If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.
It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.
Wiley InterScience | ||
![]() Community Dentistry and Oral EpidemiologyVolume 36 Issue 2, Pages 95 - 102 Published Online: 23 May 2007 © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S
Abstract | References | Full Text: HTML, PDF (Size: 75K) | Related Articles | Citation Tracking European citizens' opinions on water fluoridation Copyright Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Munksgaard KEYWORDS water fluoridation • European public attitudes Griffin M, Shickle D, Moran N. European citizens' opinions on water fluoridation. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2007; xx: xx–xx. © 2007 The Authors ABSTRACTObjectives: To understand European citizens' opinions on water fluoridation, as part of research on their attitudes to the tensions between private and public interest. Methods: Sixty-eight focus groups held (with an average of eight people per group) in September and October 2003 in 16 countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK). Results: Most participants were against water fluoridation, although groups in Greece, Ireland, Poland and Sweden were more in favour. Many felt dental health was an issue to be dealt with at the level of the individual, rather than a solution to be imposed en masse. While people accepted that some children were not encouraged to brush their teeth, they proposed other solutions to addressing these needs rather than having a solution of unproved safety imposed on them by public health authorities whom they did not fully trust. They did not see why they should accept potential side effects in order that a minority may benefit. In particular, water was something that should be kept as pure as possible, even though it was recognized that it already contains many additives. Conclusions: While the vast majority of people opposed water fluoridation, this may be indicative of shifts away from public support of population interventions towards private interventions, as well as reduced trust in public agencies. Thus if research were to demonstrate more clear benefits of water fluoridation over and above that which can be achieved by use of fluoride toothpaste, then the public may become more supportive. However, lobby groups are likely to remain influential. Submitted 21 June 2006; accepted 14 October 2006 |