I give the dogs what I have been drinking myself for decades: tap water. With flouride.
Have you gone and read why the CDC issued this caution? It actually has nothing at all to do with the retention of fluoride in body tissues. It has to do with some mild discolouration of the teeth that might be caused by the use of fluoride in a minority of children. The main concern is for infants fed nothing BUT formula mixed with water. From the CDC website:
Background: Infant Formula and the Risk for Enamel Fluorosis
The proper amount of fluoride from infancy through old age helps prevent and control tooth decay. In a minority of children, fluoride exposure during the ages when teeth are forming (from birth through age 8 ) also can result in a range of changes within the outer surface of the tooth called enamel fluorosis. Recent evidence suggests that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water on a regular basis may increase the chance of a child developing the faint white markings of very mild or mild enamel fluorosis. This occurs on baby and permanent teeth while they are forming under the gums. Once the teeth come into the mouth, they are no longer able to develop this condition. Typically, very mild or mild fluorosis is barely noticeable, if noticed at all. Studies have not shown that teeth are likely to develop more esthetically noticeable forms of fluorosis, even with regular mixing of formula with fluoridated water.
In children younger than 8 years of age, combined fluoride exposure from all sources—water, food, toothpaste, mouth rinse, or other products—contributes to enamel fluorosis. Currently one-third (33%) of children aged 12 to 15 years in the United States have very mild to mild forms of this condition. It is important to understand that some fluoride exposure to developing teeth also plays a long-term role in preventing tooth decay. Parents and health providers should weigh the balance between a child’s risk for very mild or mild enamel fluorosis and the benefit of fluoride for preventing tooth decay and the need for dental fillings.
So basically the CDC is warning about *an aesthetic issue* not a health risk. It is really important to go to the source and find out what is being said on any type of health warning. There are people who think that flouridated water is a health issue. There's very little evidence to support this in my opinion, from reading the medical research out there, but for those interested, there's lots of info out there on the topic. But 1) it has nothing to do with this CDC caution and 2) given the type of stuff anyone can say on the internet, it is wise to actually go read both sides and not rely on whatever anyone ever says on an internet discussion board, this one included.
And it is incorrect that Europe no longer uses flouride. On the contrary, MOST European countries use fluoridation. Many of those which discontinued (4 countries, that I can find) did so in 1971. Some countries or regions these days do not use it because almost all toothpastes contain it anyway. Also many water systems naturally contain fluouride and therefore many water schemes may choose therefore not to add it as it isn't needed. Often it occurs in far higher quantities *naturally* than in the levels added to water by municipal water schemes.
A lot of things have to be labelled toxic in large quantities, and that includes the nitrites used to preserve every type of sandwich meat, sausage and bacon we buy in the supermarket and eat without a thought -- and many substances which are used to IMPROVE health but in large quantities are dangerous. Iodine -- which is routinely added to salt -- also is labelled toxic in large quantities. Yet it is an essential additive for disease prevention especially for those who do not live near coasts and eat a lot of seafood to supply this mineral. So simply because something is labelled toxic when it comes in large bags, means little.
And let's consider what isn't labelled toxic, but can be. Chocolate is toxic to dogs, yet people regularly give it to them anyway even when they are TOLD it is retained for dangerously long periods by dogs and can cause liver failure. This is medical FACT, not a rumour or an exaggeration or a guess. Even small amounts of milk chocolate can cause accelerated heartbeat and effects not dissimilar to heavy cocaine use in humans! And STILL people regularly give their dogs 'just a little', a chocolate cookie or digestive or whatever, arguing 'it has never done them any harm' (but of course they are not able to look at a dog and measure the harm the dog suffers from eating chocolate -- they are internal changes). :sl*p:
Just some different perspective. As much as I love the internet as a powerful tool, I also always say: don't believe everything you read on the internet. And be careful about how information is being presented. And look for both sides of every issue, being cautious of hearsay and vague claims, and weigh them up yourself, especially on health issues.