Letter Regarding Los Angeles City Council Vote on Fluoridation

Members of the Los Angeles City Council

Honorable Gentlemen:

Without hearing adequate testimony in opposition to artificial fluoridation of the Los Angeles City water supply, a majority of you were callous enough to act as physicians and vote to add artificial fluorides to the water supply of Los Angeles.

I never had an opportunity to present testimony before Mr. Cunningham’s committee even though I was present on two different occasions, as were three other physicians in opposition. We were never called on even though he knew we were in the audience.

I finally was given three minutes at the hearing before the full City Council, which was, of course, completely inadequate to present any logical and scientific evidence.

Every member of the Council received not only a copy of my testimony which was not presented to Mr. Cunningham’s committee, but a copy of a letter to him and other documentation indicating definite damage from the addition of fluorides to the water supply which should have convinced any thinking person that fluoridation is a measure of extremely doubtful logic.

With the evidence I presented to you by mail, if you read it, I do not see how any member of the Council could have voted in favor of artificial fluoridation on its merits alone. Therefore, I assume that those who voted in favor were motivated either by ignorance or by pressures which I do not attempt to estimate.

In my letter to each Council member, I suggested that in good conscience you should vote this measure down and should not put it upon the ballot because so many citizens are uninformed on the subject. However, in almost every city where it has been placed on the ballot, it has been voted down. However, this puts a tremendous burden upon a few individuals who must alert the public somehow and inform them as to the dangers of artificial fluoridation. This is both expensive and time-consuming and is something which concerned citizens should not be asked to do.

Since the proposition was adopted by the Council, it should be rescinded by the Council. Then if proponents wish to place it on the ballot, it will be up to them to expend the necessary time and money.

As I stated in my testimony, artificial fluoridation will not help your constituents. It will only harm them. It will create mass illness and will not do one thing to help reduce tooth decay, since by the age of 20, all those in cities which are fluoridated have the same number of cavities and fillings and extractions as those in non-fluoridated cities. Fluoridation only delays the onset of decay by one or two years.

The only answer to prevention of tooth decay is the nutritional approach which several articulate members of the Council have recommended. The funds earmarked for artificial fluoridation could better be spent for educating the public about the importance of nutrition. They are to be commended for their honesty and integrity in opposing this unscientific and purely political measure.

The real problem is not one of lack of fluorides, but of how to avoid excess fluorides in our food, air and water.

I hope that you gentlemen will do your duty now since it is still not too late.

Respectfully yours,

Granville F. Knight, M.D.