Michigan Town Returns to Flouridation

The town of Mt. Pleasant, Michigan voted to remove fluoridation in 2004 with a small margin of 52 percent to 48 percent. Mt. Pleasant had their water fluoridated since 1957 and changed after a "clean water" initiative passed. This past year, in November of 2005, they voted on the topic of fluoridation again. This time around the community voted to fluoridate their water by a much larger margin of 63 percent to 37 percent. The reason for the turn-around in the public's vote was due to the hard work of local dentists. The dentists took extra steps to educate their patients on why fluoridation is important for their health and the community. Some of the ways the dentists approached the situation was by mailing out postcards, talking with the media and putting up road signs. The dentist in charge of the movement said he wanted to better educate the public on the confusing terminology and wording that the ballot used in the previous vote. The article describes in greater detail about the different measures the dentists took to educate their patients to make the best decision for themselves.

I find this case of Mt. Pleasant interesting not because a town had fluoridated water for several years and then decided to change it, but more that the town voted to return to fluoridated water, only a year later. It is apparent that the information that the dentists provided had an overwhelming effect on the town. I think that the people of Mt. Pleasant would not be easily influenced since only a year earlier they heard information that was dramatic enough to vote fluoridation to be removed. I hope that the community would remember the arguments of those opposing fluoridation when voting on the topic again in 2005, and compare it to what they heard the previous year. I wish the writer of the article would have included the main points of the arguments so others could evaluate the situation on their own. Unfortunately it only discusses the steps the dentists took to educate and not the information itself. It is amazing how fluoridation, like many other controversial topics, can take on many different arguments. Some positions are stronger than others, but the fact that dentists were providing the information it seemed to be much more credible. I hope that the dentists did not abuse the trust that patients have for them, but provided solid evidence that was the best for the whole town. It does not seem to give the dentists a lot more business if the water is fluoridated or not, so hopefully the dentists could give advise based on how they truly felt, leaving the business side behind. As a public health provider, I think providing the public with sufficient information to make their own decision is part of their job. The town of Mt. Pleasant, Michigan gives hope to those who are trying to implement or continue the use of fluoridated water in their community.