Skip to Content
  • Home
  • About the Bar
  • Mission
  • Forms
  • Sitemap
    • Member Directory
      Last Name:
      First Name:
      Bar Number:
      City:


    • Login
OSB Logo
Oregon State Bar Bulletin — AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2005

Martin Turns 50
Fluoridation litigation, then and now
By Antonia Giedwoyn

Fifty years ago this past August, legal history was made in the U.S. District Court of Oregon with a case involving exposure to fluoride. Half a century later, the heart of the case is still beating. Although the issue of human exposure to fluoridation chemicals in Oregon has changed shape, it remains capable of provoking litigation, now more than ever. The question is, would suits challenging mandatory water fluoridation in Oregon communities have a fighting chance?

The answer depends on whom you ask.

Towards the end of summer in 1955, the case Martin vs. Reynolds Metals proved for the first time in the United States that airborne particles from an aluminum reduction plant had caused illness to humans.

Rancher Paul Martin, his wife Verla and their daughter Paula had moved to their Troutdale, Ore. ranch in 1946. The approximately 2,000-acre property bordered the Columbia and Sandy rivers as well as Reynolds Metals Co., an aluminum factory whose major contaminants at the site included fluoride.1

Soon after moving to the ranch, Martin’s livestock became sick and died. In a letter to the family’s attorney, George Mead, Verla Martin described dead and sick horses on the property with backs "all blistered and burned from the fluorine fumes, so badly that they bleed."

In a letter to then President Dwight Eisenhower, dated Feb. 4, 1953, Paul Martin wrote, "I own a beef cattle ranch which due to fluorine contamination has not been in operation for the past three years…chemists found that the bones of these cattle contained fluorine in excessive amounts. Also that the liver, kidney and glands of these animals were damaged and high in fluorine content. The teeth of the animals were so diseased that a person could pull them out with their fingers. In the spring of 1950 I had over 100 head of grown cattle die, in fact the Western States Rendering Company picked up 13 dead cows in one day."

Before long, the Martin family also became sick. Physicians diagnosed them with subacute fluorosis.2

"We were all three in good health before the Reynolds Metal Company opened this plant," Paul Martin’s letter goes on to say. "After the plant had been in operation about a year, we all three started having digestive trouble, respiratory trouble and swollen, aching joints. We have written, signed reports from leading doctors stating that we all three have chronic fluorine poisoning, tests show that all three of us have damaged liver, kidneys and glands plus bone damage…I know you are a busy man, Mr. President, but I am hoping that you will be able to do something in regards to this mess, so that I may move back to my ranch and operate it."

Prosecuting attorneys Mead and Irving Rand alleged that toxic gases emitted from the Reynolds plant had poisoned the family. The jury and appellate court ruled in favor of the Martins.

Since that time, Oregon lawmakers have argued about requiring statewide water fluoridation. Most dentists say fluoride helps reduce tooth decay and that artificial water fluoridation is a harmless way for Oregonians who can’t afford toothpaste to access fluoride. Dentists began using fluoride as a topical treatment in the late 1940s, and in 1950, Grand Rapids, Mich., became the first U.S. city to put fluoride in its water supply. It is estimated that two-thirds of the public water supply is now fluoridated, and there an emerging movement calling for fluoridation in all public water supplies. The Centers for Disease Control hails fluoridation of public water supplies as "one of ten great public health achievements of the 20th century." Its most vocal supporter is the 150,000- member American Dental Association, which has long championed the effectiveness and safety of fluoride in treating tooth decay. In its 2005 publication "Fluoridation Facts,"3 the organization notes that fluoridation is endorsed by both the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Public Health Service. The ADA points to numerous scientific studies finding fluoride to be safe; in its most recent fluoride report, the ADA dismisses reports to the contrary as "pseudo-science."

On the other hand, critics point out that although the U.S. Food & Drug Administration has approved the use of fluoride products for topical application (such as toothpaste containing fluoride), it has never approved a fluoride compound for ingestion for the purpose of reducing tooth decay. (The FDA defines any fluoride product swallowed for a reduction in tooth decay as a drug.) Further clouding the issue is the fact that no federal agency currently regulates water additives, including fluoride. Finally, critics point to a growing body of scientific literature — including a recent Harvard study showing a strong link between fluoridaton and a rare but lethal form of bone cancer — that connects fluoridated water to health problems. Opponents of fluoridation believe that such evidence – along with the absence of FDA approval or a federal regulation scheme – might provide them their day in court.

In Oregon, legal activity spurred by concerns over water fluoridation has been modest since Martin. Oregon attorneys contacted for this article said they are unaware of any lawsuits that have challenged mandatory water fluoridation in Oregon communities. However, the current push by fluoridation proponents to fluoridate cities such as Portland and others that have resisted past efforts to do so could throw open the door to litigation.

"I definitely think there could be litigation if the legislature and dentists force fluoridation on Oregon," said Brent Foster, a Mosier, Ore. attorney. "Given what the scientific and medical evidence now shows are the very real risks of drinking water fluoridation, both the state and cities would be legally negligent for adding these products into people’s drinking water."

Foster was alluding to the distinction between what is known as the MCL (maximum contaminant level) and the MCLG (the maximum contaminant level goal). The MCL is the highest level of a regulated contaminant allowed in drinking water, whereas the MCLG, the goal, is defined as the level of a contaminant in drinking water at or below which there is no known or expected health risk. It’s the accepted scientific point of safety.

The distinction is discussed in detail in "Arsenic in Drinking Water 2001 Update," a document written in response to the U.S. House Committee on Science in 2000 by NSF International, a company involved with the certification of water fluoridation chemicals. NSF provided data showing that manufacturers’ samples had tested positive for lead and arsenic. In both cases, the levels were within the allowable limits (the MCL), but short of the EPA’s goal (the MCLG). The NSF document quotes the National Research Council – an organization whose research is frequently cited by both sides of the issue – as saying the levels of arsenic would result in more than one bladder or lung cancer per every 1,000 consumers.

Even though very low concentrations of arsenic in drinking water have been linked linked to cancer, not everyone agrees that mandating water fluoridation throughout Oregon could spur lawsuits, at least not successful ones. When asked whether Rep. Bob Jenson, chair of the Oregon House Water Committee, is concerned about the potential for litigation, an office spokesman dismissed the idea.

"That doesn’t appear very likely to us," said attorney Shaun Jillions, addressing the topic on behalf of Jenson. "Communities throughout the nation have been fluoridated for over 60 years...and we have not been made aware of a single documented case that was successful...they can’t definitively demonstrate that fluoride is having that effect on them," Jillions said, referring to health problems.

However, as Martin vs. Reynolds vividly demonstrated 50 years ago, it is possible to convince a court of fluoride-related harm to human health. Nowadays, because it’s not a matter of a sick family living near a polluting factory but rather one of adding chemicals to the public’s drinking water for claimed medicinal purposes, fluoridation litigation is trickier.

That’s the one thing everyone seems to agree on.

Courts in Pennsylvania, Illinois and Texas concluded after extensive expert witness testimony that fluoride in the water at 1 part per million has aggravated existing illnesses, caused adverse health effects and is linked to increased cancer deaths. But higher courts ruled in these cases that challenges involving representative government in the form that they were pleaded, as attacks on public policy, required a higher legal standard than proof.

"It’s hard to find the actual jurisdictional trigger. It would definitely be an uphill battle," said Melissa Powers, a Portland attorney with the Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center. "The case law is really terrible; the constitutional challenges have failed across the board."

One example is Coshow vs. the City of Escondido, argued in California’s Fourth Appellate District Court. The plaintiffs did not challenge the public policy of fluoridation, but instead claimed the government’s conduct permitting fluoridation was unconstitutional because it violated the constitutional right of bodily integrity and privacy under the Ninth and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Articles 1 and 7 of the California Constitution.

The respondents argued that the city is required by California law to fluoridate the drinking water and that the city’s fluoridation plan was subject to review and approval by the California Department of Health Services in agreement with the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

"The city can’t do anything until the state gives us a permit to do so," said Jennifer McCain, assistant city attorney for Escondido, speaking before the case was heard by the California appeals court. "Fluoridation in the state of California has been deemed constitutional for a long time, so we don’t believe the plaintiffs’ case has any merit based on existing legal authority." The city’s response did not address the issue of harm.

Last month, the appeals court came to an unpublished conclusion affirming the lower court’s decision to allow fluoridation to continue. The plaintiffs are expected to ask the California Supreme Court to review the issue, according to Jeff Green, a spokesman for the plaintiffs and volunteer national director of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, a group that actively participates with Oregon affiliates involved in water safety and standards.

Constitutional challenges are just one possibility, experts say. A suit for negligence is another possibility. According to Foster, legal challenges could be built around the fact that fluoride has never been approved as a drug by the FDA and that adding it to water for the purpose of treating human health is a violation of federal law.

"What creates a new opportunity for litigation on fluoride is not a change in the law, but the incredibly large body of science which clearly shows there are serious reasons to be concerned about adding fluoride (to drinking water)," he said.

Last year, Foster represented several Hood River residents challenging the city’s proposed ballot measure asking whether residents favor fluoridated water. Because the measure did not disclose the three fluoride compounds that would be used, they contended the city’s ballot language was unfair and misleading, and that the ballot measure needed to list the chemicals and clarify that they contain contaminants. Foster and the residents reached a settlement with the city attorney, he said, but the city council eventually pulled the measure.

Since then, voters of Hood River recently enacted a law that restricts the amount of contaminants that can be present in chemicals added to water to treat people. The vote essentially prohibits fluoridation chemicals from being added.

Nationally, the case of Doe vs. Rumsfeld may shed another light on the issue of current fluoridation litigation. The lawsuit, filed in 2003 in the District of Columbia on behalf of six military service members, concerned the right to informed consent as it related to anthrax vaccinations during a time of war.

The case parallels the fluoridation suits in that the anthrax vaccines were not FDA approved at the time they were mandated. The court ruled that the U.S. Department of Defense must halt the Anthrax Vaccination Immunization Program until or unless the vaccine was approved by the FDA. Within a month of the ruling, the FDA gave its approval, and the Anthrax Vaccination Immunization Program has resumed for service members who consent to the inoculation.

"Contrary to the lower court decision being appealed in the Escondido case, this District of Columbia court concluded that forced medication with a substance that was not approved by the FDA for the specific disease and manner in which it was delivered was an ‘arbitrary’ act and is thus unconstitutional," Green said. "The salient point is that the court’s decision to restrain government on this basis is not contested by the Department of Defense and further clarifies an issue that we believe will be an important consideration in cases involving the selection of fluoridation chemicals intended to treat humans."

CONCLUSION
Approximately 20 percent of Oregonians currently drink fluoridated water. If the percentage of Oregonians drinking fluoridated water jumps high enough, particularly if it’s due to state or federal legislation or municipalities instead of voters having chosen it, court clerks may find themselves adding a growing number of fluoridation suits to the docket. And attorneys on both sides, arguing as heatedly as their Martin vs. Reynolds predecessors, will anxiously wonder whether they’ll hear echoes of that David and Goliath case.

ENDNOTES
1. Public Health Assessment of Reynolds Metals Company. January 14, 1997. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, Superfund Site Assessment Branch

2. Reynolds Metals Company vs. Paul Martin. Plaintiffs’ direct examination, p. 492, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit Ct. of Appeals, San Francisco, Court Case Papers and Printed Matter, Case # 14990, transcript of record in six volumes, Folders 14990-14992, Boxes 5888-5890, RG 276

3. From the website of the American Dental Association, www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Antonia Giedwoyn is a Portland journalist who writes articles for kgw.com, the website for KGW Northwest News Channel 8.

 

© 2005 Antonia Giedwoyn

— return to top
— return to Table of Contents

  • For The Public

      Public Legal Information

    • Public Information Home
    • Legal Information Topics
    • Oregon Juror Guide
    • Submit Ethics Complaint

    • Getting Legal Help

    • Finding The Right Lawyer
    • Hiring A Lawyer
    • Lawyers Fees

    • Client Services

    • Client Assistance Office
    • Client Security Fund
    • Fee Dispute Resolution
    • Public Records Request
    • Locating Attorney Files

    • Unlawful Practice of Law

    • UPL Information
    • UPL FAQ

    • Volunteer Opportunities

    • Public Member Application
  • For Members

    OSB Login

    • Log In To OSB Site
    • Member Account Setup
    • Non-Member Account Setup
    • Reset Password

    OSB Resources

    • Attorney's Marketplace
    • Career Center
    • Events
    • Forms Library
    • Online Resources
    • OSB Group Listings
    • Performance Standards
    • Rules Regulations and Policies
    • Surveys and Research Reports
    • Unclaimed Client Funds
    • Voting Regions and By-City
      County Information

    Fastcase™

    • Log in to Fastcase
    • Overview
    • Scheduled Webinars
    • Inactive Member Subscriptions

    Legal Ethics

    • Legal Ethics Home
    • Find an Ethics Opinion
    • Bulletin Bar Counsel Archive

    Company Administrator

    • Company Administrator Home
    • Company Administrator FAQ
    • Authorization Form

    State Lawyers
    Assistance Committee

    • SLAC Info

    Volunteering

    • Volunteer Opportunities

    Court Information

    • Judicial Vacancies
    • Court Info | Calendars | Jury Info
    • Oregon Attorneys
      in Federal Court
    • Tribal Courts of Oregon

    OSB Publications

    • Bar Bulletin Magazine
    • – Bulletin Archive
    • – Legal Writer Archive
    • Capitol Insider
    • Disciplinary Board Reporter

    PLF Programs

    • (OAAP) Oregon Attorney
      Assistance Program
    • Practice Management Attorneys
    • Malpractice Coverage
  • CLE/Legal Publications

    CLE Seminars

    • CLE Seminars Home
    • Online Seminar Registration
    • General Info/FAQ

    My Account

    • My Content
    • My Events
    • Order History

    Legal Publications

    • Legal Publications Home
    • Log in to BarBooks®
    • BarBooks® FAQ
    • Online Bookstore
    • Legal Pubs Blog
  • Bar Programs

    Diversity & Inclusion

    • Diversity & Inclusion Home
    • Diversity Story Wall
    • D&I Programs
    • ACDI Roster
    • D&I Staff Contacts
    • D&I Links

    Legislative/Public Affairs

    • Legislative Home
    • Committee Contacts
    • Legislative Sessions
    • Staff Contacts
    • Useful Links

    Legal Services Program

    • LSP Home

    Oregon Law Foundation

    • OLF Home
    • Partners in Justice

    Fee Dispute Resolution

    • Fee Dispute Resolution Home

    Pro Bono

    • Pro Bono Home
    • Pro Bono Reporting
    • Volunteer Opportunities

    Lawyer Referral and Information Services

    • RIS Login
    • Summary of Referral and Information Services Programs
    • Lawyer Referral Service Info and Registration Forms
    • Modest Means Program Registration Forms
    • Military Assistance Panel Training Info and Registration Form
    • Problem Solvers Registration Form
    • Lawyer To Lawyer Registration Form

    (LRAP) Loan Repayment Assistance Program

    • LRAP Home
    • LRAP FAQ
    • LRAP Policies
  • Member Groups

    Sections

    • Section Info/Websites
    • Joining Sections
    • CLE Registration Services
    • Standard Section Bylaws (PDF)
    • Leadership Resources
    • Treasurers Tools

    Committees

    • Home
    • Leadership Resources
    • Professionalism Commission
    • Volunteer Opportunities

    House of Delegates

    • HOD Home
    • HOD Resources
    • Meetings
    • Rules (PDF)
    • Roster (PDF)
    • Staff Contacts

    Board of Governors

    • BOG Home
    • Meetings & Agendas
    • Members
    • Liaisons
    • Committees
    • Resources
    • Task Forces

    Oregon New Lawyers Division

    • ONLD Home
    • Law Students
    • Student Loan Repayment
    • Committees
    • Upcoming Events

    Task Forces and Special Committees

    • Task Forces Home

    Volunteer Bars

    • List/Contacts
    • Leadership Resources

    Volunteering

    • Volunteer Opportunities
  • Licensing/Compliance

    Admissions

    • Admissions Home
    • Alternative Admittance
    • Applicants for Admission
    • Admissions Forms
    • Past Bar Exam Results

    Supervised Practice Portfolio Examination

    • SPPE Home

    Licensed Paralegal Program

    • LP Home

    Lawyer Discipline

    • Discipline Home
    • Disciplinary Board Reporter
    • Disciplinary Boards
    • Client Assistance Office
    • (SPRB) State Professional Responsibility Board

    Membership Records

    • Address Changes
    • Good Standing Certificate
    • Request Discipline File Review

    MCLE

    • MCLE Home
    • Program Database
    • Forms
    • Rules (PDF)

    IOLTA Reporting

    • IOLTA Home
    • IOLTA FAQ

    Licensing Fees

    • Licensing Fee FAQ
    • Licensing Fee Payment

    Status Changes

    • Status Changes FAQ
    • Inactive Status Form
    • Retired Status Form
    • Active Pro Bono Status Form
    • Reinstatement Forms
    • Resignation Form A
    • Pending Reinstatements

    Unlawful Practice of Law

    • UPL Information
    • UPL FAQ

    Pro Hac Vice/Arbitration

    • Pro Hac Vice
    • Arbitration

    New Lawyer Mentoring Program

    • New Lawyer Mentoring Program Home

    Professional Liability Fund

    • Professional Liability
      Fund Website
For The Public

Public Information Home
Legal Information Topics
Oregon Juror Guide
Finding The Right Lawyer
Hiring A Lawyer
Lawyers Fees
Client Assistance Office
Public Records Request
Unlawful Practice of Law
Fee Dispute Resolution
Client Security Fund
Volunteer Opportunities
for the Public

For Members

BarBooks®
Bulletin Archive
Career Center
Fastcase™
Judicial Vacancies
Legal Ethics Opinions
OSB Group Listings
OSB Login
OSB Rules & Regs
SLAC Info
Surveys and Reports
Volunteer Opportunities

CLE/Legal Pubs

CLE Seminars Home
Legal Publications Home

Bar Programs

Diversity & Inclusion
Fee Arbitration/Mediation
Legal Services Program
Legislative/Public Affairs
Loan Repayment
Assistance Program

Oregon Law Foundation
Pro Bono

Member Groups

Board of Governors
Committees
House of Delegates
Volunteer Bars
Oregon New
Lawyers Division

OSB Sections
Professionalism
Commission

Volunteer Opportunities

About The Bar

About the Bar
ADA Notice
Contact Info
Copyright Notice
Directions to the Bar
Meeting Room Rentals
Mission Statement
OSB Job Opportunities
Privacy Policy
Staff Directory
Terms of Use

Licensing/Compliance

Admissions
Client Assistance Office
Client Security Fund
IOLTA Reporting
Lawyer Discipline
MCLE
Member Fee FAQ
New Lawyer
Mentoring Program

Professional Liability Fund
Status Changes

Oregon State Bar Center

Phone: (503) 620-0222
Toll-free in Oregon: (800) 452-8260
Facsimile: (503) 684-1366

Building Location:
16037 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road
Tigard, OR 97224

Mailing Address:
PO Box 231935
Tigard, OR 97281

Oregon State Bar location Map

Copyright ©1997 Oregon State Bar  ®All rights reserved | ADA Notice | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use