The Capitol in Salt Lake City is pictured on Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2025. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)
The Utah Legislature is considering whether to ban adding fluoride to public water systems, just a few months after a federal court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency should take action to address potential health risks associated with high levels of the mineral in drinking water.
After a lengthy discussion about the freedom of choice and the health implications of adding fluoride to the state’s drinking water, the House Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee voted 10-3 to recommend HB81, sponsored by Stephanie Gricius, R-Eagle Mountain. The legislation now moves to the full House for consideration.
Fluoride occurs naturally in many water supplies, but U.S. municipalities have added extra for decades because of its ability to fight tooth decay. Dentists say they have seen dramatic decreases in decay, but critics have long questioned whether the substance is safe, even in the relatively low levels water systems use.
During the Wednesday hearing, Gricius said that the September court decision, which argued that water fluoridation at the level of 0.7 mg/L, which is what’s considered to be an optimal level, could potentially cause an “unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children.” However, the judgement noted that the finding “does not conclude with certainty that fluoridated water is injurious to public health.”
The court requested the EPA shouldn’t ignore the risk, however, it stopped short in ordering a specific solution.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
“So we now have guidelines where we’ve been told these are not suitable, these can cause harm,” Gricius told the committee. “And so how do you adhere to a guideline when there is a risk of harm?”
However, the bill wouldn’t necessarily prevent Utahns from getting access to fluoride if they choose so, since the legislation would also allow pharmacists to prescribe the mineral.
With the bill, she’s not arguing the science behind it, Gricius said. She is “just looking at the legal issues.”
While some counties and cities have voted in favor of adding fluoride to their water systems, Gricius argued that there’s also a medical freedom component to that discussion.
“I would just say it doesn’t get more local control than my own body,” she said about potentially overriding the decisions of local governments.
A long line of commenters formed in the committee room, most of them speaking in favor of the bill, including from members of different city and county councils, and board members of water conservancy districts.
Those in favor argued that fluoride has been associated with diseases and neurological disorders, many citing controversial studies that some academics have described as problematic, since they take into account fluoridation levels that are above the regular community water fluoridation, among other aspects.
Others also said it’s not the government’s role to dictate whether the public takes or not fluoride.
Aimee Winder Newton, a Salt Lake County Council member — one of the counties that fluoridate their water — spoke in support of the bill, arguing that public water supply is not the best vessel to distribute medications because dosing amounts can’t be controlled.
“Some have asked me why a county official would support a bill removing local control. I believe this is an issue that the state should be weighing in on,” Winder Newton said. “There is medical data on both sides of the issue. But the big question for me is, should the government be able to medicate the public water supply to try to impact health outcomes?”
Brigham City Mayor DJ Bott was also supportive, mostly because of economic reasons.
The city has added fluoride to its water since 1965, he said. The process now costs about $200,000 a year to maintain, an amount that he said is too costly for the benefit.
“Brigham City’s engineers, they figure that out of 100% of the water that comes in your home, perhaps 5% of that has the opportunity to be consumed by a human. The rest of it’s going in the shower, down the toilet, in your washing machine, in gardens and on grass,” Bott said. “So if Brigham City is spending $100,000 a year to fluoridate the water, we’re getting possibly $5,000 (worth of fluoride).”
Brigham City had a proposition in its 2023 ballot to remove fluoride from all public water supply within the city. It failed with 67% of voters rejecting the measure.
That’s a fact that James Bekker, an associate professor at the University of Utah’s School of Dentistry, reminded the committee of.
Bekker said he worried the bill would go against what Utah law prescribes, since the Safe Drinking Water Act requires the addition or removal of fluoride in public water supplies be done with the approval of a majority of voters in an election.
“I think everyone should have that choice in their own communities. Everyone’s talking about choice, and we’re all for that, but our law says there should be a vote of the people in the communities,” Bekker said, “and I would speak against this bill, because it takes away that right.”
Other dentists and health professionals also strongly opposed the bill, stating that fluoride in water has substantially prevented cavities in children.
Dr. Sarah Woolsey, a family physician who has practiced for decades in Utah underserved communities, said she saw a dramatic decrease of cases she had to refer for cavity extractions under anesthesia after Salt Lake County started to add fluoride to its water.
“Despite my efforts in education, in prescribing fluoride and working with parents, the voluntary application does not always work for those that may be most vulnerable,” Woolsey said. “And I would like to say that since fluoride has been in the water, the number of kids I send is significantly less.”
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.