ngmeadow and communities across Massachusetts found themselves at the crossroads of science and democracy, tasked with a grave responsibility: deciding, by popular vote, whether fluoride should fortify the town’s public water supply. What unfolded was not merely a debate about a chemical compound, but a referendum on the very nature of public health decision-making.
Three communities locally have fluoridated their water supply: Holyoke, Amherst and Longmeadow. Statewide, 143 of 351 cities and towns have fluoridated their water systems.
To entrust such a nuanced, medically grounded issue to the unpredictable tides of public opinion is, I contend, not just misguided but — dare we say it — stupid.
Democracy is a cornerstone of American civic life, a bulwark against tyranny and the engine of collective progress. Yet, democracy is not a panacea. It is predicated upon the idea that, given the facts, a well-informed populace will make rational choices.
But herein lies the rub: public health is not merely a matter of values or preferences, but of evidence, expertise, and often, uncomfortable truths. The complexity of an individual’s human biology, epidemiology, and risk assessment is not something that can — or should — be distilled into a yes or no vote.
Referendums are exquisite instruments when wielded to shape questions of community identity, resource allocation, or municipal development. They flounder, however, when deployed to navigate the corridors of scientific consensus. In 1989, the people of Longmeadow were not voting on a tax override or a new library; they were, in effect, casting ballots on the oral health and future well-being of every child and adult who drank from the public tap.
What does it mean to vote on science? Imagine holding a vote on the appropriate treatment for heart disease or obesity, or diabetes — health matters far more serious than tooth decay — and inviting the average citizen to weigh in after a few weeks of campaigning by those in favor or against.
The notion is absurd.
Longmeadow’s 1989 referendum on fluoride serves as a cautionary tale — a case study in the dangers of conflating civic engagement with expertise. It is not an argument against democracy, but against the reckless outsourcing of specialized medical judgments to the ballot box.
Michael Albano
Longmeadow
