It also does not address the effects to children (and/or adults) when exposed to additional neurotoxins.
What's often not mentioned in the context of Fluoride's "success" is how improved diets have contributed to oral health.
Depending on time, geography, and species, it might be a choice between canned and nothing at all. Getting an orange for Christmas was a rare treat, not simply a healthier filler to displace candy.
As both are relevant to the context of "famously bad for you": methamphetamine, or methyl alcohol?
The passive voice is always an accomplice in deception, have you noticed? "Diets" are not under-nourished. People choose to purchase unhealthy food. Progressives insist that food stamps should pay for sugar water, candy, chips, etc. Meanwhile in the real world, 10 pounds of rice costs less than a bag of Doritos. Four pounds of lentils costs less than a 12 pack of soda.
If progressives were interested in good outcomes for the poor, they could radically improve the lives of the poor overnight by enforcing healthy standards of food stamps spending. But outcomes aren't the point--the point is to buy votes--so don't expect it to change any time soon.
Yeah, sort of. I’m immediately reminded of reports of health problems of people in countries that traditionally grow quinoa. The global demand for this amazingly nutritious food has priced it so high that many of the poorer in the regions that grow it have switched to cheaper, less nutritious foods.
I am also reminded that if I want to buy “peasant food”, I have to pay a huge premium over much cheaper, crappier, less nutritious processed food. That is to say, foods that were commonly cheap and readily available many centuries ago, are no longer cheap.
I find it slightly disengenuous to simply say that people choose to purchase unhealthy food without acknowledging that individuals are presented choices that are often suboptimal. I cannot reasonably buy bread without added sugar. That is not a choice I have made, that is the landcape I live in. I choose to buy less bread as a result. But I alone cannot change the economic landscape, even though you are absolutely correct that there are food which are cheaper and more nutritious than alternatives.
I would also be really cautious about “enforcing healthy standards”. I don’t know how old you are, but I’m old enough to have seen some pretty shitty “healthy standards” pushed en mass, and then codified through major lobbying by interested parties.
1) The ads for "Feed America" and other non-profits having to feed the under-fed.
2) Obesity. We're getting plenty of calories. However, calories !== nourishment. You can be overweight and yet not well fed.
The overall point is, giving fluoride credit for improved oral health is disingenuous.
Ah yes. Freedom for me but not for thee.