If you live in Saint John, your tap water lacks a key mineral that protects your teeth. Twelve years ago, city council voted to remove fluoride from the municipal water supply to save $177,000 annually. Today, local dentists see the severe consequences of that financial decision.
The Cost of Saving Money
Kelly Keyes operates a busy dental practice in Saint John. She treats patients of all ages and notices a sharp decline in the oral health of young children. These young patients often require treatment in the hospital. This adds strain to an already burdened health care system.
“We see a lot of kids under the age of four who have rampant decay,” Keyes told CBC News. “We’re fooling ourselves thinking that the status quo is good for kids or that it’s good for the community in general.”
Keyes calls water fluoridation the great equalizer in oral health care. It protects developing teeth from decay by strengthening enamel and suppressing plaque bacteria. Without it, the most vulnerable residents pay the price. Keyes notes that the decay rate in children is the same for people using unfluoridated toothpaste and kids who do not brush their teeth at all.
A Call for Provincial Action
Saint John Mayor Donna Reardon voted to keep fluoride in the drinking water twelve years ago. The council split the vote, and the mayor at the time broke the tie to cut the program for financial reasons.
Reardon believes dental health should not fall under municipal responsibility. She argues the New Brunswick Health Department needs to define and support a province wide policy. Leaving the decision to individual communities creates inconsistencies in health care opportunities and highlights poverty in Saint John.
“It makes me feel sad that it happened,” Reardon said. “Because it’s so overwhelming to think about trying to get it back in the system.”
A Lack of Provincial Data
Paul Blanchard serves as the executive director of the New Brunswick Dental Society. He points out that New Brunswick fails to collect data on fluoride removal or general dental health. A national study from 2015 showed Saint John had the second highest rate of surgical intervention for cavities in children aged one to four.
“That indicator right there should tell you that there’s an issue here in New Brunswick,” Blanchard said. He believes the situation is much worse today.
Blanchard wants the provincial or federal government to measure the status of oral health in children. He also advocates for the return of school screening and varnish programs. The current provincial government previously cancelled funding for these initiatives.
Other Cities Reverse Course
While New Brunswick lags behind, other Canadian municipalities are rethinking their stance on fluoride. Windsor, Tecumseh, and LaSalle in Ontario brought fluoride back to their drinking water systems in 2022 after a decade without it. Calgary also reintroduced fluoride last year following a fourteen year hiatus. Reports from these regions showed significant increases in childhood tooth decay during the years without fluoridated water.
Oromocto remains the only New Brunswick municipality to fluoridate its water as of 2023. Moncton made its removal permanent in 2017.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did Saint John remove fluoride from its water?
City council voted to remove fluoride twelve years ago to save $177,000 annually in municipal budget costs.
How does the lack of fluoride affect children?
Dentists report a significant increase in severe tooth decay among young children. This leads to painful toothaches, interrupted schooling, and the need for hospital treatments.
Are other Canadian cities removing fluoride?
Some cities removed it in the past but are now bringing it back. Windsor and Calgary recently reintroduced water fluoridation after seeing sharp increases in childhood cavities.
What do dental experts recommend?
Dental professionals urge the provincial government to implement a universal water fluoridation policy and reinstate school dental screening programs to protect public health.
This was predictable . When the city removed fluoridation after decades they were advised the poor of our city would suffer. Precedence had been well established in other cities. The Council of the day should have continued fluoridation and lobbied the Province to defray the expenditure . The city pays for chlorination of the water and other treatment measures so the argument that fluoridation is a health measure that sits with the Province rings hollow to me. For a city constantly fighting poverty issues , taking on the cudgel of this issue seems a no brainer. Another argument against fluoride use is that it can cause harm. Yes , in high doses but not at the dose used in water. Guess what , most compounds we use can cause damage at inappropriate dosing including oxygen. Mayor Reardon : take up the fight . return fluoride to the water.
Removal of fluoride treatment was part of a continent wide fluoride scaremongering by people who should have known better. Its removal hit children the hardest, whose teeth are in high growth and development.