The 131st Annual Meeting (November 15-19, 2003) of APHA

Abstract #65356

Marjorie Stocks, MPH¹, Timothy Collins, DDS, MPH², David Nelson, DDS, MS³, Don Lyman, MD³, and Jon Roth, CAE⁴. (1) The Dental Health Foundation, 520 3rd St, Suite 205, Oakland, CA 94607, 510-663-3727, mstocks@pacbell.net, (2) LA County Public Health Department, 510 South Vermont Ave, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90020, (3) California Department of Health Services, Division of Chronic Disease and Injury, P.O. Box 942732-MS 725, Sacramento, CA 94234, (4) California Dental Association Foundation, 1201 K Street Mall, 14th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95853

On February 11, 2003, the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET) voted overwhelmingly to fluoridate at their five treatment plants. The MET system, the nation’s largest water wholesaler, serves nearly eighteen million customers.

The passage of The California Fluoridation Act (AB 733) and the inception of the California Fluoridation Project brought the number of Californians receiving fluoridated water to 40 from 17%, leaving California well below the national average in providing fluoridated water to its residents. Legislation is not sufficient to create change in the status of community water fluoridation. Effective implementation of the law is required to assure intended benefits.

Fluoridation has been politicized in California as much as in other states. Methods of developing local policy in favor of fluoridation have included provision of technical expertise to community groups, sustained participation by local activists, skilled public relations, and education of engineering and city staff on the benefits and safety of fluoridation. Responses from those opposed to fluoridation often take the form of the initiative process.

The major focus of the $15 million California Fluoridation Project has been to work with retail water systems impacted by AB 733. Although AB 733 did not include wholesale systems, recent efforts by the California Fluoridation Task Force were directed towards MET. This upstream approach will save up to $50 million compared to the cost of implementation through retail systems.

Learning Objectives:

• Identify the inter-relationship of actions necessary to achieve fluoridation in California cities.
• Identify the critical steps in advocacy and the political process required to achieve fluoridation in California.
• Understand the steps leading to the potential fluoridation of the nation’s largest wholesale water distributor.

Keywords: Oral Health,

Presenting author's disclosure statement:
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.