Saint Louis, MO Fluoridation Fought

PRIOR HISTORY:

 [**1] 

 

From the Circuit Court of St. Louis County

Civil Appeal From Action for Equitable Relief

Judge Douglas L. C. Jones

Reversed and remanded with directions

OPINIONBY: Coil, C.

OPINION:

 [*623]  In June 1959 the St. Louis County Council enacted an ordinance which directed
the St. Louis County Water Company to introduce a sufficient quantity of the
fluoride ion into the water it furnished county consumers to maintain throughout the
distribution system a
fluoride concentration of approximately one part
fluoride per million gallons of water, and which directed the Water Company to make
certain tests and keep certain records, and which directed the county health
commissioner to make periodic reports to the council on the fluoridation of the
water supply and to arrange for surveys and research into the beneficial effect
of the program.

Respondents are eight resident
taxpayers of St. Louis County and are consumers of water distributed by the
Water Company, some of whom resided in various municipalities within the
county. They brought an action against the Water Company, the then members of
the county council, the county clerk, and the acting county health
commissioner, to enjoin the
 [**2]  enforcement of the ordinance for the averred
reason that it was invalid in that it violated stated provisions of the federal
and Missouri Constitutions and provisions of specified state laws.

At the close of respondents’ evidence the trial chancellor sustained Water
Company’s motion to dismiss and there has been no appeal from the ensuing
judgment of dismissal. At the close of all the evidence the trial chancellor
enjoined the remaining defendants
below from enforcing the ordinance for the stated reason that it was void in
that it violated provisions of the state and federal constitutions in the
respects to be hereinafter noted.

Those defendants have appealed and contend that the trial court erred for the
reason that the ordinance is a valid exercise of the county council’s police
power to promote the public
health. Respondents here seek to support the trial court’s ruling for the
stated reasons that the ordinance is unconstitutional in that it violates the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article I,
Section 10 of the Missouri Constitution in that it unduly infringes their and
other county residents’ freedom of choice in matters
relating to
 [**3]  bodily care and health by compelling them to drink fluoridated water against
their wills; that the ordinance violates the First Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States in that it subjects Christian Scientists
living in St. Louis County to forced medication contrary to their religious
beliefs; that the ordinance violates Article
VI, Section 18(c) of the Constitution of Missouri in that it applies to the
entire county, including the county municipalities, and therefore its enactment
was beyond the power of the county council; and that the enforcement of the
ordinance would violate Missouri statutes relating to the adulteration and
misbranding of nonalcoholic drinks.

Inasmuch as the validity of the contention that the ordinance violates Article
VI,
Section 18(c) of the Missouri Constitution depends on the question whether the
council had the power and authority to have enacted any ordinance purporting to
deal with matters relating to the public health of persons residing within
county municipalities,

 [*624]  and inasmuch as an affirmance of the trial court’s ruling on that question
would be dispositive of the case, we shall first consider that contention.

The
ordinance
 [**4]  in question contemplates, and its enforcement would involve, the addition of a
quantity of the
fluoride ion to all of the water leaving Water Company’s purification plant and such
water is sold to consumer residents of St. Louis County who live both within
and without incorporated areas of the county, and the water so furnished is,
for all practical
purposes, the only water available to county residents.

Article VI, Sections 18 through 20, 1945 Missouri Constitution, authorizes
special charters for the government of certain counties and authorizes the
inclusion of specified provisions in those charters. Section 18(c) is:
“The charter may provide for the
vesting and exercise of legislative power pertaining to public health, police
and traffic, building construction, and planning and zoning, in the part of the
county outside incorporated cities; and it may provide, or authorize its
governing body to provide, the terms upon which the county shall perform any of
the services and functions of any municipality, or political subdivision
in the county, except school districts, when accepted by vote of a majority of
the qualified electors voting thereon in the municipality or subdivision,

 [**5]  which acceptance may be revoked by like vote.” 2 V.A.M.S.

Pursuant to that constitutional authorization, St. Louis County’s Home Rule
Charter provided in
Article III, Section 22(20) that the council should have the power by ordinance
“To exercise legislative power pertaining to public health, police and traffic,
building construction, and planning and zoning, in the part of the County
outside incorporated cities, and on such other subjects as may hereafter be
authorized by the Constitution or by
law, provided that, until superseded by ordinances of the Council, the laws
pertaining to said matters shall continue to be valid and effective.” And Section 22(19) provided that the council should have power by ordinance
“To provide the terms upon which the County shall perform any of the services
and functions of any municipality or political subdivision in the County,
except school districts, when accepted by a vote of a majority of the qualified
electors voting thereon in such municipality or subdivision, which acceptance
may be revoked by a like vote; and to cooperate and contract with the
municipalities or political subdivisions in the County as otherwise authorized
by this charter
 [**6]  and by law.”

It was the
opinion of the trial chancellor and it is the contention of respondents here
that the ordinance in question violates the constitutional and charter
provisions above set forth for the reason that the county council’s power to
enact public health ordinances was limited to the enactment of ordinances
affecting only those areas outside incorporated cities. It is apparent that
respondents’
position is correct if the council’s power in the premises is derived solely
from Article VI, Section 18(c) of the Constitution and Article III, Section
22(20) of the County Charter. The fact is, however, that the county council’s
power in certain matters, including the enactment of ordinances which tend to
enhance the public health, is
not limited to the power conferred by Article VI, Section 18(c) of the
Constitution and set forth in Article III, Section 22(20) of the County
Charter. On the contrary, St. Louis County may also exercise the powers
pertaining to the public health validly conferred by the state
upon counties of the first class. Article IV, Section 37 of the Missouri
Constitution declares that
“The health and general welfare of the people are matters of primary
 [**7]  public concern” and the general assembly shall establish a department of public health and
welfare and may grant power with respect thereto to counties, cities, or other
political subdivisions of the state. The legislature, as directed, established
a department of public health and welfare and, among others, enacted Section
192.300 RSMo 1959 and

 [*625]  12 V.A.M.S., which provides in part:
“The county courts of the several counties of class one are hereby empowered and
permitted to make and promulgate such rules, regulations or
ordinances as will tend to enhance the public health and prevent the entrance
of infectious, contagious, communicable or dangerous diseases into such county;
provided such rules, regulations and ordinances shall not be in conflict with
any rules or regulations authorized and made by the division of health in
accordance with this chapter.”

Article I, Section
2 of the County Charter provides:
“The County shall have all the powers now or hereafter vested by the
Constitution and laws of Missouri in county courts, county offices, counties of
the first class, counties having the population or assessed valuation of
taxable property of St. Louis County, Missouri,

 [**8]  and counties of any other class
in which St. Louis County may hereafter be includable, and all the powers
provided in this Charter, and all other powers that are necessarily implied
under the powers so granted.”

It appears, therefore, that by virtue of the constitutional, statutory, and
charter provisions last above set forth, the county council was and is
authorized to enact ordinances tending to
enhance the health of all the residents of St. Louis County, irrespective of
whether they also reside within a municipality. See
State ex rel. Shepley v. Gamble, Mo., 280 S.W.2d 656.

Assuming, then, for the present that the ordinance in question is one which was
intended to and which does tend to enhance the public health,
a question we shall later discuss, we hold that the county council had the
authority and the power to enact such an ordinance applicable county-wide and,
consequently, that the ordinance does not violate Article VI, Section 18(c) of
the Missouri Constitution or Article III, Section 22(20) of the St. Louis
County Charter.

It should be here
noted that there is no claim or contention that in enacting the ordinance the
county council acted arbitrarily or without sufficient
 [**9]  investigation or upon insufficient knowledge; nor is there any contention that
there was any procedural irregularity with respect to the enactment of the
ordinance in question. Even though there is no showing in the present record
as to what information the council had upon which it
based the exercise of its legislative power in enacting the ordinance, in the
absence of any contention as to insufficiency of information and in the absence
of any claim of procedural irregularity, we should and do assume that the
council had the information and knowledge which the evidence in the present
record affords.

As we have heretofore indicated, there is no dispute about the fact that,
generally speaking, a
resident of St. Louis County, whether within or without a municipality, must
use water supplied by the Water Company (although the evidence does show that
the City of Kirkwood, a municipality within the county, had been fluoridating
its water for a period of two years prior to the trial, but the record does
not show whether Kirkwood’s water is from some other source or whether that
city further treats water which it purchases from the Water Company). Further,
there is no dispute about the
 [**10]  fact that the Water Company obtains the water it supplies from the Missouri
River and that such water as it is taken from the river contains an average of
.5 part of the
fluoride ion per
million gallons of water and that such
fluoride content is not removed from the water but remains in it and, thus, that the
Water Company, irrespective of the ordinance, furnishes water fluoridated to
the level of one-half part
fluoride to each one million gallons of water; so that the effect of the ordinance is
to require the Water Company only to supplement the
existing concentration of
fluoride by adding one-half part per million gallons in order that there will be a
total of one part
fluoride per million gallons of water.

 [*626]  It appears also that there is no dispute about the facts that the
fluoride ion in water acts upon the individual who
drinks the water rather than upon the water as such as a purifying agent and,
consequently, the ordinance requirement for an additional amount of the
fluoride ion is for the purpose of affecting the dental health of each individual who
consumes the fluoridated water; and that dental caries or tooth decay is not a
contagious or communicable disease
 [**11]  and
cannot produce an epidemic.

Respondents adduced evidence, including the opinions of apparently
well-qualified experts, tending to establish the proposition that the ingestion
of water containing any
fluoride is harmful to the individual consuming it and that water containing one part
fluoride to a million gallons of water is harmful in many ways. That
evidence tended to show that ten to forty per cent of children between the ages
of 5 and 13 who consume water fluoridated one part to a million will have
disfigured teeth, including mottled or discolored enamel; that older people
consuming such water will suffer from gastrointestinal disturbances including
nausea, vomiting, constipation, and diarrhea; that they will also sustain
damage to the liver and kidneys and, under some circumstances, to other vital
organs such as the aorta, and suffer abnormalities in bone growth and bone
structure; that pregnant women consuming such water will sustain injury and
bear children whose teeth will show later
damage; that certain people, as a result of drinking such water, develop
arthritic changes in the lower spine, neuromuscular changes in the arms and
legs, partial palsy of the arms and
 [**12]  legs, abnormal reflexes, severe headaches, and extreme weakness.

Respondents’ evidence tended to show further that fluorine is not an
essential element of the human body and that all chemicals bearing the
fluoride ion are insidious poisons and are cumulative in the human body; that due to
the fact that different people drink different amounts of water and the same
person consumes different amounts of water depending upon the time of year and
for other reasons, it is
difficult if not impossible to control the amount of the
fluoride ion ingested by a particular individual when a specified amount is introduced
into a public water supply; and that there are methods other than the addition
of the
fluoride ion to the public water supply by which fluorine may be applied to the teeth,
such as an application by
a dentist directly on the teeth or by fluoridating an individual user’s water
supply by dissolving tablets therein.

Appellants adduced evidence, including the opinions of apparently
well-qualified experts, tending to establish the proposition that fluoridation
of water as proposed by the ordinance in question would result in harm to
no one but, on the contrary, would be highly
 [**13]  beneficial to the residents of St. Louis County in that it would reduce dental
decay in children up to 14 years of age by as much as sixty-five per cent by
means of hardening the enamel on their teeth, and that this same reduction in
decay would
accrue to older age groups provided the members of those groups had drunk the
fluoridated water from birth. Appellants’ evidence substantially supported the
conclusions: that there is phenomenal agreement among professional and
scientific groups in the United States and in the world that fluoridation of
public water supplies in the amount provided by the
ordinance in question is of great significance in terms of general health, in
producing a dental caries resistant enamel on teeth; that
“Dental decay is recognized as man’s most widespread chronic disease. Few
persons escape. No social stratum or age group is immune. A
decayed tooth never heals by itself, by prescription or by advice. About
97,000,000 people in the United States have decayed teeth requiring treatment”; that fluoridation of water is safe, practicable, not unduly expensive as a
health measure, and is efficacious. Appellants’ evidence tended to show
further that the harmful
 [**14]  effects suggested by plaintiffs’

 [*627]  evidence would not occur and the testimony of one of appellants’ witnesses was
that he practiced dentistry in Kirkwood (a municipality in St. Louis County)
where the water supply had been fluoridated since January 1, 1958, and that he
had observed no harmful effects; that dental
fluorosis or mottling of the enamel on teeth occurs to an appreciable extent
only when there is an excessive amount of
fluoride in the water, that is, in excess of two parts
fluoride per million gallons of water.

The evidence also established that fluoridation of public water supplies to the
extent provided in the ordinance had been endorsed by the St.
Louis Dental Association, the Missouri State Dental Association, the American
Dental Association, the American College of Dentists, the Missouri Public
Health Association, the American Public Health Association, the Missouri State
Department of Health, the United States Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, the St. Louis Medical Society, the
Missouri State Medical Association, the American Medical Association, and the
St. Louis County Health Department; that there are twenty-five communities in
Missouri now
 [**15]  fluoridating their water supplies to approximately one part per million; that
at trial time there were 1,134,000 people in Missouri drinking artificially
fluoridated
water to the extent of one part per million gallons, and there were 109,000
people drinking naturally fluoridated water in various amounts; for example, in
Columbia, Missouri, the natural
fluoride content is 1.32 parts
fluoride per million gallons of water; that Army, Navy, and Air Force
installations where children are in residence furnish fluoridated water.

Appellants’ evidence tended to show further that water fluoridated as the
ordinance required is nonpoisonous; that toxicity will occur only at
concentrations 20 to 50 times as great as that proposed by the ordinance; that
while applying fluorine directly to the teeth is satisfactory
for each individual who receives the treatment, it is not a practical method
because there are not enough dentists to effectively accomplish the task; that
dental decay occurs at a rate six per cent faster than available dentists can
repair it; that fluoridation in the manner proposed is not mass medication
but is, in effect, prevention rather than treatment; that chlorine is added
 [**16]  to water to cut down bacterial contamination in order to reduce the occurrence
of infectious disease, such as typhoid fever, and
fluoride is added to prevent or deter the progress of a widespread dental disorder and
thereby preserve the dental health of the people who consume the
fluoridated water.

It is apparent from the foregoing resume’ of the evidence that the question
whether over-all harm or over-all benefit will result to individuals who
consume water containing the
fluoride ion in a concentration of one part
fluoride to one million gallons of water is highly controversial and that there is
substantial evidence to support a
conclusion either way. Our province, in the first instance, is to determine
whether the ordinance in question bears a reasonable relation to public health
and is thereby fairly referable to the county’s police power. It appears to us
that decisive of that determination is the fact that the record contains
substantial evidence from which the county council reasonably could have found
and concluded that
dental decay is a widespread and serious disease affecting the dental health of
all the people of St. Louis County; that a requirement that the
fluoride
 [**17]  content of the water consumed by St. Louis County residents be supplemented up
to one part per million gallons would effectively and extensively decrease
tooth
decay, particularly in children, but with benefit to all; and that such a
method would constitute a safe, practicable, relatively inexpensive, and
efficacious public health measure.

We have no doubt, therefore, that the ordinance does bear a reasonable relation
to public health and that its provisions are designed to and reasonably will
tend to enhance the public health and, therefore, that the
action of the St. Louis County Council, in enacting the ordinance in question,
was

 [*628]  an exercise of the power conferred by Section 192.300, supra.

We next consider whether the ordinance unduly invades or infringes rights
guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions. Respondents contend that
the ordinance is unconstitutional because it prohibits certain
county residents from practicing their religious beliefs. That question is not
before us for decision for the reasons which follow. There was no averment by
plaintiffs in any pleading claiming any such violation, either directly or by
inference. There was no averment
 [**18]  that they or any of them are members or represent any members of a religious
body or those who hold particular
beliefs or practice their beliefs in a particular manner. Nor was there any
such contention throughout the trial. There was no evidence offered or adduced
pertaining to the tenets or practices of any particular religious body or group
of people, nor was there evidence that members of any particular religious body
resided in St. Louis County. There was no finding of fact or
conclusion of law with respect to the contention now made and thus, of course,
no part of the judgment was based upon any such finding or conclusion.

After the present appeal was pending in this court, leave was granted an
attorney of the Missouri Bar to file a brief herein as amicus curiae, on the
averred ground that the case was one which affected the
interest and welfare of all the people of Missouri, including those residing in
large metropolitan areas. The brief of amicus curiae contends, and that
contention is specifically adopted by and included by reference as part of
respondents’ brief, that the ordinance in question is unconstitutional because
it subjects Christian Scientists in St. Louis
 [**19]  County to
forced medication against their religious beliefs and thereby deprives them of
their constitutional right under the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution. It is suggested by inference that we may take judicial notice of
the fact that it is a religious belief of Christian Scientists that no material
applications for relief of disease should be employed. But if,
in the public interest, we should wish to resolve the question posed in amicus’
brief, even though the constitutional question was not raised below nor
preserved for appellate review, and even if we should take judicial notice that
the belief suggested by counsel is a religious belief of Christian Scientists,
still we should
not know whether, nor could we assume that, it would violate that belief for
one to consume water which theretofore had contained one-half part
fluoride, simply because another one-half part had been added. Furthermore, if we
should assume that the
fluoride ion in water constitutes medication as to the individual and if we should
further assume that the ingestion of that medication violates
a religious belief of any county resident, then it must follow that forced
medication now exists
 [**20]  and that the enforcement of the ordinance in question would not change the
situation in that respect. Be that as it may, however, the fact is that we may
not on this record decide whether anyone’s religious beliefs or anyone’s
freedom to practice his religious beliefs would be unduly and
unlawfully infringed by the enforcement of the ordinance.

Respondents and amicus curiae state their specific contention with respect to
the claimed violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and of Section 10 of Article I of the Missouri Constitution in
this manner: The ordinance is unconstitutional and void because it deprives
plaintiffs and other residents of St.
Louis County of their liberty in that it denies them freedom of choice in
matters relating to bodily care and health by compelling them to drink water
containing
“the poisonous drug
fluoride ion” against their wills when not justified by
“pressure of great dangers” to the public health.

Inasmuch as there is before us no
question involving the violation of respondents’ or others’ freedom to believe
and practice the tenets of their religious beliefs or involving

 [*629]  the violation of any other First
 [**21]  Amendment right, it is apparent that in so far as the federal constitution is
concerned we are here dealing with the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment as applied
“for its own sake” and not with the due
process clause as an instrument for transmitting any specific prohibition of
the First Amendment. That is to say, we are not here dealing with a freedom
which has been said to occupy a
“preferred place * * * in our scheme,” i.e., those
“freedoms secured by the First Amendment.”
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 639;
Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 529, 530.

Respondents point out that the
“word ‘liberty’ contained in that amendment [Fourteenth] embraces not only the
right of a person to be free from physical restraint, but the right to be free
in the enjoyment of all his faculties as well.” (Bracketed insert ours.)
Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 244. They concede that their freedom to choose whether to consume water containing
the
fluoride ion as a preventative to deter the decay of an individual’s teeth is subject
to regulation by law but contend that one’s constitutionally protected freedom
may be lawfully
infringed only when
 [**22]  such is necessary to insure the equal enjoyment of the same right or freedom
by others or
“under the pressures of great dangers.” They rely upon language contained in the memorandum opinion of the trial
chancellor who, in turn, stated those
“tests” on the authority of
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11.
In that case the court upheld the validity of a state compulsory vaccination
law. It is true that the court at one place in its opinion quoted this from
another case
(197 U.S. at 26, 27):
“‘The possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable
conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of the country
essential to the safety, health, peace, good order and morals of the community.
Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license
to act according to one’s own will. It is only freedom from restraint under
conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others. It is
then liberty regulated
by law.’” And at another place in the opinion
(197 U.S. at 29) the court, in pointing out that it was
“the duty of the constituted authorities primarily to keep in view the welfare,
comfort and safety of the many, and
 [**23]  not permit the interests of the many to be subordinated to the wishes or
convenience of the few,” pointed out further that to
conserve the safety of members of society,
“the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the
pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by
reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.” But the court in the Jacobson case in the course of its opinion also said:
“If there is any such power
in the judiciary to review legislative action in respect of a matter affecting
the general welfare, it can only be when that which the legislature has done
comes within the rule that if a statute purporting to have been enacted to
protect the public health, the public morals or the public safety, has no real
or substantial relation to those objects, or is,
beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the
fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give
effect to the Constitution. * * *

“Whatever may be thought of the expediency of this statute, it cannot be
affirmed to be, beyond question, in palpable conflict with the Constitution.”

 [**24] 
197 U.S. at 31.

In our view the
Jacobson case does not support the proposition that individual freedom of
choice pertaining to a matter affecting the public health, such as the freedom
of choice here asserted, may be validly restricted or infringed only where the
restraint imposed is necessary in order to

 [*630]  insure equal enjoyment of the same freedom by others or under the
“pressure of great dangers”; nor does that case stand for the proposition that only when necessary to
protect the individual as well as the members of the general public from the
danger of a communicable or contagious disease may a legislative body validly
enact an ordinance interfering with the freedom of choice of the individual
dividual as to a matter affecting the
public health.

The United States Supreme Court has made it clear that even in cases involving
First Amendment prohibitions which occupy an exalted and preferred position in
our scheme of things it will not indiscriminately apply the
“clear and present danger” test stated in
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47. That court adopted the interpretation of that phrase suggested by Chief Judge
Learned Hand. In
Dennis v. United States, 341
 [**25]  U.S. 494, 510, the court, speaking of the phrase
“clear and present danger,” said:
“Chief Judge Learned Hand, writing for the
majority below, interpreted the phrase as follows: ‘In each case [courts] must
ask whether the gravity of the
“evil,” discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is
necessary to avoid the danger.’
183 F.2d at 212. We adopt this statement of the rule. As articulated by Chief Judge Hand, it
is as
succinct and inclusive as any other we might devise at this time. It takes
into consideration those factors which we deem relevant, and relates their
significances. More we cannot expect from words.” And see
Baer v. City of Bend, Ore., 292 P.2d 134, 139, 140, where the Oregon Supreme Court in a well-reasoned opinion held that the effect of the fluoridation of a public water
supply did not infringe the consumer’s constitutional guarantee of religious
liberty.

It seems to us that the language of the court in
West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, is apropos in determining whether the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment has been violated under the facts here. There the court,
in dealing with the question whether
 [**26]  there had been a deprivation of freedom to contract by the enactment of a
minimum wage regulation for women, said at page 391:
“What is this freedom? The Constitution does not speak of freedom of contract.
It speaks of liberty and prohibits the deprivation of liberty without
due process of law. In prohibiting that deprivation the Constitution does not
recognize an absolute and uncontrollable liberty. Liberty in each of its
phases has its history and connotation. But the liberty safeguarded is liberty
in a social organization which requires the protection of law against the evils
which menace the health, safety, morals and
welfare of the people. Liberty under the Constitution is thus necessarily
subject to the restraints of due process,
and regulation which is reasonable in relation to its subject and is adopted in
the interests of the community is due process .” (Our italics.)

Missouri cases hold that Article I, Section 10 of our Constitution (“That no person shall be deprived of life,
liberty or property without due process of law”) is not violated by an ordinance which, as we have held the one in question to
be, is fairly referable to the police power of the enacting
 [**27]  body and which is shown to have been enacted for the protection and
enhancement of the public health and general welfare of the inhabitants of the
area in question, unless its provisions are
unreasonable and the burden is upon the one asserting the ordinance’s
invalidity to overcome the legal presumption of validity which attends the
ordinance.
Passler v. Johnson, Mo., 304 S.W.2d 903, 908[3-7].

Respondents’ evidence tended to show that the ingestion of any amount of
fluoride ion is harmful, that consuming water which
contains any amount of the
fluoride ion constitutes medication, and that there is no difference between the
fluoride ion existing in the Missouri River water as it is now distributed by the Water
Company and the inorganic

 [*631] 
fluoride ion which would be placed in the water under the ordinance requirement. Thus
it is clear that this freedom of choice which respondents assert is
not the freedom to choose not to ingest any
fluoride (they say, medication) because they are now consuming and apparently,
irrespective of the ordinance, will continue to drink water containing one-half
part
fluoride to each million gallons. Thus, the freedom of which respondents
 [**28]  speak can be only the freedom to choose not to ingest more
fluoride (more medication) than they are now consuming by drinking water which contains
an additional one-half part
fluoride to each million gallons of water. It is true that respondents’ evidence
tended to show that the greater the amount of
fluoride in the water the greater the harm to the individual consuming it, so
admittedly, from respondents’ standpoint, there is
involved some
“freedom of choice” but it is of the nature indicated.

We are not concerned with the expediency of the ordinance or with the wisdom of
the council’s action in enacting it. We again recognize that we are bound by
the council’s reasonable determination that the measure will result in benefit
to each individual consumer and not in harm. We have held herein that the
ordinance does
bear a reasonable relation to public health and, based upon the council’s
conclusions, does tend to enhance the health of the residents of the county.
Consequently, it appears that for us to hold the ordinance in question is in
“palpable conflict” with the state or federal constitution we would need to find and rule that,
although, as we have held, the ordinance bears
 [**29] 
a reasonable relation to public health and its enforcement would enhance the
public health, nevertheless, the type and extent of the benefit accruing to
each individual (prevention of dental decay) are such that each individual must
be completely free to determine for himself whether he will accept the asserted
benefit bestowed through the fluoridation of the public
water supply, else his freedom of choice is unreasonably infringed. We
correctly may not so hold. On the contrary, it seems to us that the reasonably
expectable and valuable benefit which the council determined would accrue to
the community as a whole justifies the resulting infringement of the
individual’s freedom of choice. (We note, parenthetically, that we have
assumed throughout that the enforcement of the ordinance would
“compel” respondents and other residents to consume the
fluoride ion. That is because we recognize that there is a very real compulsion for
many from a practical standpoint when the only apparent ways to avoid drinking
public water and thus to avoid consuming the additional
fluoride probably are, for many, prohibitively expensive or unduly burdensome. The
fact
remains, however, that in considering
 [**30]  the matter of undue or unreasonable infringement, it is well to recognize that
the ordinance does not specifically require any individual water consumer to do
anything.)

We are supported in our conclusion as to the ordinance by the opinions from
each of eight appellate courts which have considered the questions involved in
the fluoridation of public water supplies. It is
true that there are distinguishing features in those cases. In some were fact
stipulations which eliminated certain questions. In one of them, the Iowa
case, the sole question was the power of a city to enact such an ordinance. On
the whole, however, the opinions in the following cases are authority for the
conclusion we have reached:
Baer v. City of Bend, supra;
Kaul v. City of Chehalis, Wash., 277 P.2d 352;
Kraus v. City of Cleveland, Ohio, 127 N.E.2d 609;
Dowell v. City of Tulsa, Okla., 273 P.2d 859;
De Aryan v. Butler, Cal. App., 260 P.2d 98;
Froncek v. City of Milwaukee, Wis., 69 N.W.2d 242;
Chapman v. City of Shreveport, La., 74 So.2d 142;
Wilson v. City of Council Bluffs, Iowa, 110 N.W.2d 569.

Taking into account and consideration the relevant facts and
circumstances as we see them, we are of the view
 [**31]  that we may

 [*632]  not confidently say that the enforcement of the ordinance in question would
result in an undue or unreasonable infringement of respondents’ protected
freedom of choice under the due process clause of either the state or federal
constitution.

Respondents contend also that the fact that their evidence indicated that there
were other and, in their
opinion, better ways to apply the
fluoride ion to the teeth obviated the necessity for the fluoridation of the public
water supply and thereby caused the ordinance to
“broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can be more narrowly
achieved.”
Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 488. While, as we have pointed
out heretofore, respondents did adduce evidence that fluorine could be applied
to the teeth either topically or by dissolving tablets in individual water
supplies, there was other evidence from which the council reasonably could have
reached the conclusion that such methods would not effectively accomplish the
purpose of the ordinance, that is, to benefit all by partially freeing each
from the ravages of
dental decay. It is suggested also that the ordinance benefits only a
particular class, i.e.,

 [**32]  children up to 14 years, and it is contended that the ordinance is
unconstitutional for that reason. While it is true the ordinance in question
must be in the interest of the public generally as distinguished from the
interest of a particular class, the evidence was such as justified the
council in determining that the consumption of fluoridated water would benefit
people of all ages. There was direct testimony to that effect and, of course,
it is apparent that children become adults. Clearly, the council was justified
in finding that the ordinance was in the interest of the county’s entire
population and not solely in the interest of a particular class.

Respondents contend further that the ordinance is in conflict with and violates
Sections 196.125-196.145, RSMo 1959, and V.A.M.S. The cited sections define a
nonalcoholic drink and then provide that such nonalcoholic drinks shall not be
adulterated or misbranded and prescribe a penalty for any violation.
Respondents contend that water is a
nonalcoholic drink and, inasmuch as Section 196.135, supra, provides that a
nonalcoholic drink is adulterated when it contains any
fluorides or fluorine compounds, the sections in question
 [**33]  would be violated by the enforcement of an ordinance requiring the addition of
a
fluoride to water. We are of the view that respondents’ contention in that respect is
untenable. Section 196.125,
12 V.A.M.S., defines a nonalcoholic drink in these words:
“the term ‘nonalcoholic drink,’ as used herein, shall include carbonated
beverages of all flavors, sarsaparilla, ginger ale, soda water of all flavors,
lemonade, orangeade, root beer, grape juice, and all other nonintoxicating
drinks.” It is clear enough to us that the legislature did
not intend to include water within the expression
“all other nonintoxicating drinks.” Clearly, we think the legislature intended by that language to include other
drinks popularly referred to as
“soft drinks” which were not specifically named but which were of the general kind and
nature as those listed. We so hold. See
Dowell v. Tulsa, supra, 273 P.2d 864[11,12];
Froncek v. Milwaukee, supra, 69 N.W.2d 250, 251.

We are of the opinion that the ordinance in question is not invalid for any of
the reasons urged, and it follows that the judgment is reversed and the case
remanded with directions to enter a judgment in accordance with the
views herein
 [**34]  stated.

Holman, C., Concurs.

Houser, C., Concurs.

PER CURIAM: The foregoing opinion by Coil, C., is adopted as the opinion of the
court.

All concur.

http://actionpa.org/fluoride/lawsandcourts/mo-st-louis.html