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, compar ing 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.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

GRAND RAPIDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
Grand Rapids, Mich., May 22, 1954.

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.

No action should be taken on this bill until the fullest hearings have been held and the facts have publicly demonstrated that this bill should not pass.

Sincerely,

ALEX T. MCFADYEN,
Executive Secretary.

Mr. FORD. There is one point that may conceivably be raised subsequently in this record. The assertion has been made that the vital statistics of Grand Rapids, Mich., show an increased number of deaths from heart disease, intracranial lesions, and nephritis since the program of fluoridation was initiated.

The facts on this particular phase of the controversy are as follows: This statement presents an erroneous implication because it is based on a comparison of 1944 data for the city of Grand Rapids—

which, incidentally, was before the fluoridation program began

with 1948 data for the whole of Kent County in which Grand Rapids is situated. Reliable population data for this area are available from official agencies in Grand Rapids and in the State of Michigan and are based on an intimate knowledge of shifts of population in and out of the city.

Actually, changes in the death rates in Grand Rapids have not been significantly different than for the country as a whole. A claimed increase in the number of deaths from heart disease in 1949 is not a fact but is due to a 1949 revision in the classification in recording deaths.

I think that particular statement is important for the record because I have heard on the floor of the House allegations made that the statistics in Grand Rapids and Kent County prove beyond a question of a doubt that fluoridation resulted in an increased death rate in certain areas.

In closing my statement I would like to reemphasize that our objection to this legislation is that the Federal Government should dictate to us what we as communities can do. If this legislation is enacted as it is, it would preclude us, a community in the United States, from deciding whether or not we want to derive the same benefits that a city like Aurora, Ill., has where they have flourine in their water from natural causes. It should be up to us, a community of 176,000, to make the decision as to whether or not we want to implement our water supplies so that we can get whatever benefits now accrue from natural causes.

I shall be very glad to answer any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions? Mr. Heselton.

Mr. HESELTON. I am sorry I could not be here during all of your statement. Did you indicate when Grand Rapids adopted fluoridation?

Mr. FORD. Grand Rapids started using fluorine in its water supply on January 1, 1945.

Mr. HESELTON. Was that as a result of vote of the city council or the community as a whole?

Mr. FORD. The decision was made by the governing fathers of the community. No effort was made in Grand Rapids to stir up a problem with the electorate. It was purely an administrative decision based on factual data presented to the proper city authorities. We have had no trouble whatsoever in that community as a result of this program being initiated.

Mr. HESELTON. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions? Mr. Priest.

Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Ford, I have approached this legislation with an open mind in an effort to get all the information I can on both sides of the question. I will be particularly interested in the scientific testimony that is to be presented here. You take a position that is inherently a position I usually take, that is, that your community of 175,000, which is about the same size as my community, should have the right to make such a decision without Federal intervention. I could easily see how perhaps a strange interpretation might bring the Federal Government into the field, particularly with reference to water supply for our Federal installations within a city. Other than that, and with the possible exception of a project that might be sponsored by a local public health service cooperating with the Federal Public Health Service, it is difficult for me to see a constitutional basis for Federal Government action in a situation of this sort. Have you given some thought to that phase of it?

Mr. FORD. Mr. Priest, frankly, I have not had an opportunity to thoroughly investigate the constitutionality of this legislation. I would, from my experiences as a lawyer, say there might justifiably be a serious question as to the constitutionality of this proposal. I would, however, leave that up to those who are constitutional lawyers by experience. My prime objection, as I have indicated earlier, is the attempt by the Federal Government to tell the people in our Nation who are mature and who I think are as wise as some of the Federal fathers, what they can or cannot do. I would certainly object to any legislation that would extend the omnipotence of the Federal Government.

Mr. PRIEST. It is largely a question of philosophy rather than constitutionality or legality, and I must say I share that feeling with you in general. I think we do better with a minimum of Federal Government direction rather than a maximum.

Mr. FORD. I might say that it would be most unjustifiable for anyone to allege that responsible city officials in any community would seek to undertake a program that would be harmful and detrimental to the health of the people in that community.

Mr. PRIEST. We have in my own State, although not in the district I represent, a situation similar to what you described in the town of Pulaski, Tenn., the county seat of Giles County, a town of about 6,000 population. The water supply of that town has a natural content of fluorine. I have received some very interesting statistics which I hope to put in the record with reference to a comparison of vital statistics in that town with other nearby towns that do not have that natural supply and have not added any artificial supply. As I expressed to you in the beginning, I am approaching this legislation with an open mind because I have received such positive statements on both sides. of the question.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions? Mr. Springer.

Mr. SPRINGER. May I ask my colleague if he is a lawyer?

Mr. FORD. Yes, I am.

Mr. SPRINGER. I am wondering under what section of the Constitution the proponents are justifying this proposed legislation?

Mr. FORD. I suppose the general welfare provision of the Federal Constitution. Frankly, I have not gone into the constitutionality of

48391-54- -2

this proposed legislation. My firm objection rests on different grounds.

Mr. SPRINGER. There is no doubt that anything that has to do with health is under this committee. The point I am trying to find out is just how you would regulate health. I believe I will yield back, Mr. Chairman, until I look into this further.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions? Mr. Harris.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Ford, is not the basic philosophy behind this legislation that those who propose to use fluorine for this purpose need to be protected from their own misgivings as to what this will do?

Mr. FORD. I think that is true, but let us see if we could carry that philosophy to the ultimate extreme.

Mr. HARRIS. In other words, is not the basic philosophy behind those who are sponsoring this type of legislation, that even if the people of Grand Rapids, Mich., might decide themselves that they want to use it, they do not know what is best for them and the proponents of the legislation know what is best for them and want to protect them from their own ill-advised feeling?

Mr. FORD. I think that quite definitely is the philosophy of the legislation. May I say that if you carry that philosophy to the extreme, however, and if you want to be perfectly honest, you have to add certain words to the legislation. The bill should say that communities shall not be able to treat any public water supply with any fluoride compound, and you must add to that that any community must remove from its water supply any natural fluorines which already exist. Otherwise you are being completely inconsistent. If a community that has fluorine in its water naturally is permited to go along and use that water supply, it is doing something harmful and deleterious to the public just as much as any community that adds fluorine to its water supply. So I think to be perfectly fair and honest if people believe in this philosophy they should also seek to remove as well as prevent the addition of fluorine.

Mr. HARRIS. Do you know whether or not there is a religious background attached to this proposal?

Mr. FORD. Not that I know of.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions? Mr. Pelly.

Mr. PELLY. Regardless of the merits or demerits on a scientific basis, have you had occasion to observe the tendency in our Public Health Service to accomplish by policy and regulation objectives which are beyond their scope?

Mr. FORD. Mr. Pelly, I am not qualified to answer that question. All I know is that in the communities in my district which use this program, I think it was more or less locally sponsored. I know it has been carried on under the supervision of the local public health authorities. I also know that certain observers have come in from the Federal Public Health Service to make checks as to the success or failure of the program, but we instituted the program, we have carried it out, and we like it, and we would not like the Feleral Government telling us that we should not have it.

Mr. PELLY. Do you think it is right that the Public Health Service should stimulate, encourage, and do everything they can to promote local fluoridation as a matter of departmental policy without its being within the realm of the desire of the Congress?