Last week I wrote about the fluoride debate taking place in Columbia, Missouri. This week I want to discuss the reaction to the story I did for KOMU about that debate.
Here is the link to the video story: Local Advocates and Protestors of Fluoride Deeply Divided
And here is the link to the web story and viewer comments.
As you can see by the comments at the bottom, which wind up taking more space than the web article itself, this issue really is deeply divided.
I know I discussed last week how it’s important with any complex issue such as fluoride for people to do their own research and decide for themselves. Connie Kacprowicz, with Columbia Water & Light, and Amy Bremer, the resident protesting fluoride, also made this point to me during their interviews.
I bring up the issue again because reading all of the comments shows how vital researching is for environmental issues.
One person commented: “The only real way to ‘preventable dental decay’ is for everyone to lower their sugar consumption, increase nutrition dense foods instead of ‘dead foods’ and practice proper oral hygiene; then tooth decay will decrease significantly. That’s what’s happened in Europe. Why do we insist on band aid solutions when the real solution is staring us in the face?”
Another writes: “Studies show that fluoride reduces cavities an additional 20-40% over and above the use of other sources of fluoride. That mean big savings in dental bills. ‘Mass medicating’?! What is all this hysteria! Please, the EPA has authority over fluoridation and considers it safe for humans and the environment.”
And these are only two of the 29 comments.
I struggled to really dive deep into this story because the issue is so polarizing. I wanted to remain unbiased and to not bring out the side that I agree with any more than the other side. What was also disappointing was my inability to further explain the issue because of time. In broadcasting, time is everything and my story was already over two minutes. This meant I didn’t have time to use the graphics showing other cities in Missouri that recently stopped using fluoride in water. I think in environmental reporting, however, this added information is important for the viewer.
By taking into consideration all of the controversy surrounding this story, I’m hoping I can do a follow-up story once the city makes its decision in February and go even further into the issue.