Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, OFFICE OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for a report on H. R. 2341, a bill to protect the public health from the dangers of fluorination of water. The Department does not treat drinking water with fluoride and so far as it is aware it does not make water so treated available to the public. This Department is not in a position to report on this measure because it does not have the requisite technical knowledge necessary to formulate an opinion concerning the propriety of treating drinking water with fluoride. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there would be no objection to the submission of this report to the committee. Sincerely yours, C. R. Hook, Jr., Deputy Postmaster General. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request of February 4, 1953, for a report on H. R. 2341, a bill to protect the public health from the dangers of fluorination of water. The bill would categorically prohibit Federal, State, or local governmental agencies from treating public water supplies with any fluoride compound and from making water so treated available for use by or on behalf of any such agency. No provision is made with regard to the enforcement of these prohibitions. After some years of careful study and observation, including a review of many independent investigations, the Public Health Service of this Department arrived at the conclusion that the adjustment of the fluoride content of public water supplies is a safe, effective, and economical procedure for the partial prevention of tooth decay. The Service is continuing with its own research, with research carried on by grants to independent groups, and in its observation of separate studies being made by others in order to leave no stone unturned in its vigilance to protect the public health and safety of the people of this country. It is the view of this Department that the decision on whether to fluoridate public water supplies should continue to rest with the local communities. We believe that they are entirely competent to make such decisions and that Federal intervention, either to require or to prohibit fluoridation, would not be justifiable. We therefore recommend that H. R. 2341 not be enacted by the Congress. The Bureau of the Budget advises that it perceives no objection to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, OVETA CULP HOBBY, Secretary. Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington 25 D. C., May 7, 1954. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington 25 D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This will acknowledge your letter of April 20, 1954, requesting the views of the Bureau of the Budget on H. R. 2341, a bill to protect the public health from the dangers of fluorination of water. This bill would make it illegal for Federal, State, or local agencies to treat public water supplies with any fluoride compound and to distribute such water for use by the public. The treatment of water with fluorides has been given extensive study by the Public Health Service and many independent agencies. As a result of these studies the conclusion has been reached that the proper amount of fluoridation of public water supplies is a safe, effective, and economical means for the partial prevention of tooth decay. The principle of fluoridation of potable water supplies as a means of preventing dental caries was endorsed by the house of delegates of the American Dental Association in October 1950, by the governing council of the American Public Health Association in October 1950, by the Surgeon General, Public Health Service in April 1951, and by the American Medical Association in December 1951. Furthermore, the actual adoption of the practice of water fluoridation is, of course, a matter for decision by the local community and should remain so. It is believed that the States are quite competent to make such a decision without Federal intervention. For these reasons, the Bureau of the Budget recommends against the enactment of H. R. 2341. Sincerely yours, DONALD R. BELCHER, The CHAIRMAN. We are beginning hearings this morning on H. R. 2341, a bill which would prohibit the United States Government, the government of the District of Columbia, every State, and every municipality, or other political subdivision of a State, from treating any public water supply with any fluoride compound, or from making any water so treated available for general use in any hospital, post office, military installation, or other installation or institution owned or operated by the United States Government, the government of the District of Columbia, and State, and any municipality or other political subdivision of a State. The first witness this morning will be the Honorable Roy W. Wier, a Member of Congress from Minnesota who introduced the bill by request. STATEMENT OF HON. ROY W. WIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Mr. WIER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as the sponsor of this bill, which was introduced a little over a year ago, my role here this morning and my participation will be very limited, because I know that there are 2 or 3 scheduled to be heard this morning who are very anxious to be heard so that they may get away to attend to other tasks. I am a layman in this field, but the introduction of this bill has been of great interest and concern to me. This is a very controversial bill. I want to assure the committtee of that. During my 6 years here, Mr. Chairman, I have received more mail and communications and material for the bill now before you than on any other subject or issue pending in the Congress during those 6 years. I was tempted this morning to bring over the file of communications that I have received from all corners of this Nation, from people of many walks of life, many conscientious and sincere people; likewise, many people who have spent a long time in the field of medicine. I have proponents for this bill coming from the medical profession; the dental profession; the chemical profession; the engineering profession; and those professions related to this subject. It is not one-sided by any stretch of the imagination, as I think will be brought out here during the process of your hearings. My introduction of this legislation was prompted by a limited number of people in my own community, and then further impetus was given to the controversial nature and justification for this bill when I came to Washington 2 years ago and met with a number of people here in the District who have been in this field for some time. I have been working with a committee in the District of Columbia headed by a Miss Vera Adams, president, and Mr. Claude Palmer, a member of the board of directors. The committee is known as the National Committee Against Fluoridation. They have been advising with me, giving me considerable information, and lending their support to this cause. With all of this information and contacts and my own thinking through, if I could lend any point in my observations as a result of my experience in the past year, I would advise the committee that in my opinion I would feel that the Federal Public Health Service has got a little overzealous in this field and has gone overboard, because this is something that is not to be decided within a period of a month or a year. The results from a long study and research, documented evidence, will be presented to the committee this morning, and in the interest of the American people, I would feel that the Federal Government-and I say Federal Government because here a Federal agency seems to be the center of the sponsorship of fluoridation, and so my criticism would be leveled at the lack of caution with which that agency has moved in this field. I think that will be covered likewise. Mr. Chairman, I know Mr. Ford has to get to Jacksonville, Fla., as soon as he can, and I do not want to take too much time, because you have a long list of very capable and very professional people here. I want to take this occasion, Mr. Chairman, to thank you and the members of the committee, for affording these thousands and thousands of people in the United States an opportunity to be heard and to offer to your committee and the Congress their views, their reactions, and their findings on this most important question of the health of the American people. With that I will close. I will go to my own committee now on the physically handicapped, and again thank you in behalf of all these thousands of people. Before I leave I want to introduce to you the sponsors of this meeting who will take over, and from the proponents' side they have given you a list of the speakers that have been invited to appear here, both as to who they are and as to the position in which they will speak. We would like the proponents to have the first half of the time. The CHAIRMAN. We shall have to determine our procedure. It is our intention to hear the proponents this morning. We may hear some of them this afternoon. We want to make certain that both sides have an opportunity to be heard. We do not know what the situation will be with respect to the House floor, and for that reason I want to make certain that the people who have come a long distance will have an opportunity to be heard. Mr. WIER. That is right, and they paid their own way. I want to introduce the people who will manage the proponents' side of this legislation. First, there is Miss Vera Adams, representing the National Committee Against Fluoridation. Then there is Mr. Claude Palmer, one of the members of the board of directors of the District of Columbia Committee Against Fluoridation, who will rather bear the burden of the management of the proponents of this legislation before the committee. The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, Mr. Wier, for appearing here and for the time you have taken in preparing the list of witnesses you have submitted to us. In order to accommodate our colleague, Mr. Ford, who speaks in opposition, we will hear him at this time. STATEMENT OF HON. GERALD R. FORD, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, initially let me express my appreciation for the opportunity to present my point of view at this time. It is a very great accommodation for me and I appreciate it. Mr. Chairman, I represent the Fifth Congressional District in Michigan, which includes the city of Grand Rapids, a community of 176,000 people, and the city of Grand Haven, Mich., a community of approximately 8,000 people, both of which do have fluoridation at the present time. Grand Rapids, I believe, was in the forefront in this program. According to information provided me, the community has used fluoridation since January 1, 1945. The city of Grand Haven has used fluoridation since October 1952. Another community in my district is Holland, Mich., and although they have not used a similar program to those that exist in Grand Rapids and Grand Haven, they do have some variation of the utilization of fluoridation. I am testifying this morning because in my congressional district, and in particular the communities that I mentioned, there is a very, very strong feeling that we in those communities should have the right to decide for ourselves whether or not we, as a community, should use fluoridation. The program, in our estimation, has been successful in the communities which have used it. There has been in the past 9 years considerable testing conducted in the city of Grand Rapids as a result of this fluoridation program. I have a number of documents here which indicate the alleged success of this program, and I would like to give you some of the alleged results of fluoridation in the city of Grand Rapids. I am now quoting from a paper by Francis A. Arnold, Jr., D. D. S., and Trendley Dean, D. D. S., and John W. Knutson, D. D. S., D. P. H., on the Effect of Fuoridated Public Water Supplies on Dental Caries Prevalence. It is a 7-year study of the situation in Grand Rapids, Mich., which, as I indicated, does have fluoridation, comparing it to Muskegon, Mich., a community which does not have fluoridation. The summary from this paper is as follows, and I will quote from it: The methodology and results after 7 years of the Grand Rapids-Muskegon study have been described. The 1951 results on continuous resident children after 62 years of fluoridation of the Grand Rapids water supply indicate: 1. There has been a reduction in dental caries rates in permanent teeth of Grand Rapids children ranging from 66.6 percent in 6-year-old children to 18.1 percent in the 16-year age group. Similar results have been obtained regarding the deciduous teeth. 2. Similar reductions have not been observed in Muskegon where the water supply remained "fluoride free" until the last 3 months of this study period. 3. This change in dental caries rates at Grand Rapids was also reflected in observations based on objective assessment, that is, a reduction in the number of missing teeth. 4. A comparison of the 1951 caries rates in Grand Rapids with those of Aurora, Ill., shows that, insofar as can be determined to date, the use of a fluoridated water gives the same beneficial effects as does the use of a natural fluoride water of similar concentration. The mention of the city of Aurora, Ill., I think hits the nub of our objection to this legislation. The city of Aurora, Ill., through natural causes, has a certain amount of fluorine in the water they use in that community. We in the city of Grand Rapids and in Grand Haven, by local action, decided that we wanted to have the same advantage that the people in the city of Aurora, Ill., have for our own health. As I understand, this bill, if approved as is, would prevent us, a local community of Michigan, from doing what we want to do ourselves for our own health's sake, based on whatever judgment we as local citizens deem necessary. It is almost incomprehensible to me that a local community would be precluded from making a decision of this sort itself if it, as a community, believes there would be certain advantages from such a program. I think that is the nub of the question. I have a number of communications from reputable dentists in my community. I would not fill the record with those unless the chairman so desires. I do have, however, a communication from the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce which I would like to insert in the record without objection. (Other communications will be filed with the committee.) The CHAIRMAN. You have that privilege. As to the other communications to which you referred, we have received a great many letters, telegrams, and petitions, both for and against this proposed legislation, and it would be impossible to give recognition to all of them in the record, but in order to present the views of your constituents, I think you might make reference to them. Mr. FORD. Thank you very much. GRAND RAPIDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Subject: H. R. 2341, fluoridation of water supplies. Hon. GERALD R. FORD, Jr., United States House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN FORD: The Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce is opposed to the passage of H. R. 2341 which would prohibit fluoridation of drinking water. We believe the author of the bill must have based his bill on much of the same erroneous interpretation of records and unfounded accusations of which this organization has many examples in regard to Grand Rapids. We urge the fullest investigation and opportunity for presentation of evidence in favor of fluoridation and refuting unwarranted, unfounded, and malicious and false reports of adverse effects. The later have included, falsely, increased juvenile delinquency, moral degeneration, heart, brain, respiratory, and circulatory disorders and deaths, and other dreamed-up and trumped-up charges, all of which are disputed by the records. Even abortions were alleged to have increased, which is similarly belied by the records. There seems to be a mass hysteria about the subject which should be dispelled along with the religious and other prejudices in regard to the subject. Michigan and Grand Rapids have a tremendous industrial as well as health stake in this matter. |