EDITORIAL
'Fluoridation' measure at council should die

An "anti-fluoridation" bill up for final reading before the City Council today should be tabled, at least until the community can have a reasonable, open discussion of the idea.

The measure is presented as being a way to control the addition of "medication" in Honolulu's drinking water. But the true effect, if it stood up legally, would be to prohibit the addition of fluoride to the public water supply.

There are passionate arguments on both sides of the fluoridation issue. Efforts to require fluoridation at the state level have failed in part because of determined opposition from those who feel it is a threat to individual health.

We don't doubt the sincerity of the opponents. But fluoridation is a widely accepted practice across the country and even in Hawai'i on military bases. The Centers for Disease Control endorse fluoridation, and it is accepted practice in most major U.S. cities.

It is well-documented that Hawai'i has one of the highest rates of tooth decay in the nation, particularly among young children and lower-income families.

Yes, some of that might be due to our warm weather and year-around consumption of sugary soft drinks. But it is indisputable that a careful fluoridation program would reduce both individual and public costs of dental disease.

The state Health Department says dental care under Medicaid costs local taxpayers more than $10 million a year.

One of the strongest arguments for fluoridation is on the basis of social justice. Families with means can afford to have their children treated with topical applications of fluoride; those who cannot afford it are left to deal with this on their own.

A fair debate on the pros and cons of fluoridation is reasonable. This approach, couched in terms that appear to simply regulate the application of "medication" in our water, does not meet the test of fair debate.

The council should shelve this measure and, if it wishes to take up the issue of fluoridation, do so head-on.