Driving through downtown Dallas, you might see a striking banner hanging at the U-turn bridge, near the Walnut Hill exit on Central Expressway (US 75): “Stop Fluoridation!” Below it, other banners demand action and warn of supposed dangers.
It’s not the first time fluoride has been at the center of public debate.
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.
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.
“It’s just very sad to see that the majority of people are looking to deport when we’re a country based on immigrants,” she said.
Her father, Fernando Lopez, 61, of Avon, however, said it’s unclear what’s going to happen once Trump becomes president.
“The reality is, we don’t know, and that’s what scares a lot of people. I think that’s the part that most people need to be aware [of] is the unknown, and that’s scary,” Lopez said.
Originally from Tijuana, Mexico, Lopez said he felt a little bit surprised to see so many Latinos vote for Trump, but he also understands where they’re coming from given the troubling state of the economy.
“‘Things are not going great right now,’” Lopez said, thinking aloud in the perspective of a Latino Trump supporter. “‘Maybe this person can do it for us.’ I think that’s what the message was out there, and now the reality is going to be, ‘Alright, put up or shut up.’”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
In 2006, Danbury police and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents posed as contractors to arrest and deport 11 undocumented immigrant workers. Two years later, local police worked with ICE agents to carry out more raids in the community with the enactment of 287-g, a program that allows state and local officials to act as ICE agents.
Since then, Connecticut has enacted the TRUST Act, which states that the federal government has authority over immigration law and enforcement, but it cannot commandeer state resources and law enforcement to carry out its enforcement efforts. Advocates who remember that earlier era in Danbury history are on edge.
Over 100 people gathered at Danbury city hall Saturday morning to show support as community leaders called on elected officials to protect immigrants. The city is familiar with the raids that community leaders fear are coming from Trump’s deportation efforts, according to community leaders.
Clementina Lunar, 56, is a Mexican immigrant and a Danbury resident of about 32 years. Immigration officers nearly deported Lunar and her husband in 1995. The traumatic experience left a mark on her children, she said.
After Lunar and her husband obtained their legal documentation to stay in the country, she said her daughter couldn’t and was facing deportation in absence. Her daughter had to appear in front of a judge at 14 years old to request a pardon, she said.
“My daughter used to have a small bag with her most precious things under her bed just in case we had to leave in a hurry,” Lunar said.
With Trump’s return to office, Lunar is seeing the same fears in the children she tutors. According to Lunar, a 10-year-old boy told her that after the election, he and his friends said their goodbyes at school because they were all immigrants and had to go back to their country of origin.
Similar support was seen on the north steps of the state Capitol Monday morning where State Attorney General William Tong reaffirmed Connecticut’s commitment to stay a safe place for immigrants.
Tong and other state officials are having conversations to prepare for what is to come, he said. He is meeting with Democratic attorneys general this week to discuss preparation plans, including how to address contingencies and how to battle large scale legal battles.
“I don’t think anybody knows when and how and where they’re going to hit us and how, frankly, this is all going to go down. But we know they’re coming, and we know that it’s at the top of their list. I can only say that we, all of us, not just state attorneys general, but all of us — partners, advocates, and the spite — we are ready for it too,” Tong said.
Using Trump’s first term as reference, National Immigration Law Center President Kica Matos said state leaders and advocacy groups have a strong idea of what to prepare for.
“Let me be very clear about what we should expect come January 21. We should expect mass deportations. We should expect the use of the military to carry out deportations. We should expect internment camps at the border, the repeal of birthright citizenship. Undocumented immigrant kids will no longer be able to attend public schools, and they will threaten and try to coerce cities and states to carry out their deportation agenda,” Matos said.
Minority Leader for the City of Waterbury and Regional Director for the Republican National Hispanic Assembly Ruben Rodriguez, however, said that the Trump administration is only looking to fix the broken immigration system, so people can come into the country through legal channels.
“Just by coming here illegally, you [have] already created a crime,” Rodriguez said. “If you’re scared, that means you did something wrong.”
Attorney General, William Tong, speaks at a Hartford rally where immigrant rights advocates have called on state officials to reassure the public that Connecticut is a welcoming state to immigrants. November 18, 2024.
Tong reassured that Connecticut is staying firm within the policies of the TRUST Act to mitigate any mass deportation attempts in the state. He also made clear that the TRUST Act does not apply to those that were accused, prosecuted or incarcerated for a crime.
Several officials, including mayors from Hartford, New Haven, Stamford and Norwalk, echoed Tong’s sentiment that Connecticut remains a place that welcomes immigrants with open arms. The turnout had Guatemalan immigrant Carla Esquivel, 47, feeling supported.
“This is the place where many of us immigrants have lived for many years and where we support the growth of the state,” Esquivel said, speaking in Spanish.
Esquivel has lived in Stamford for more than 19 years. Her fears for the immigrant community, however, are still present, she said.
Early that Monday morning, Trump posted on social media that his administration is preparing to declare a national emergency to use military assets for mass deportation. Esquivel is unsure if this is just Trump talking or if this will become a reality, she said. Despite Trump’s plans, Tong made Connecticut’s stance on immigration clear.
“It is the policy and it is the law of the state of Connecticut to respect, honor, and protect immigrants and immigrant families here in Connecticut,” he said. “Period, full stop.”
Doncel is a Colombian American journalist who joined Connecticut Public in November 2024. Through her reporting, Daniela strives to showcase the diversity of the Hispanic/Latino communities in Connecticut.
This article was first published by CT Public.
