluoridation persists. In recent years opponents of fluoridation have resorted to the courts with increasing frequency and have achieved a few victories in the trial courts. To date, however, no appellate court has ruled against fluoridation. This article discusses the constitutional basis for the court decisions upholding fluoridation and the main arguments put forth by the antifluoridationists. Five of the more recent cases are summarized, as is the first fluoridation case to be appealed to the US Supreme Court. The article concludes that the legal validity of fluoridation in the United States has been thoroughly tested in the courts and confirmed. It appears that the antifluoridationists will concentrate their future legal attacks on the "harmful effects" of fluoridation on health and the environment. If they can convince the courts that even a few people were truly harmed, the delicate balance between the rights of the state to fluoridate in order to protect the public's health and the rights of the individual not to be harmed could well shift. In closing, the question is raised whether the US Congress has the power to pass legislation either to mandate or forbid fluoridation.
Block
L E
LE
D002140:California; D005457:Fluoridation; D006806:Human Rights; D006801:Humans; D007087:Illinois; D007603:Jurisprudence; D008910:Minnesota; D012067:Religion; D014481:United States