FUCHS: In the administration of the Federal Security Agency did you have to deal with any other controversial matter that might be of interest?
EWING: Yes. There was quite a controversy over fluoridation of water supplies in the United States. For a number of years the dental profession had been urging that all water supplies for human consumption should contain a small quantity of fluoride. It had been observed that in certain sections of the United States children's teeth contained fewer cavities than teeth of children in other parts of the country. This was believed to be due to the presence of a small quantity of natural fluoride in the water used in those areas showing the smaller number of cavities. The dental profession was therefore urging that municipal water supplies that were deficient in fluoride should have small quantities added. I believe that they urged that there be at least one part of fluoride for each one million parts of water.
In 1945 before I became Federal Security Administrator the Public Health Service had instituted a very extensive research project to determine the value of fluoridation of water in preventing caries in children's teeth. Newburgh and Kingston, New York, were chosen as sites for the experiment. Their water supplies showed virtually identical analyses. School children of both cities were examined for cavities and the results were practically identical. Fluoride was added to Newburgh's water supply. This test was to be run for a period of ten years. By the end of the fifth year a re-examination of the school pupils in Newburgh and Kingston showed that the Newburgh children had approximately 65% fewer cavities than the children of Kingston.
The report of these findings was made public over my name and the opponents of fluoridation took after me. The first I heard of this opposition was a speech made by a Congressman A. L. Miller on the floor of the House of Representatives. He was a doctor who had turned Republican politician. In March 1952 he stated on the floor of the House that the Aluminum Company of America was selling fluoride; that the law firm of Hughes, Hubbard & Ewing, of which I had been a partner, represented that company; and he therefore wanted to know whether "Oscar R. Ewing still gets a cut of the melon or not."
The truth of the matter was that my firm and its predecessors had been New York counsel for the Aluminum Company of America since sometime during the first decade of this century. I had been counsel for the Aluminum Company in several matters but when Congressman Miller made his accusation I was not even aware of the fact that the company manufactured fluorides.