Are there a small percentage of people it may not be beneficial too? Yes, possibly just as there is a small percentage of women that folate vitamins have adverse affects on.
In any sufficiently large and varied population, there are always going to be data-outliers which don't benefit from certain public health choices. The trick is to find a means to identify them early before harm could be done.
The evidence for safer, more available and more cost effective ways to ensure fluoride is adequately used to prevent dental caries is essentially non-existent. At current, in terms of public health, fluoridated water is the most effective.
It is not easy to put fluoride in the water. Years ago, before I bought the water-cooler, I tried to alert local officials at the city level that this was happening to my child. There was one man who could reduce the fluoride levels in tap water without calling public attention to it, and that was the ave. I was seeking. He said he really wished he could do it, reduce the levels, said they were already at the bottom levels possible, that the fluoride company he bought fluoride from had recently doubled the price of fluoride. He listened to me, and I left it to his judgements, for I didn't feel the necessity to bring this issue up to the public awareness if he could do the same thing from a side-angle. Did he do it, for public health interests and to save the city money? I don't know. I never followed up. But I can tell you I trusted him, which is hard to do regarding public officials.
Since the enamel depth levels are dependent on genetics and environment of the teeth, it stands to reason that it could be done more adequately and possibly cheaper at the public health level, rather than fluoridating all people because some people need it.
Edited by regeneratia, 15 January 2011 - 02:26 AM.