Support for community water fluoridation is broad and consistent across both the public and the major health professions. Public opinion on Community Water Fluoridation (CWF) varies across different regions but is generally favourable when people are well-informed about its benefits. Surveys indicate that the majority of the public supports fluoridation when they understand its role in preventing dental decay and its safety profile. This page summarises the evidence on public support for community water fluoridation, alongside endorsements from leading dental, medical and government bodies.

Public Opinion Surveys on Water Fluoridation

  • Public attitudes in the North East of England (Lowry et al., 2021) found overwhelming support for community water fluoridation, confirming its continued acceptance by communities.
  • A review of UK opinion polls (1997–2007) demonstrated consistent majority support for fluoridation when respondents were presented with clear scientific evidence.
  • The West Midlands Public Attitudes Survey (2010) found strong support for CWF, particularly among those who had experienced the benefits first-hand.
  • The Scotland Public Attitudes Study (Jones et al., 2022) reaffirmed public backing for fluoridation, highlighting its perceived importance in reducing oral health inequalities.
  • Research on political and misinformation influences on fluoridation (Lowery et al., 2021; Sleigh, 2021) explored how public perceptions have been shaped by political debate and misinformation campaigns.

Factors Influencing Public Support for Fluoridation

  • Awareness and education: Support for community water fluoridation increases when people receive accurate information from trusted sources.
  • Misinformation and activist campaigns: Opposition tends to rise when misinformation is widely circulated, especially via social media.
  • Local experiences: Areas that have experienced fluoridation cessation and subsequent rises in dental decay often see renewed public health benefits recognised by their communities, with renewed support for reintroducing fluoridation.

Support from Health Professionals

Community water fluoridation is widely supported by public health, dental, and medical professionals who recognise its effectiveness in preventing dental caries and reducing oral health inequalities.

Dental and Medical Organisations Supporting Fluoridation

  • British Dental Association (BDA): Strongly advocates for the expansion of CWF.
  • Faculty of Public Health (UK): Describes fluoridation as a crucial intervention for dental health.
  • British Medical Association (BMA): Endorses CWF based on extensive scientific evidence.
  • Royal College of Surgeons Faculty of Dental Surgery: Consistently supports fluoridation.
  • American Dental Association (ADA), Canadian Dental Association (CDA), and Australian Dental Association (ADA): All endorse CWF as a safe and effective measure.

Government and Institutional Support

Community water fluoridation has received strong governmental and institutional backing across multiple countries:

  • UK Government: The Health and Care Act 2022 simplifies the process of expanding fluoridation schemes in England.
  • UK Chief Medical Officers’ 2021 statement: Reaffirmed strong governmental support for fluoridation as a key oral health strategy.
  • Public Health England (now OHID): Recommends fluoridation as a key strategy for improving public oral health.
  • World Health Organization (WHO): Recognises water fluoridation as one of the most effective public health measures for preventing dental caries.
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, USA): Named CWF one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century.
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia): Concluded that CWF significantly reduces tooth decay across the population.

Professional and Academic Endorsements

  • University research groups: Many universities, including King’s College London, University of Manchester, and University of Birmingham, support fluoridation in both research and policy advocacy. The breadth of this academic scientific evidence reinforces support for community water fluoridation.
  • Health Research Board (Ireland, 2015): Confirmed the safety of fluoridation and its effectiveness in its systematic review.

Community and Civil Society Support

  • Local health boards and public health teams in fluoridated areas report high satisfaction with community water fluoridation.
  • Advocacy groups such as the British Fluoridation Society and American Fluoridation Society actively promote awareness and counter misinformation.
  • Support for community water fluoridation tends to be highest in areas where the extent of fluoridation coverage has been long-established and the population has seen the long-term benefits.

Conclusion

Support for community water fluoridation remains strong among the public when they have access to clear and accurate information. It is backed by major health organisations, public health institutions, and leading academic bodies. Efforts to increase public awareness and dispel misinformation can further enhance support for this proven public health intervention.

For further information on related topics, see our frequently asked questions.

References

Lowry RJ, Brophy R, Lennon MA (2021). Public attitudes to water fluoridation in the North East of England. British Dental Journal.

Department of Health (2007). Review of opinion polls concerning water fluoridation in the United Kingdom (1997–2007). London: Department of Health.

Department of Health (2010). Public attitudes on dental health and water fluoridation in the West Midlands. London: Department of Health.

Jones C, Lowry RJ, Brophy R (2022). Public attitudes to water fluoridation in Scotland. British Dental Journal, 233, 218–223.

Lowery G, Flinders M, Gibson B (2021). When evidence alone is not enough: the problem, policy and politics of water fluoridation in England. Evidence & Policy, 17(1), 5–23.

Sleigh C (2021). Fluoridation of drinking water in the UK, c.1962–67: a case study in scientific misinformation before social media. Evidence & Policy, 17(1), 25–41.