I’ve been watching this fluoride saga unfold for months, and yesterday’s lawsuit filing brings us to yet another chapter in what’s become Calgary’s most persistent public health debate.
A group called Safe Water Calgary filed an injunction at the Court of King’s Bench on Tuesday, aiming to halt the city’s planned fluoridation of our drinking water. After covering local politics for over a decade, I’ve rarely seen an issue divide Calgarians so consistently.
“We believe citizens have the right to choose what goes into their bodies,” said Ellen Zhang, spokesperson for Safe Water Calgary, when I spoke with her outside the courthouse. “Fluoridation represents mass medication without informed consent.”
The timing is significant. City officials confirmed to me last week that fluoridation equipment installation is nearly complete at both the Bearspaw and Glenmore water treatment plants, with the process set to begin next month.
Calgary’s fluoride history reads like a political ping-pong match. We’ve added it, removed it, voted on it multiple times since the 1990s. Most recently, 62% of voters supported reintroduction in the 2021 plebiscite, leading Council to approve the $30.1 million project.
Dr. Heather Johnson, a public health dentist I interviewed for my coverage of the 2021 vote, emphasized that “community water fluoridation remains one of the most cost-effective ways to prevent tooth decay across all socioeconomic groups.” Health Canada and the World Health Organization have consistently supported fluoridation as safe and effective.
But walking through Kensington yesterday, I found perspectives remain sharply divided. Sarah Meyers, a mother of three, told me she’s relieved about the lawsuit. “I’ve been filtering our water for years specifically to avoid fluoride if they added it,” she said. Meanwhile, dentist Dr. Michael Chan from a nearby practice pointed out that “we see significantly more childhood cavities than colleagues in Edmonton, where water is fluoridated.”
The legal challenge centers on three main arguments: potential health risks from long-term exposure, environmental concerns regarding fluoride compounds entering the Bow River, and questions about governmental authority to administer what they term “medication” through public water supplies.
City solicitor Davinder Sekhon declined specific comment on pending litigation when I contacted her office, but noted that “the City operates within provincial legislation governing water treatment and follows Health Canada guidelines.”
According to court documents I reviewed yesterday, plaintiffs are seeking immediate injunctive relief to prevent fluoridation while the case proceeds. Judge Miranda Thorne is expected to hear initial arguments next Tuesday.
Alberta Health Services spokesperson Jim Davidson told me their position remains unchanged: “Community water fluoridation is a safe, effective public health measure that reduces dental decay by 25-30% in communities where it’s implemented.”
The lawsuit raises familiar questions about balancing community health benefits against individual choice – something I’ve seen play out repeatedly in this city. Whether you’re a fluoride supporter or opponent, the debate touches on deeper issues about municipal governance and personal autonomy.
From my perspective, after covering this issue since the last removal in 2011, what’s striking isn’t just the scientific arguments, but how fluoride has become symbolic of larger political divides in our city. The court’s decision could impact not just our water, but how we approach other public health measures in Calgary.
I’ll be in the courtroom next week as proceedings begin. In the meantime, city officials confirm that fluoridation preparations continue despite the legal challenge.
