withstanding that these programs have not been concluded, encouragement is being given to hundreds of cities to act now rather than await the conclusion of the programs. Furthermore, and this is most important, no comprehensive study is apparently being made in these pilot programs of the effect of fluoridated drinking water on adults or the aged who may be suffering from impaired kidney function or other chronic diseases. There are those who believe that there may be some hazard but who are frank in admitting that they are willing to take what they call a calculated risk. The following statement of Dr. Francis C. Heyroth, representing the National Research Council ad hoc committee on fluoridation of water supplies, is pertinent in this connection: Question. Is it not true, Doctor, that you can live without sugar, and I suppose, without sodium chloride or salt, but you have got to have water? Dr. HEYROTH. That is right. Question. So if a person in the District of Columbia is suffering from kidney trouble, I think your advice would be not to drink water. Dr. HEYROTH. No, the advice would be to drink some water that comes from a mineral spring that is free from fluorides, which could be done. This man is very sick, you see, and that is a prescription for him. Question. That is what he would have to do he would have to get his water privately elsewhere? Dr. HEYROTH. He would if it can be established that he is going to be sick for the rest of his life, which I doubt very much. He is either going to improve his kidney function and then that question is no longer pertinent, or else he is going to die, and then it is no longer pertinent. Question. Doctor, in your report to the city of Cincinnati dated January 26, 1951, on page 8, you say this: "About 1946, workers of the United States Public Health Service expressed the opinion that fluoridation should not be undertaken until epidemiological data comparable in reliability to those secured in regard to the incidence of caries and mottled enamel had been obtained on the health of old people who had lived for long periods in areas of known high and low fluoride concentrations in the drinking water. Unfortunately, such data have not been provided except to a very limited extent." Is it not important that such data be provided? Dr. HEYROTH. I think it is. I put it in this report for the purpose of stimulating that sort of work. Question. But you did recommend fluoridation? Dr. HEYROTH. Yes, I did recommend fluoridation. You see, we have a calculated risk. Whenever one has to make any decision of this sort-shall we or shall we not put fluorides in water-we have to see what is the risk on both sides. If we put it in, I think the risk of doing any systemic damage to the aged and so on is very, very remote. If we leave it out, we know what the risk is in regard to the dental caries that we are not going to eliminate in children. It is most interesting to note that Dr. Heyroth recommended that the city of Cincinnati fluoridates its water supply notwithstanding his own opinion that there were a number of health questions which had not been answered definitively. Obviously, Dr. Heyroth, and there are others, who are perfectly honestly willing to take this calculated risk because it seems to them to be a slight risk. But there are numerous others, both scientists and laymen, who do not believe that such a risk should be taken with literally millions of people of all ages and varying degrees of health. Particularly do these latter people feel that these risks should not be taken since there is no indication whatever that dental decay, disagreeable though it may be, causes serious 48391-54- -4 impairment to health or shortens life, or that one who suffers from dental decay may infest or injure his neighbors. Similarly, there are others who are willing to take a "calculated risk" with the mottling of teeth frequently caused even by slight additions of a fluoride to drinking water. Thus, a representative of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers stated that: If I had to choose between 10 percent of the community's children having mild mottling and 88 percent of them having extensive caries I would unhesitatingly choose the mottling. And I have no doubt that I speak for all the State health officers in making that choice. For that matter, as a father of two appearanceconscious teen-agers, I have no hesitation in making the same choice. Nor, they assure me, would they. Certainly no one can quarrel with a personal decision of that character. The short answer, nevertheless, is that other parents may feel equally strongly that they would rather take the risk of a few caries in their children's teeth, than the hazard of even slight mottling of their teeth. Gentlemen, this brings up another problem which is of fundamental importance, and that is the rights of an individual in a democracy such as ours. It is perhaps an old-fashioned notion that people, even if they are in a minority, have a right to be let alone. The adherents of this school of thought hold the view that our democratic tradition demands a respect for the privacy of the individual-a respect for the desire of the individual to be let alone even if he is in a minority and notwithstanding that most people may think he is wrong. There are many thousands of people in this country who do not want either themselves or their parents or children to consume a fluoride every day of their lives. They believe that they can protect the teeth of their children in many other ways-by topical fluoridation which presents no danger and which has been strongly endorsed by the Public Health Service; by periodic vists to their dentists; by seeing to it that their children brush their teeth regularly and do not consume large quantities of sweets and carbonated beverages. It is true that the rights of the individual sometimes have to be subjugated to the rights of the majority, particularly where there is danger to health and the possibility of hazard to others. Persons who are not vaccinated may contract smallpox, become disfigured, and die In addition, and even more important, they may infect their neighbors. The impelling concept that the community health must be protected requires that the wishes of the individual, including even those of persons who may suffer some adverse reaction, be submerged and subordinated. Even so, it is a physician who administers the medication and ob serves the patient. Fluoridated water, however, must be consumed by all of us, and without the interposition or supervision of our doc tor or dentist. In addition, we will not infect the community if we do not drink fluoridated water. Those who wish to give their children a fluoride-and they are entitled to hold that opinion-can do so readily by the use of fluoride tablets. The wishes of those who do no desire their children to consume fluorides, and seek to rely on other methods of reducing dental decay, should be equally respected. Another example is the chlorination of public drinking water. W must chlorinate our water to prevent disease and perhaps epidemics Here, again, the rights of the individual must give way to those of the community. In any event, it is interesting to note that chlorine may be removed, by those who so desire, by heating the water, and that chlorine, as distinguished from fluorine, has no physiological effects upon the body. There is no doubt that the fluoridation program constitutes medication, and medication which all of us must accept. The therm "drug” is defined, in part, in section 201 (g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals, and articles intended to affect the structure of any function of the body of man or other animals. Medicine deals with the prevention, cure, and alleviation of disease. A reduction of the incidence of dental disease is the aim of fluoridation. It is safe to say that fluoridation is mass medication without parallel in the history of medicine. An analogy is vaccination, which is designed to prevent smallpox and not to treat persons who are afficted with the disease. I should like to conclude by quoting from the message of the President to the Congress in January of this year. This is what the President said, in part: Freedom, consent, and individual responsibility are fundamentals to our system in the field of medical care. This means that the traditional relationship of the physicians and his patient, and the right of the individual to select freely the manner of his care in illness, must be preserved. I suggest, gentlemen, that the parents of this community and other communities should have the right to have their children treated with fluoridated water or otherwise as they so desire. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions? If not, we thank you, Mr. Kleinfeld, for your appearance. We realize that you have given a great deal of time in the preparation of the statement which you have made to the committee today, and we appreciate having the benefit of it in the consideration of this subject. We thank you. Mr. KLEINFELD. Thank you, sir. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will adjourn until 2 o'clock. (Thereupon, at 12:30 p. m., a recess was taken until 2 p. m. of the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order. Congressman Philbin has called my attention to the fact that Miss Florence Birmingham, president of the Massachusetts Women's Political Club is in the room and that she has an engagement that requires her to leave early, and I will hear from Miss Birmingham at this time. STATEMENT OF MISS FLORENCE BIRMINGHAM, PRESIDENT, MASSACHUSETTS WOMEN'S POLITICAL CLUB, BOSTON, MASS. Miss BIRMINGHAM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am the president of the Massachusetts Women's Political Club, a nonpartisan, nonsectarian organization, representing approximately 50,000 women in that State. For a good many years we have been fighting against fluoridation in the public water supply and, therefore, I have come here to put this organization on record against fluoridation, and in favor of the principle contained in this bill H. R. 2341. I should like to ask unanimous consent that my remarks be extended in the record. The CHAIRMAN. You certainly will have that privilege. I have had handed to me your statement on behalf of the organization that you represent, and while I have not had the opportunity to read it in full, yet I can see you have given a great deal of attention to the study and we appreciate having the benefit of the views that you have expressed. There have been several Members of Congress who have spoken to me with reference to your interest in the subject and I might say to you that when you come here with Congressmen like Philip J. Philbin, who is so outstanding, you are in good company. Miss BIRMINGHAM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Congressman Philbin is an honorary member of our organization. The CHAIRMAN. You are honored in having him represent you. STATEMENT BY MISS FLORENCE BIRMINGHAM, PRESIDENT, MASSACHUSETTS The Massachusetts Women's Political Club is a nonpartisan, nonsectarian organization, dedicated to teaching women the need for good government and educating them how best to use their political power and strength. It is over 30 years old. As its president, I am here to place our organization on record against fluoridation of water supplies and thus in favor of H. R. 2341. For the past several years we have been engaged in fighting fluoridation as a 'threat to our liberty in that it is mass medication "without parallel in the history of medicine." The battle has been long and arduous as the Public Health Department, backed by generous funds allotted to it by the Congress, ias pushed fluoridation with a savage ferocity. When I was appointed trustee of Wrentham State School for Feebleminded Children, I learned there quite by accident that fluorine was used in the water supply. A trustee takes a solemn oath before the Governor and council. Therefore, I felt obligated to study this subject very carefully in order that the children might be protected. Many of them are State wards who have nobody else to look out for their interests. I mentioned my fears to the board of trustees and told them that in our organization we had studied the Menace to Health of Fluorine published by the Univerity of New Mexico in 1938 and knew fluoridation was harmful. The trustees requested me to investigate and inform them of my findings. I studied both sides of the fluoridation issue. It took me a long time to fit the pieces together in the fluoridation scheme at the institution, for information was given most reluctantly. Although the section of the law governing certain powers and duties of trustees states, "All trustees shall have free access to all books, records, and accounts pertaining to their respective State hospitals," I could learn nothing of the fluoridation experiment in progress there. Dr. William D. Wellock, director, division of dental health, of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, referred me to a special report, in reply to my query asking why, of all institutions, schools for the feebleminded children should be chosen. This report of 1945 mentioned Department of Mental Health Institutions. A subsequent report, he said, named Wrentham State School, the Belchertown State School, and the Fernald State School as selected studies for the fluoridation of water supplies in this State. However, this report like so many key documents was out of print, I was told. In the fourth annual conference, State dental directors with the Public Health Service and the Children's Bureau held in the Federal Security Building, Washington, D. C., in June 1951, Dr. John W. Knutson, Chief of Dental Public Health, stated frankly that the Public Health Service did not get around to approving water fluoridation until 5 years later. And yet they imposed this upon the little helpless wards of the State, not only in Massachusetts but in other parts of the Nation such as the State school in Southbury, Conn. In that year studies were begun in selected areas throughout the country, all under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. Dr. Frank Bull, of Wisconsin, in the fourth annual conference explained "Incidentally, we never had any experiments in Wisconsin. To take a city of 100,000 and say, 'We are going to experiment on you, and if you survive we will learn something' that is kind of rough treatment on the public. In Wisconsin, we set up demonstrations. They weren't experiments." In Massachusetts, they were studies. How The trustees voted to halt fluoridation, but to my shocked surprise we were told by the department that it was not an experiment and the fluoridation continues on. And I still knew nothing specific about the setup at the school. ever, I intensified my efforts to awaken the public to the threat to our liberty inherent in the program. Natural water is a right the individual can expect from his municipality. In the use of that right no individual should be obliged to take a preventive medicine, especially when that medicine is a rat poison for which there is no known antidote. Sodium fluoride is made from scrap aluminum. This former waste product is bringing in millions of dollars to the chemical companies and machinery manufacturers. As an American citizen, I was frightened when I saw the "iron curtain" of secrecy surrounding every phase of the fluoridation scheme. All the more so when I found in the files a letter revealing that Dr. Wellock, of the Public Health Department, had come to the institution school and in a conference with administrative officials warned them there should be no publicity on the fluorine program there. In other words, I should not be enlightened. We maintain that if this had been a bona fide ethical and true scientific arrangement, those who instigated fluoridation in the school would not have feared explaining it to the trustees who represent the public. The shroud of secrecy was terrifying to me, especially when it cloaked up an experiment upon feebleminded wards of the State who should have been treated with more scrupulous care, if anything, because of their pathetic condition. Many of these little children live out their lives in the institution and are buried in the graveyard on its grounds with none but the angels to weep for them. Archbishop Richard J. Cushing, of Boston, has said that such little children were put into the world to make us kinder and more gentle, for they are close to the saints. It was not until January 1953 that I learned about the experiment. It came through a book published by the Department of Public Health, called Commonwealth, given to me by a medical doctor who condemns fluoridation. Fluoridation was established in two schools of the feebleminded as a result of studies being carried on in various parts of the country. Wrentham and Belchertown State schools were fluoridated and became the pilot, but Fernald was maintained as the control station-no fluorides being added to the water there. "Similar studies," said the senior sanitary engineer, "have been conducted on a citywide basis at Newburgh, N. Y. with the neighboring city of Kingston serving as a control. In Michigan, Grand Rapids undertook a similar study with Muskegon, the neighbor city, acting as the nonparticipating guide. Over a 6year period a reduction of nearly 50 percent in tooth decay has already been noted among children of Grand Rapids and Newburgh. Dr. Bull of Wisconsin told the dental officers from all over the Nation bluntly that the statistics gathered by the prefluoridation survey among elementary school-an essential step in mining a local propaganda field-are for the only purpose of building up the fluoridation program in any local area. To these dental health directors from all over the country he said, "Now why should we do a prefluoridation survey? Is it to find out if fluoridation works? No. We have told the public it works. So we cannot go back on that." Moreover, in contradiction of the sanitary engineer's statement Grand Rapids was no longer paired off with Muskegon. On page 1500 of the hearings before the special congressional committee investigating fluoridation Dr. Bruce D. Forsyth said, "I believe this. We should continue to go back each year and study Grand Rapids population as we have been doing. We can even go back |