|
The water fluoridation controversy arises from political, moral, ethical,〔 and safety concerns regarding the fluoridation of public water supplies. Those opposed argue that water fluoridation may cause serious health problems, is not effective enough to justify the costs, and has a dosage that cannot be precisely controlled.〔American Public Health Association Community Water Fluoridation in the United States 10-28-'08 http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1373〕〔Recommendations for using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States, Centers for Disease Control 8-17-'01 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm〕〔Autio-Gold, Jaana; Courts, Frank, Assessing the effect of fluoride varnish on early enamel carious lesions in the primary dentition, J. Amer. Dent. Assn. http://www.jada.info/cgi/content/full/132/9/1247〕 In some countries, sodium fluoride is added to table salt.〔, citing 〕 At the dosage recommended for water fluoridation, the only known adverse effect is dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of children's teeth during tooth development.〔 Dental fluorosis is cosmetic and unlikely to represent any other effect on public health.〔 Summary: 〕 Some countries choose water fluoridation as a method to reduce cavities in both children and adults. Opposition to fluoridation has existed since its initiation in the 1940s.〔Martin B. (1989) (The sociology of the fluoridation controversy: a reexamination ). ''Sociological Quarterly''.〕 During the 1950s and 1960s, some opponents of water fluoridation suggested that fluoridation was a communist plot to undermine public health. In recent years water fluoridation has become a pervasive health and political issue in many countries, resulting in changes to public policy regarding water fluoridation. ==Ethics== Many who oppose water fluoridation consider it to be a form of compulsory mass medication.〔UK Green Party. (2003). (Water fluoridation contravenes UK law, EU directives and the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine ). Press office briefing. accessdate 2008-08-03〕 Water fluoridation was characterized in at least one journal publication as a violation of the Nuremberg Code and the Council of Europe's Biomedical Convention of 1999. A dentistry professor and a philosopher argued in a dentistry journal that the moral status for advocating water fluoridation is "at best indeterminate" and could even be considered immoral. They asserted that it infringes upon autonomy based on uncertain evidence, with possible negative effects. Another journal article suggested applying the precautionary principle to this controversy, which calls for public policy to reflect a conservative approach to minimize risk in the setting where harm is possible (but not necessarily confirmed) and where the science is not settled. In the United Kingdom, the Green Party opposes mass fluoridation on the grounds that "there is conflicting evidence on the benefits to dental health of this practice and major concerns on the cumulative negative wider health effects of total ingestion levels of fluoride" and that "there are further concerns on the links with the chemical industry that supplies artificial fluoride and the compulsory nature of its addition to drinking water that denies consumers choice". In her book ''50 Health Scares That Fizzled'', Joan Callahan writes that, "For lower-income people with no insurance, fluoridated water (like enriched flour and fortified milk) looks more like a free preventative health measure that a few elitists are trying to take away."〔"50 Health Scares That Fizzled" by Joan R. Callahan, 2011, published by ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-0-313-38538-4.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Water fluoridation controversy」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|