Fluorine and Dental Caries

By Dr. Royal Lee

Summary: Dr. Royal Lee was one of the earliest and most outspoken opponents of water fluoridation, which he described as “wholesale drugging of the population.” In this address to a group in Florida, Dr. Lee delves into the dangers of ingesting fluorides and speculates as to the commercial interests behind the adoption of water fluoridation. Also included is testimony by U.S. Representative Arthur L. Miller, Chairman of the Special Committee on Chemicals in Food, who candidly explains that water fluoridation had been adopted as official policy by the U.S. Public Health Service despite the fact that long-term studies of the effects of fluoridation had yet to be completed. Miller calls into question the motive of the Health Service’s approval and speculates that the aluminum industry, for which fluoride is a waste product that could now be sold for pure profit, had perhaps influenced the agency’s decision. Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research reprint 53B, 1952.

[The following is a transcription of the original Archives document. To view or download the original document, click here.]

Fluorine and Dental Caries

Address By Dr. Royal Lee to the Lakeland Women’s Club, Lakeland, Florida, January 3, 1952.

A few years ago, the discovery was made that fluorine in food and water had an influence on the incidence of tooth decay. Just what are the facts in this relationship?

As yet we are in the dark about the basic biochemical principles involved. Regardless of that present situation of ignorance, we are being rushed by certain interests into a headlong program for adding fluorine compounds to our drinking water long before we know what the effects may be of such wholesale drugging of the population.

The general facts regarding the causes of tooth decay were reviewed in a paper prepared by myself back in 1923.1 A survey of the literature at that time showed that tooth decay was greatest by far in children who had such poor nutrition that their resistance was lowered not only to tooth decay but also to all other diseases of childhood. Among schoolchildren the ones who were relatively immune to dental caries were the same ones who had not had the various children’s diseases, such as measles, mumps, scarlet fever, frequent colds, etc.

It was evident that the endocrine gland systems of the children that had failed to get good food were weakened, so that they were more susceptible [than well nourished children] to any infectious condition, including tooth decay—which, in the last analysis, is just as much of a result of lowered resistance as tuberculosis, which might be called decay of the lungs.

Dr. McCarrison had already at that time—in 1921, in fact—written his monumental book Studies in Deficiency Disease. This showed in detail how the endocrine glands were destroyed progressively by bad food—food such as white bread, refined sugar, and all the rubbish sold as food in packages in the grocery stores. Today, we are being told about new wonder drugs such as ACTH [adrenocorticotropic hormone] and cortisone, not realizing that the only possible reason we ever need such expensive medication is because our supplies of these glandular products have been exhausted by the starvation of our own glands out of functional existence through our unwitting use of foods that have been so adulterated that their original food values have been largely destroyed.

If fluorine is necessary as a part of this better nutrition we need, we had better look carefully into the matter and see that the kind offered us as a substitute for the [kind obtained naturally in] food is suitable for food use.

The evidence here warns us that somebody is going all out on the old racket of selling us a cheap substitute for a costly food. It is probable that fluorine as a food is only that kind of fluorine that has entered into an organic combination by passing through plant life before we make use of it. Inorganic fluorine is a cumulative poison, which means that it accumulates in the body even if taken in very small doses. Organic fluorine does not accumulate in the body regardless of the dosage, and it is unquestionably far more effective in preventing dental decay.2 Whole wheat grown in Deaf Smith County, Texas, contains up to 700 ppm of fluorine3 but never has caused fluorosis, while inorganic fluorine in drinking water may cause much fluorosis even in amounts as small as 0.9 ppm.4

Many of our nutritional mineral elements are poisonous in the inorganic state but indispensable food in the proper organic combination. Cobalt is one; zinc is another. Organic cobalt is known as vitamin B12. When the organic form of fluorine is ultimately discovered, it probably will be identified as one of the members of a well-known vitamin complex, just as organic cobalt has been catalogued as the twelfth offspring of the vitamin B complex. (The B family has at this date reached a total number of fifteen vitamins.)

Inorganic cobalt is poisonous to the human system and cannot be used in any way until converted by soil microbes into B12. Fluorine probably is worse in terms of being a cumulative poison, since it accumulates in the bones and makes them more and more brittle when taken in as the inorganic form. There is no known antidote for this process.

Most of the cattle in this country have this stony state of bones. The bone-carving industries using cattle bones prefer those from Argentina, where cattle bones become resilient and tough, more like ivory in texture, apparently by reason of a lesser amount of inorganic fluorine in the water supplies.

Our Food and Drug [Administration] authorities consider the fluorine content of most cattle bones as too high for safe use as bonemeal sources for supplying mineral nutritional supplements to the diet. It is the cumulative nature of fluorine as a poison that necessitates this ruling.

So the dangers of reckless use of fluorine seem too obvious to permit the wholesale addition of this element to drinking water before the test installations are completely reported on. A ten-year period was stated to be essential before any reliable statistics were to be available. That was when the first fluoridation was begun back in 1947. Why this haste at the present moment? Who is pushing this dangerous procedure, and why?

In looking into the commercial influences responsible, we find two gangs of unsavory characters. One is the concern that has been wrecking our bread by promoting the sale of oxidizing flour bleaches for the last forty years, the firm that supplies the apparatus to feed and measure properly the poisons used in both procedures, flour bleaching and water fluoridation. The other gang is the one that for years has whooped up the use of aluminum as kitchen utensils. It seems that fluorides are by-products of the aluminum industry.

First, a few words on flour bleaches. They destroy all oxidizable vitamins, and since these vitamins are the ones that protect us from heart disease, we have become a nation celebrated for having heart disease as the foremost cause of death and the main reason for draft rejections.

That statement is so easily proved that no one can honestly deny it. All you need to do is to run a cardiographic recording on one or ten people, give them a daily requirement dose of the vitamins lost by oxidation in wheat, and recheck their heart. In 90 percent of the persons tested, a 10-minute interval is all that is necessary to show a vast improvement in rhythm and muscular function. This proves beyond doubt, I would say, that those persons are having their health undermined and their lives shortened by the deficiency directly resulting from flour bleaching.

This simple fact has been cleverly suppressed so that not one doctor in fifty is aware of it. Just who is managing this suppression of lifesaving information? I would say those who are profiting by the suppression—the flour millers or the flour-bleach promoters.

If these facts were properly known by the doctors we depend on for treatment of our ailments, I am sure statistics of heart disease would very soon drop to a small fraction of those of the present. In one survey we found that the danger of incurring a fatal attack of heart disease was thirty-five times more in a person failing to get these wheat vitamins. Thirty-five persons died in a group getting no extra vitamins before one died in a similar group that was getting the vitamins. Similar figures have been reported by the Shute Institute in Canada.

A syndicate that will suppress such information to make money for its members certainly will have little compunction in saddling the use of fluorides in poison forms on us to make us believe that we are preventing tooth decay. And maybe it will. No doubt the intestinal flora of the child will in some degree convert the inorganic fluorine into organic. But what of the greater part that is not converted—that part that remains in the bone tissues and renders the bones brittle and acts to poison glandular cells? For the sake of safety, we should not take into our food regime any inorganic fluorine at all.

The enrichment of flour with counterfeit synthetic vitamins is another colossal crime to be laid at the door of these schemers. If you have any idea that a synthetic vitamin can substitute for a natural one, please take the trouble to read Report No. 6 of the Lee Foundation [“Abstracts on Relation of Vitamin Deficiencies to Heart Disorders.”] There is to my knowledge no test yet made, either on animals or humans, that failed to prove the synthetic product was incompetent in acting as a substitute for natural products.

We also know that in treating heart disease there is no practical substitute for the natural vitamins. We know that ninety percent of heart patients can live normal lives, forget their troubles, and live long enough to die of old age or some other ailment if their nutritional program is properly corrected. I say that from seeing it happen for the last twenty-two years in every part of the  United States and in the clientele of about 20,000 physicians who are aware of the truth about nutrition and heart disease.

The partnership [of the flour millers and bleachers] with the aluminum interests seems natural because both have criminally hoodwinked the American public for many years. Aluminum is poisonous to both plant and animal cells if in soluble forms.5 It combines with [any] phosphorus that may be part of vitamin groups and thereby destroys the vitamin. So it can cause serious deficiencies even in small repeated and continual dosages.

Three of the nation’s greatest scientists support me in that statement—Dr. Albert Matthews, Dr. Victor Vaughn, and Dr. Gideon Wells. Their testimony was recorded in a proceeding of the Federal Trade Commission and later suppressed by the commission, apparently by reason of political pressure, and it has been withheld from the public for twenty-five years. More of that story is available in Lee Foundation Report No. 5 [“Lithogenesis and Hypovitaminosis”].

The person incurring such deficiencies may note no symptom other than a gradual loss of some essential nerve function—a paralysis that creeps upon him without warning. Such paralytic diseases are becoming more and more common.

Many physicians and dentists are stampeded into supporting these misrepresentations, for the power wielded by these pressure groups is remarkable in its ramifications. But in every case these fellows are totally incompetent to support their opinions with facts in a debate. Instead, they devote their efforts to smearing and vilifying the opposition. They take the attitude that no one should criticize or doubt officialdom. They pass the buck when asked for facts by quoting authorities that, when investigated, say far less than they are purported to have said. They even resent the insinuation that their statements should have such support.

But the real common-sense basis for not wanting our water poisoned goes back to the basic principles of all pure food laws. The contamination of food or drink with any poison, in any amount, regardless of the smallness or apparent harmlessness, is adulteration. A brewer who permitted harmless quantities of fluoride to get into his beer after he had used the fluoride to sterilize his beer vats was fined $5,000 for his carelessness [and given] a suspended jail sentence of six months.

It is an alarming sign of incompetence in any public official who even entertains the idea of wholesale adulteration of water with a poison.

Dr. Harvey W. Wiley, the first head of the Federal Pure Food and Drug enforcement administration [the FDA], was pried out of his job by political pressure back in 1912 because he honestly tried to stop food adulteration. His book of 1930 describes how the Food and Drug Administration had become perverted into the opposite function of protecting the adulterators! (The History of a Crime Against the Pure Food Law, 1930—at your library unless they have lost it; reprint of the last chapter available free from Lee Foundation, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.)

This activity of the Food and Drug Administration, to jump to the defense of food adulterators, is demonstrated by the current articles in the American Magazine and Woman’s Home Companion (December 1951), in which government officials ridicule health foods such as blackstrap molasses and wheat germ.

If we all got our quota of wheat germ, there would be no heart disease, in my opinion. As to molasses, it carries the vital vitamins and minerals of the plant juice. Just how vital they are is best shown by the fact that cane sugar can be used to feed bees in winter, beekeepers buying carloads for the purpose. But they cannot use beet sugar, which the chemist says is “chemically identical” (just as in the case of synthetic versus natural vitamins). Beet sugar will kill bees right away.

Why this difference? I suppose because the cane sugar has a little residual molasses, [which has] a pleasant flavor and need not be so completely removed as the beet molasses, which has an offensive taste. So the bee still gets enough mineral and vitamin content in the cane sugar to carry him over until he can select his own vitamins and minerals in the field.

But the wise guy from Washington says molasses are a delusion as a good food. Who is deluded, do you think? The very tone of these articles brands them as planted propaganda. An honest critic would offer factual material and refrain from vilification and ridicule. These are weapons of the last-ditch debater, who knows he is fighting a lost cause and cannot gracefully accept the inevitable.

At the same time, the opposition has proven by their own acts that they are criminally guilty of wrongdoing, and there is no possible reason to pretend that they are honest citizens. To treat them as such is to be as gullible as they wish us to be. If we have the discretion God gave us, let us use it.

By Royal Lee, DDS, President, Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1952.


  1. The Systematic Cause of Dental Caries.” Lee Foundation, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
  2. Sodium fluoride administered in water caused a retention of 3.88 mg per day; the same quantity of fluorine administered as bonemeal caused a retention of only 1.83 mg daily (Machle and Largent, Ind. Hygiene, 24:112, 1943).
  3. Report from Dr. Geo. W. Heard, Hereford, Texas.
  4. Chem. & Engineering News, p. 2410,  Aug. 22, 1949.
  5. Lyon and Buckman. The Nature and Properties of Soils, p. 301. MacMillan, 4th edition [year of publication not indicated].
[Additional, supporting document:]

Fluoridation of Water

Extension of Remarks of Hon. Arthur L. Miller of Nebraska in the U.S. House of Representatives[spacer height=”20px”]

Reprinted from the March 24, 1952, issue of the Congressional Record.

Mr. Miller of Nebraska:

Mr. Speaker, I wish to discuss, briefly, the pros and cons of adding fluorine to the communal water supply in an effort to prevent dental caries in children. This subject is of a great deal of interest to all of the country.

The Special Committee on Chemicals in Food has just completed exhaustive hearings, the first of their kind, on the question of adding fluorine to the water supply. We had before the committee eighteen witnesses who qualified as experts on the subject. There certainly was no unanimity of opinion among those experts. This was true because the scientists felt that certain experiments now in progress were not far enough along in order for them to issue a sound opinion.

Mr. Speaker, a year ago, I introduced a bill that would permit the commissioners of the District of Columbia to add fluorides to the public water supply of Washington, DC. I did this because I thought the adding of fluorides at that time was a good thing, and I wanted to have some discussion on the subject. The commissioners did not wait for a hearing on the bill, and without legislative authority and under prodding by the [U.S.] Health Department, they appeared before the Appropriations Committee requesting moneys to put the plan into operation.

Mr. Speaker, I can speak a little more clearly on the subject today. I say that because of the exhaustive hearings the special committee has held. Because of the hearings, I am wiser today than yesterday.

I believe that adding fluorides to the drinking water in the proportion of one part per million will prevent in children about fifty percent of the caries that ordinarily occur. I am convinced from the hearings that [scientists] do not know at this time what effect fluorides might have on an acutely or chronically ill child or on older groups who might be chronically ill. The scientists just have now completed their findings on this phase of the subject. To me it is unthinkable that the Public Health Service should recommend universal medication of water for everyone until all of the facts about the effects on the ill are known.

It seems to me that the public interest is best served by a more cautious attitude before advocating the addition of any chemical to the water and food supplies. Certainly cities that are contemplating adding fluorine to the water should first know what percentage of fluorine they now have in their water supply, and they should be aware of the facts—that all of the pros and cons as to its results on individuals who may be chronically ill have not been established.

I note in the Sunday Star of Sunday, March 23, 1952:

“Nearby Maryland area is being tested for fluoride effects, and the United States Public Health Service is now making a long-range study of its value in water.”

The article further states:

“The Public Health Service is trying to find exactly how fluorides fight tooth decay and how it reacts in some other parts of the body.”

I think it is all to the good, Mr. Speaker, that the Public Health Service will continue to investigate as to what happens when fluorides get into the system of the individual who is ill.

I can say to my colleagues, quite frankly, that until I had the advantage of hearing all of the experts in this question, I thought fluorine added to the water supply might be beneficial to everyone. I was misled by the Public Health Service.

I am a former state health director and have always supported the Public Health Service in the measures they have advocated. I am sorely disappointed that they now are advocating that every single soul in the community should take fluorine before all of the facts of experiments now in progress have been completed. It may be a good thing for everyone, but we ought to know whether sick children or adults with kidney disease, diabetes, fracture of a bone, thyroid disturbances, tuberculosis, or any chronic disease are able to eliminate fluorides as effectively as normal people do. In the testimony before our committee, I could find no record of such studies.

I am further disturbed, Mr. Speaker, because I was misled—and perhaps other have been misled—by statements that the American Medical Association had given their unqualified approval to this plan. I believe they do endorse the plan in principle, but it is a qualified endorsement. Let me call your attention to what Dr. George Lull, Secretary and General Manager of the American Medical Association, said in an insert in the record of the hearings on March 6, 1952, which appears on pages 3971 and 3972 of the printed hearings, and I quote:

“The council purposely refrains from making any recommendation that communities support or oppose projects for the fluoridation of water supplies.”

And on page 3972:

“The House of Delegates did not urge or recommend that any community undertake to fluoridate their water supplies.”

Mr. Speaker, that statement is of a definite nature. I was led to believe that they had given fluoridation of water their wholehearted support. I was told that by the Public Health Service. I have been guilty of quoting the American Medical Association as giving mass fluoridation their unqualified approval.

Mr. Speaker, despite my best efforts and from the evidence before my committee, I cannot find any public evidence that gave me the impression that the American Medical Association, the [American] Dental Association, or any of several other health agencies now recommending the fluoridation of water has done any original work of their own. These groups were simply endorsing each other’s opinions.

The possibility of using fluorides for control of children’s dental caries is an attractive one and in my opinion warrants additional study. [But] there is no scientific basis for recommending immediate acceptance of the proposals to treat the entire population with fluorides. The mass medication of fluorides is still in the experimental category, and there is certainly a need for additional scientific studies. There is nothing that presents an urgent decision until decisive experiments have been done. It will then be time to make the decision.

It is quite possible that the use of fluorides in preventing dental caries will be a major discovery in the field of dentistry. It is too early to evaluate the results of experiments now in progress.

Mr. Speaker, it is disturbing to me when the men in the Public Health Service—who as late as 1950 were not ready to endorse the universal use of fluorine—have now, almost to a man, come out for the endorsement. I want to refer to some published papers of Dr. Francis A. Arnold, National Institute of Health. The papers, published in 1948, 1949, and 1950, said in substance:

“The evaluation of the effects of fluorine in water has not been established and must wait until the experiments now in progress are completed.”

Dr. Arnold published another paper on dental research in May of 1951. The paper appeared in Tufts College Dental School magazine. The paper refers to dental research as well as to the use of fluorine in water. I quote form page 3778 of the hearings held March 17, 1952:

“It is too early to evaluate the effects of this increased research activity on the improvement of the dental health of the children in the United States.”

Dr. Arnold published another paper, entitled “Fluoride Therapy for the Control of Dental Caries,” that was reprinted in the Journal of the American Dental Association in October 1948. The conclusions are:

“At the present there is no acceptable controlled scientific evidence in an adequate number of observations with which to evaluate the supplemental feeding of fluoridation for caries control.”

Mr. Speaker, as I said in the beginning, I am convinced that the proper use of fluorides in the water or milk, or by tablet form, for children may reduce caries about fifty percent. The eighteen experts who appeared before our committee all admitted that there are experiments now going on as to what the effects might be on the older age group as well as children and adults who might have chronic diseases but that the experiments are not completed, and some of [the experts] are not ready to render an opinion. It seems unthinkable to me that we should proceed with universal medication until these facts have been carefully examined.

The committee had ample evidence that even in areas where fluorides occur naturally, they still have considerable caries. It is also a known fact that areas that have no fluorides in their water may have few dental caries. It is by no means a cure-all. One dentist even wrote me that dental caries might be the cause of poliomyelitis, and because I objected to the use of fluorine for everyone, I might be the cause of numerous cases of polio. How ridiculous that statement from a man who should be a thinking, scientific man.

Mr. Speaker, at Newburg, NY, an exhaustive experiment is being carried on that will be completed in about five years. When it is completed, we will have some conclusive evidence as to the effect, if any, that fluorine might have on the health of the older group and those with chronic diseases. This will also include the effects on the unborn child. Dr. David B. Ast, of the American Public Health Service, is heading up this experiment. He published an article in the June 9, 1950, issue of the American Journal of Public Health (volume 4, number 6) on the question of fluorides in water. A final conclusion of the article appears on page 4042 of the hearings, and I quote:

“Final conclusions regarding the possible systemic effects of fluoride in the dosage employed should not be drawn before termination of the ten-year study.

“More refined techniques may also be available in the future in studying pertinent aspects of the problem. It much be emphasized, however, that a longer period of observation is required before final conclusions can be drawn. The possibility of demonstrated accumulative effects of the fluorides in the final years of the ten-year study cannot be eliminated at this time.”

Mr. Speaker, I repeatedly asked the following question of nearly every witness who appeared before our committee:

“What experiments have been carried on to demonstrate the effects fluorides might have on older people and those with chronic diseases or in abnormal children?”

All of the advocates of the use of fluorides in water said that no conclusions had been reached but studies were in progress. Again I repeat, Mr. Speaker, since these studies are in progress, that it seems to me to be in the public interest for communities that wish to use fluorides in their water supply to know that the results of the experiments now being made have not been completed or published.

Mr. Speaker, every member of Congress probably sends out numerous yearbooks of the [U.S.] Department of Agriculture. The 1950–1951 yearbook has a chapter titled “Hazards and Potential Drugs.” On page 722 you’ll find this statement:

“For example, the work of the pharmacology laboratory demonstrated that the fluoride ion inhibits the enzyme bone phosphatase in young rats and thereby retards calcification of the leg bones.”

The Department of Agriculture has recommended that no fluorides be fed to brood sows. Experimental work on rats and mice indicate a lessened mental reaction in rats and mice who have had fluorides. What effect fluorides might have on unborn child has not been established. Evidence points to the fact that the placenta carries a large amount of fluorides.

A check of the vital statistics of Grand Rapids, Michigan, which is the only city of any size that has had artificial fluoridation for more than four years, shows the death rate from heart disease in 1944 numbered 585. Four years later, after fluoridation had started, there were 1,059 deaths. There was an increase of 50 percent in the deaths from nephritis. There was an increase of 50 percent, over a period of four years, in the deaths from intracranial lesions.

These are official figures contained in the Vital Statistics of the United States, published annually by the United States Public Health Service. I am not saying that fluoridation was the cause. However, the Public Health Service takes pride in pointing out through statistics that health might even be better when fluorides are in the water. The records do not prove their point.

Mr. Speaker, at the close of these remarks, I desire to place in the record the names of witnesses who appeared before our committee. They are marked pro and con. You will note that all of the experts grounded in the science of biochemistry have advocated the go-slow sign on the use of fluoridation in drinking water. I believe that the dental profession and other public-minded individuals like myself have been misled by the Public Health Service because all of the facts have not been made available on this subject.

I am reminded that twenty-five years ago the Public Health Service recommended universal use of iodine in water. Later on, it was discovered that iodine affected people with goiters, and the program was discontinued.

It is difficult for me to understand how high officials in the Public Health Service could change their mind over a three-month period and completely reverse the field. Where once they advocated the go-slow sign on the use of fluorides, they now apparently have gone overboard and put out large amounts of propaganda favoring the fluoridation of water. I am certain that the dental profession merely echoes and endorses the opinions of the Public Health Service. They have done little experimental work themselves.

I sometimes wonder if the Aluminum Co. of America and its many subsidiary companies might not have a deep interest in getting rid of waste products from the manufacture of aluminum—because these products contain a large amount of fluoride. In this connection it is interesting to know that Oscar Ewing, who now heads up the Federal Security Administration, and the firm of attorneys he was with—Hubbard, Hill & Ewing—represent the Aluminum Co. of America. I understand Mr. Ewing’s name no longer appears on the door, [which now reads] Hubbard, Hill & Hughes. It would be interesting to know if he shares in the yearly cut of their melon.

I have also noted, Mr. Speaker, that the District of Columbia commissioners propose to use sodium silicofluoride. This is cheaper, but it is the most dangerous type of element. It forms a highly toxic fluoric acid. If fluorides must be used, the biochemists recommend that sodium fluoride should be used.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I am not opposing the proper use of the proper dose of fluorides for normal children. There is an alternate method of giving fluorides to them beyond medicating the water supply of everyone. I do feel that it is in the public interest that communities have all the facts before they put fluorine in the water. Experiments now in progress should give that answer within the next five or six years.

This is not an urgent matter. I would recommend the go-slow sign until we are thoroughly convinced that no damage will come to the sick child or to the individuals in the old-age group who may have chronic diseases. Communities who insist on putting fluorides in their water should know that experiments now in progress, which will be completed in five years, may supply the answer as to whether universal medication of water will be a good thing for all the people.

Witnesses Before Select Committee Investigation Fluorine in Water

For Fluorides in Drinking Water:

  • Bruce D. Forsythe, DDS, Assistant Surgeon General, Chief Dental Officer, Public Health Service, Federal Security Agency, Washington, DC
  • John K. Knutson, Division of Dental Publish Health, United States Public Health, United States Publish Health Service, Washington, DC
  • David B. Ast, DDS, MPH, the American Public Health Association, Albany, NY
  • Francis F. Heyroth, Kettering Laboratory, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati.
  • John D. Porterfield, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers, Columbus, Ohio.
  • Francis A. Arnold, DDS, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
  • Trendley Dean, DDS, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md
  • Isadore Zipkin, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md
  • H.B. Andervont, Chief of Laboratory of Biology, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD
  • J. Roy Doty, Secretary of the American Dental Association’s Council on Dental Therapeutics, Chicago, IL
  • J.B. Blayney, Professor of Dental Surgery and Director of the Walter G. Zoller Memorial Clinic, University of Chicago, IL

Against Fluoride in Water:

  • Robert S. Harris, Nutritional Biochemistry Laboratories, Department of Food Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
  • Alfred Taylor, Biochemical Institute of the University of Texas, Austin, TX
  • E.B. Heart, Professor of Biochemistry, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
  • V.O. Hurme, Director of Clinical Research, Forsyth Dental Infirmary for Children, Boston, MA
  • Margaret Cammach Smith, former head of Department of Human Nutrition, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
  • Howard V. Smith, Associate Agricultural Chemist, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
  • Hans H. Neumann, 1377 Kew Avenue, Hewlitt, NY

Comments by A.L. Miller, U.S. Representative from Nebraska, 1952. This article and preceding one reprinted as single publication, Reprint 53B, by the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, 1952.

Reprint No. 53B
Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research is a nonprofit public service institution, chartered by the state of Wisconsin to investigate and disseminate facts relating to nutrition.


Leave a Reply