Utah Considers Historic Ban on Fluoride in Public Water Systems
Utah is poised to make history as the first state in the U.S. to implement a full ban on fluoride in public water systems. A controversial bill passed by the state legislature would prohibit cities and communities from adding fluoride to their water supplies, effectively overriding local control. The proposal, which has sparked intense debate, is now on its way to Governor Spencer Cox for his signature. While the bill’s sponsors argue that it promotes individual choice and fiscal responsibility, dental health experts and public health advocates are sounding the alarm, warning of the potential consequences of abandoning a practice widely credited with improving oral health.
A Growing Debate: Fluoride’s Safety and Benefits
The push to ban fluoride in Utah comes amid growing skepticism about its safety, fueled in part by high-profile figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the new federal health secretary. Kennedy has publicly expressed concerns about fluoride, linking it to a range of health issues, including arthritis, bone fractures, and neurodevelopmental disorders. However, dental experts and public health organizations, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), strongly disagree. Decades of research have shown that fluoride is not only safe but also highly effective in preventing tooth decay by strengthening tooth enamel. Dr. Aaron Yancoskie of Touro College of Dental Medicine emphasizes that the evidence supporting fluoride’s benefits is overwhelming and backed by 75 years of solid scientific data.
Utah’s Bill and Its Implications
The Utah bill, sponsored by Republican Representative Stephanie Gricius and Senator Kirk Cullimore, cleared its final legislative hurdle in late November and is awaiting Governor Cox’s approval. Supporters of the bill argue that fluoridating water is too costly and that individuals should have the right to choose whether to use fluoride products, such as toothpaste or supplements. Gricius has framed the legislation as a pro-choice measure, stating, “This isn’t anti-fluoride legislation, it is pro-informed consent and individual choice.” However, critics, including Lorna Koci of the Utah Oral Health Coalition, argue that fluoridation is the most cost-effective way to prevent tooth decay on a large scale and that it disproportionately benefits low-income communities with limited access to dental care.
The Wider Context: A National Trend?
Utah’s proposal comes at a time when fluoride is facing scrutiny at both the state and federal levels. In recent months, some U.S. cities havealready stopped adding fluoride to their water, and others are considering similar measures. Additionally, a federal judge has ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate fluoride in drinking water due to concerns about its impact on children’s intellectual development at high levels. Despite these challenges, fluoridated water remains the norm for nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population, and the CDC continues to endorse it as a cornerstone of public health.
Fluoride’s Role in Utah’s Public Health Landscape
Utah currently ranks 44th in the nation for the percentage of residents receiving fluoridated water, according to 2022 data from the CDC. Only about 40% of Utahns served by community water systems have access to fluoridated water, and the state’s largest city, Salt Lake City, is one of the few that currently fluoridate. Dental professionals in Utah have long advocated for broader fluoridation, pointing to its proven benefits for oral health. Val Radmall, executive director of the Utah Dental Association, recalls his experience working in a non-fluoridated community, where he saw firsthand the higher rates of cavities among patients who grew up without access to fluoridated water. “I’d have a patient come in without cavities, and I’d say, ‘You didn’t grow up here, did you?’” he remarked.
The Road Ahead: What’s Next for Fluoride in Utah?
As Governor Cox considers whether to sign the bill, the debate over fluoride in Utah highlights the broader tensions between public health, personal choice, and government intervention. While opponents of the bill warn of the potential harm to vulnerable populations, supporters argue that the decision to use fluoride should rest with individuals, not the state. The outcome in Utah could set a precedent for other states, particularly as skepticism about fluoridation grows. For now, the fate of fluoride in Utah’s public water systems hangs in the balance, with the health and well-being of its residents at the heart of the discussion.
