AL FOR IV Statement of-Continued CONTENTS Page Long, Hon. George S., a Representative in Congress from the State of 121 Paluev, K. K., research and development engineer, Pittsfield, Mass.- Porterfield, Dr. John D., vice president, Association of State and Van DeVere, Lillian, president, Citizens' Committee Against Fluorida- 108 Welsh, George W., city manager, Grand Rapids, Mich. 336 Wier, Hon. Roy W., a Representative in Congress from the State of Additional information submitted for the record by- Adams, Mrs. Vera E., some objections to fluoridation_....... Letter from Francis J. Garvey, secretary, council on legislation__ McFarlane and Hoffman v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Black, A. P., head, department of chemistry, University of Florida, 461 Brett, Dr. George J., a comparative study of dentistry in natural 240 Brusch, Dr. Charles A., effect of fluorides on the human body. 147 485 California State Department of Public Health, letter from Dr. Malcolm 485 Citizens' Committee Against Fluoridation, resolution of. 115 Citizens Medical Reference Bureau, Inc., letter from Pierrepont E. 239 Congress of Industrial Organizations, letter from Katherine Pollak Dummett, Dr. Clifton O., letter from, transmitting articles_ Grand Rapids (Mich.) Chamber of Commerce, letter from Alex T. 9 Additional information submitted for the record by-Continued Communities using fluoridated water, 1945–53, chart‒‒‒‒‒ Cancer, United States, Grand Rapids, and Muskegon, Five causes in fluoride and nonfluoride cities, 1949-50--- Page 392 392 392 374 376 Nephritis, United States, Grand Rapids, and Muskegon, 375 Missing teeth per adult, fluoride and nonfluoride communities, 365 Prevalence of abnormal laboratory and dental findings, 1943 and 386 Towns using naturally fluoridated water, chart. 366 Hodge, Harold C., professor of pharmacology and toxicology, Uni- 470 MacWhinnie, Dr. Arthur B., letter from, transmitting statement_ 222 Maxcy, Dr. Kenneth M., professor of epidemiology, the Johns Hop- 462 McQueen, Mrs. Josephine, statement of __ 224 Mick, Dr. Robert J. H., letter from, transmitting information against 124 Nassau County (N. Y.) Medical Society, telegram from Dr. Joseph G. 360 New York State Society of Dentistry for Children, letter from Dr. 361 FLUORIDATION OF WATER TUESDAY, MAY 25, 1954 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a. m., in the committee room, 1334 New House Office Building, the Honorable Charles A. Wolverton (chairman) presiding. (H. R. 2341 and the reports thereon are as follows:) [H. R. 2341, 83d Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To protect the public health from the dangers of fluorination of water Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That no agency of the Government of the United States (including the government of the District of Columbia, and of each Territory and possession of the United States), and no agency of any State, or of any municipality or other political subdivision of a State, shall treat any public water supply with any fluoride compound, or make any water so treated available for general use in any hospital, post office, military installation, or other installation or institution owned or operated by or on behalf of any such agency. GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, EXECUTIVE OFFICES, Washington 4, D. C., April 29, 1954. Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. WOLVERTON: The Commissioners have for report H. R. 2341, 83d Congress, a bill to protect the public health from the dangers of fluorination of water. The bill 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. This report is directed to the harm which, in the light of scientific opinion, would result to the residents of the District of Columbia if the use of sodium fluoride in the water supply of the District were prohibited. It should particularly be noted that while H. R. 2341 purports to be a bill to protect the public health from the dangers of fluorination of water, such dangers appear to be imaginary. The real danger lies in the elimination of flouride from the District's water supply, since it has been estimated by the Director of Public Health of the District that should such action be taken, after a period of 10 years there would be 65 percent more caries in the teeth of the children of the District, and that by the time such children were 40 years of age, 95 percent of them would have lost the majority of their teeth. The loss to the public would be 1 twofold: the cost of increased dental work, and a deterioration of the public health arising from the increase in defective and missing teeth. The May 1953 Journal of the American Dental Association discusses the fluoridation of water in an editorial reading as follows: "Evidence favoring fluoridation continues to mount. "Resolutions passed last month by two of dentistry's leading scientific agencies, decisions made by 2 of the country's larger cities and reports presented by 2 different groups of researchers strengthen the already sound position of proponents of water fluoridation. The Council on Dental Research, April 10, after a reevaluation of evidence, reaffirmed its support of fluoridation as a dental health measure and commended departments of public health for their scientific contributions to the problem of caries control through fluoridation. The Council on Dental Health on April 14 restated its support of fluoridation as a safe anticariogenic measure, pointing out that the volume of accumulated scientific data has established beyond any reasonable doubt both its safety and efficiency. Milwaukee citizens on April 7 by referendum overwhelmingly approved fluoridation, and Cincinnati by an 8 to 1 vote of its city council on April 1 decided similarly. Three researchers from the University of Rochester reported on April 7 that 'if all fluoride in drinking water containing one part per million fluorine were to be deposited in the skeleton, the situation would be perfectly safe.' And lastly, a Yale University School of Medicine scientist again scotched the rumor that fluoridation of water increases the incidence of cancer by reporting to the International Association for Dental Research, March 20, that tumors transplanted into mice developed more slowly if the mice received fluoride. Thus the scientific evidence mounts monthly in favor of fluoridation, leaving to opponents of the process only vapid arguments based either on emotionalism or misinformation." The Commissioners have been informed that the American Medical Association, the American Dental Association, the American Public Health Association, the State and Territorial Health Officers Association, the United States Public Health Service, the National Research Council, and other leading professional and scientific organizations have fully endorsed controlled water fluoridation as an outstanding public health measure. The Commissioners are therefore of the view that the controlled fluoridation of the water supply of the District of Columbia is of benefit to the citizens of the District, and they strongly recommend that the bill not be enacted. The Commissioners have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection on the part of that office to submission of this report to the Congress. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington 25, D. C. MY DEAR MR. WOLVERTON: This is in response to your request for a report from this Department on H. R. 2341, a bill to protect the public health from the dangers of fluorination of water. I recommend that the bill be not enacted. H. R. 2341 would prohibit the treatment of any public water supply with any fluoride compound by any agency of the United States, including the District of Columbia and the Territories and possessions of the United States, or by any agency of any State, including any municipality or other political subdivision thereof. It would prohibit these agencies also from making available any water treated with fluorides for general use in any hospital, post office, military installation, or other installations or institutions owned or operated by or on behalf of any such agency. In connection with the operation of a program for prevention and treatment of dental disease among American Indians, this Department has had occasion to give considerable study to the effect of fluorine in drinking water. It is the |