I don't think so. It is supplementation, though you could make the argument that it, too, should not be mandated (these things are subject to public consensus).

I don't think so. It is supplementation, though you could make the argument that it, too, should not be mandated (these things are subject to public consensus). And indeed, you can easily buy salt that isn't iodized. The same holds for vitamin D supplementation in milk. It, too, is avoidable (though I can't see why you would go out of your way to avoid either, in general). I don't think you can construe fluoridation as supplementation, especially given that it is not really needed, especially under current circumstances. There are also mixed studies about the health effects of consuming fluoride (I mentioned intelligence studies, but fluorosis of the bones also comes to mind). Also, you must factor in the gravity of the health concern and the efficacy of the treatment. Fluoride doesn't seem to be justified in this regard. Iodine, and even vitamin D, I would argue, are much more justifiable, and as I wrote above, more avoidable. I would say the principle we should be working from is that such intervention must be justifiable and proportionately so. You're in a bad place if your basic argument for something is "It's not harmful". That's not a reason to institute something. The burden of justification is on those who institute things.