Neepawa Discussing Future Of Water Fluoridation

Should the Neepawa's water treatment plant continue to add fluoride to the town's water?

That's the question that came forward during this week's council meeting, after those at the water treatment plant identified a number of issues with the fluoridation program. The addition of fluoride to tap water has been a common practice in North America, as a way to prevent dental issues such as tooth decay. However, Neepawa Mayor Adrian de Groot says the cost of the compound is increasing, and the undiluted compound can be quite damaging.

"What came forward was a bit of a technical overview, where we talked about the merits or pros and cons of fluoride addition. It was initiated by our water treatment plant, and they want to know if it's necessary because of some of the issues it's caused. It's a fairly corrosive product, it's fairly dangerous to work with, and it causes some problems with our treatment process."

He says the biggest question is if the benefits of fluoride addition outweigh the challenges and the costs associated with the program. He says while they discussed the matter briefly at Tuesday's meeting, there are piles of information that they'll be investigating before making a decision.

"There are piles and piles of data that support the continuation, and an equivalent, or maybe even more, data and information that supports discontinuing it."

De Groot says while fluoridation is a common practice, there have been several locations around the world that have started to opt out of the program entirely, or simply reduce the amount of compound added. He notes a report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Panel on Community Water Fluoridation recommended reducing the amount of fluoride added to water, as the compound is commonly added to toothpaste, mouthwash and through routine dental procedures.

He says it's not the first time the issue has come up in Neepawa, noting the debate a few years ago saw some community members come out to support the continued addition of fluoride to the water. However, he notes the prevalence of fluoride, combined with the growing costs of the compound have led them to have the discussion once again.

"At the end of the day it's going to be voted on on a personal basis, as well as based on the evidence that's there. It is a cost. Conservatively we're looking at about $10,000 a year in additional costs for this, and that's not looking at the risks involved with safety, spillage, and handling of the material."

While the public works committee has their work cut out for them with the research they'll need to do, de Groot's hoping for a final decision soon. He wants to have a recommendation in place before they present their 2016 budget, in order to be able to identify any costs, or savings associated with their decision.