Stel Bailey | Investigative Journalist
Industrial Waste or Public Health Benefit?
It’s standing-room only in the county commission chamber. Parents with toddlers on their hips sit beside retirees clutching folders of research. Some came with signs; others came with stories. On the agenda is a single question that could shape the health and environment of their community for decades: Should fluoride stay in the drinking water?
For some, it’s a matter of protecting children’s teeth. For others, it’s a fight against what they see as an industrial waste product disguised as medicine. And at the center of it all is Florida’s phosphate industry.
From Phosphate Mines to the Tap
Central Florida is home to some of the largest phosphate deposits in the world. Mining these deposits fuels the fertilizer industry but leaves behind more than just fertilizer. Pollution scrubbers capture toxic vapors from phosphate plants, converting them into a liquid called hydrofluorosilicic acid.
Instead of being treated as hazardous waste, that liquid is transported to water treatment plants, where it is added to drinking water supplies.
Unlike pharmaceutical-grade fluoride found in toothpaste, this version is a byproduct of heavy industry. Without water fluoridation programs, the phosphate industry would be left with a costly waste disposal problem.
Opponents argue that saying yes to fluoridation means saying yes to one of Florida’s biggest polluters, and the ripple effects are felt not just in water systems, but across fragile ecosystems. Fertilizer runoff already fuels algae blooms, fish kills, and choking pollution in Florida’s rivers and estuaries.
Lobbyists in the Room
When fluoridation first began in 1945, fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash weren’t widely available. Today, nearly every bathroom cabinet holds them. Even the American Dental Association, which once promoted fluoridated toothpaste like Crest, continues to push for adding hydrofluorosilicic acid into public water systems.
That pressure is felt most strongly at local commission meetings. Lobbyists, often backed by millions in taxpayer-funded grants, attend these sessions to influence votes. Between federal grants from the CDC and lobbying funds, more than $30 million flows into promoting community water fluoridation.
Critics argue that this money could instead support affordable dental care, preventive nutrition programs, and clean water infrastructure, services that would directly help the low-income families that fluoridation is supposed to protect.
Children and Fluoride Exposure
Three out of four Americans drink water with added fluoride. But as fluoride exposure has increased, so has the number of children diagnosed with dental fluorosis, a condition that leaves permanent white streaks and staining on teeth.
The Environmental Protection Agency has acknowledged that children, because of their smaller body size and higher water intake, are more vulnerable to overexposure. Research shows that while adults retain about one-third of the fluoride they ingest, children retain closer to half. Most of it lodges in bones and teeth.
By 2015, even the U.S. government had to lower its recommended fluoride levels for drinking water for the first time in 50 years.
Medicine Through the Tap?
At its core, the debate is about more than fluoride. It’s about whether water utilities should double as public health dispensaries.
Drinking water is supposed to be clean, nothing more, nothing less. Yet with fluoridation, a chemical is added not to purify the water, but to deliver a medical treatment. That raises questions of choice and ethics.
If fluoride can be added to prevent cavities, what’s to stop other substances, like lithium, once studied for suicide prevention, from being added to public water supplies
The Chemical Loophole: How Industry Wins and Communities Lose
The United States has a long history of letting chemicals slip through the cracks. Time and again, dangerous substances have been sold to the public, marketed as safe, only for the truth to come out years later. And the pattern almost always benefits chemical companies while leaving communities to deal with the fallout.
Radium in Consumer Products
In the 1940s, radium was mass-produced and sold as if it were harmless. It was even added to toothpaste. At the Radium Dial Company, workers were told the glowing paint they handled was safe. Behind the scenes, managers knew otherwise. Women painted watch dials with brushes they sharpened between their lips. Their teeth decayed, jaws fractured, and many died painfully. The company silenced whistleblowers and discredited anyone who tried to expose the truth.
DDT and the Food Chain
By the mid-20th century, the pesticide DDT was sprayed across crops and neighborhoods as a “miracle chemical.” It wasn’t until marine biologist Rachel Carson published Silent Spring that the public learned DDT built up in the food chain, causing cancer and genetic damage. Industry fought back fiercely against Carson’s warnings, but her work eventually forced a reckoning.
PFAS: The Forever Chemicals
Today, PFAS—known as “forever chemicals”—have contaminated drinking water systems across the globe. Internal memos show companies like DuPont knew for decades that PFAS were toxic. Still, they continued manufacturing them. It took attorney Rob Bilott more than ten years of legal battles to expose the cover-up and win justice for affected communities.
Why This Keeps Happening: Outdated Regulations
The problem isn’t just bad actors; it’s weak laws. In 1976, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was passed, effectively grandfathering in 62,000 chemicals already in commerce. Once a chemical is on the market, it can stay there unless the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proves it poses an “unreasonable risk.”
The result? In nearly 50 years, the EPA has only banned five chemicals. The vast majority of substances used in everyday products and water systems have never been fully tested for long-term health impacts. Meanwhile, industry lobbyists spend millions ensuring regulations remain toothless.
Fluoride and the Regulatory Gap
This lack of oversight is at the heart of today’s fluoride debate. A 2020 federal lawsuit argued that adding fluoride to drinking water presents an “unreasonable risk” to public health, especially for young children. Experts like Dr. Philippe Grandjean have raised alarms about fluoride’s potential to affect developing brains.
Even government standards conflict. The EPA’s maximum allowable level of fluoride in water is 4.0 milligrams per liter, a threshold designed to prevent outright toxicity. The Department of Health and Human Services, however, recommends just 0.7 milligrams per liter to balance cavity prevention with the risk of dental fluorosis.
The difference in those numbers highlights the problem: one standard is written to protect the industry from liability, the other to protect public health.
This isn’t just about fluoride; it’s about a system where outdated laws, industry lobbying, and billions of dollars decide what ends up in our water and in our bodies. Communities are left to fight chemical battles one by one, while corporations continue to profit.