State races matter, even during a presidential election

It’s not the first time fluoride has been at the center of public debate.

Fluoride alternatives

For those who prefer to avoid fluoride, there are alternatives to consider. But they come with challenges.

Fluoride-free toothpaste is one option, but it is less effective at preventing cavities compared with fluoride-containing products. Calcium-based treatments, like hydroxyapatite toothpaste, are gaining popularity as a fluoride alternative, though research on their effectiveness is still limited.

Diet plays a crucial role too. Cutting back on sugary snacks and drinks can significantly reduce the risk of cavities. Incorporating foods like crunchy vegetables, cheese and yogurt into your diet can help promote oral health by stimulating saliva production and providing essential nutrients that strengthen tooth enamel.

However, these lifestyle changes require consistent effort and education – something not all people or communities have access to.

Community programs like dental sealant initiatives can also help, especially for children. Sealants are thin coatings applied to the chewing surfaces of teeth, preventing decay in high-risk areas. While effective, these programs are more resource-intensive and can’t replicate the broad, passive benefits of water fluoridation.

Ultimately, alternatives exist, but they place a greater burden on people and might not address the needs of the most vulnerable populations.

Should fluoridation be a personal choice?

The argument that water fluoridation takes away personal choice is one of the most persuasive stances against its use. Why not leave fluoride in toothpaste and mouthwash, giving people the freedom to use it or not, some argue.

This perspective is understandable, but it overlooks the broader goals of public health. Fluoridation is like adding iodine to salt or vitamin D to milk. These are measures that prevent widespread health issues in a simple, cost-effective way. Such interventions aren’t about imposing choices; they’re about providing a baseline of protection for everyone.

Without fluoridated water, low-income communities would bear the brunt of increased dental disease. Children, in particular, would suffer more cavities, leading to pain, missed school days and costly treatments. Public health policies aim to prevent these outcomes while balancing individual freedoms with collective well-being.

For those who wish to avoid fluoride, alternatives like bottled or filtered water are available. At the same time, policymakers should continue to ensure that fluoridation levels are safe and effective, addressing concerns transparently to build trust.

As debates about fluoride continue, the main question is how to best protect everyone’s oral health. While removing fluoride might appeal to those valuing personal choice, it risks undoing decades of progress against tooth decay.

Whether through fluoridation or other methods, oral health remains a public health priority. Addressing it requires thoughtful, evidence-based solutions that ensure equity, safety and community well-being.

Noureldin is a clinical professor of cariology, prevention and restorative dentistry at Texas A&M University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.