“`html
NEW YORK — For nearly half a century, the practice of adding fluoride to drinking water has been a common public health strategy in Yorktown, a picturesque town located north of New York City.
However, in September, the town’s supervisor exercised emergency powers to discontinue this measure.
The decision stemmed from a recent federal judge’s ruling that mandated U.S. regulators to assess the potential risks of fluoride exposure in drinking water, particularly concerning its impact on children’s IQ.
“It’s too dangerous to look at and just say ‘Ah, screw it. We’ll keep going on,’” stated Yorktown Supervisor Ed Lachterman.
Yorktown is not operating in isolation. The authority to decide on fluoride addition to drinking water lies with state and local entities, and disputes are emerging across the nation.
Recent debates have erupted in communities across various states, including Florida, Texas, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, among others. According to the Fluoride Action Network, an organization advocating against fluoridation, dozens of communities have been involved in these discussions, with several opting to cease the addition of fluoride to their water.
In Arkansas, legislation was recently introduced to abolish the state’s fluoridation program.
Several factors have sparked or intensified these discussions:
— In August, a federal agency announced “with moderate confidence” that elevated fluoride exposure—more than twice the recommended levels—might correlate with lower IQs in children.
— In September, a federal judge ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must place stricter regulations on fluoride in drinking water, acknowledging that high fluoride levels may be detrimental to children’s intellectual growth.
— Just this month, shortly before the election, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claimed that Donald Trump would aim to eliminate fluoride from drinking water on his first day in office if elected. Trump subsequently appointed Kennedy to head the Department of Health and Human Services.
In Durango, Colorado, a failed initiative to cease water fluoridation occurred during Trump’s initial term, but a renewed effort emerged this year as Trump gained considerable political backing.
“It’s just the ebb and flow of national politics that ultimately influences us here,” remarked city spokesperson Tom Sluis.
Fluoride is widely recognized as a public health achievement, yet opposition still exists. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), fluoride bolsters dental health by replenishing minerals lost over time, and in 1950, federal authorities advocated for water fluoridation to combat tooth decay.
The incorporation of low fluoride levels in drinking water has long been viewed as one of the significant health victories of the last century. Researchers indicate that while fluoride is present in various sources, drinking water remains the primary source for many Americans. Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population receives fluoridated water, according to CDC statistics.
Although there are established recommended levels for fluoridation, some communities have surpassed these limits, often due to natural higher fluoride concentrations in specific water sources.
Opposition to water fluoridation is not new, although it was once regarded as a fringe viewpoint often associated with conspiracy theories claiming it was a method for government control.
Public health officials have long cited research showing lower rates of cavities in communities with fluoridated water and deteriorating dental health in those without it.
Moreover, fluoride is found in an array of products beyond water, including toothpaste and mouthwash. Evidence has started to reveal that excessive fluoride exposure can lead to negative effects: in 2011, it was reported that 40% of American adolescents exhibited mild dental fluorosis due to consuming too much fluoride.
In 2015, the CDC advised that communities reassess their fluoridation practices. Recommendations established in 1962 varied by climate, with a range of 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams per liter, but were later standardized to 0.7 milligrams for all areas.
As additional studies surfaced probing the relationship between fluoride exposure and brain development, an August report by the National Toxicology Program—summarizing global studies from countries such as Canada and China—indicated that drinking water with fluoride levels exceeding 1.5 milligrams per liter was linked to reduced IQ in children.
“There’s no question that fluoride prevents cavities,” commented Dr. Tom Frieden, a former CDC director during the revision of fluoride recommendations. “However, we are certainly getting higher fluoride levels than we did decades ago, thanks to toothpaste and other products.”
Frieden acknowledged that the concerns regarding fluoride’s effect on brain development are valid and emphasized the need for careful examination of studies suggesting such links.
As many in the healthcare sector maintain strong support for water fluoridation, the American Dental Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have reaffirmed their backing for current CDC recommendations following the federal report and the judicial ruling.
At a recent Durango city council meeting, Colorado’s health department expressed its commitment to align public health recommendations with ongoing scientific research, asserting that the facts surrounding the court ruling don’t warrant a change in fluoridation practices.
According to Sluis, officials in Durango are monitoring how the EPA responds to the recent court ruling.
“We adhere to scientific evidence,” he asserted. “It wouldn’t be prudent for the city to terminate fluoridation based on a single judge’s interpretation.”
In Yorktown, Lachterman determined that the judge’s ruling justified halting fluoridation practices. He recalled a community discussion years ago where the majority supported fluoride but noted a recent shift in public opinion.
“It seems like a complete 180,” he observed.
Yet, not all public sentiment currently opposes fluoridation.
In September, Buffalo, New York, revealed plans to reinstate water fluoridation after nearly a decade without it, following alarming reports of increased tooth decay that spurred families to file lawsuits for dental expenses.
Buffalo Sewer Authority’s general manager, Oluwole McFoy, did not comment on the decision, citing ongoing litigation.
Meanwhile, the EPA reported that it is in the process of reviewing the district court’s ruling.
As debates become increasingly contentious, in Monroe, Wisconsin, fluoridation has emerged as a particularly polarizing issue. Mayor Donna Douglas noted that after the city began adding fluoride to its water in the 1960s, local residents began reaching out to express concerns about perceived health risks.
“The initial calls were quite intense,” she recalled.
While Douglas has avoided taking a firm stance on whether to discontinue fluoride, she determined the matter warranted discussion at the city council.
Such discussions have taken an unexpectedly passionate turn.
Typically, few citizens voice their opinions during council meetings, yet over two dozen individuals spoke at a recent session, predominantly advocating for continued fluoridation. At a subsequent meeting, about a dozen people—all opposed to fluoridation—shared their views.
“This has been the most intense debate we have encountered,” Douglas remarked. “I hadn’t anticipated it would become such a heated topic.”
“`