{"id":11111,"date":"2025-02-09T07:50:32","date_gmt":"2025-02-09T12:50:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ecoticias.com\/en\/?p=11111"},"modified":"2025-02-09T07:50:32","modified_gmt":"2025-02-09T12:50:32","slug":"say-goodbye-to-fluoride-in-water","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ecoticias.com\/en\/say-goodbye-to-fluoride-in-water\/11111\/","title":{"rendered":"Say goodbye to fluoride in water \u2015 Drastic measure in this state"},"content":{"rendered":"

This measure is one of many hotly debated public health measures, and Utah is the latest state to take a stand against it. A bill moving through the Utah Legislature is\u2002proposing to eliminate fluoride from all public water systems<\/strong>, drawing fierce resistance from dental professionals. Advocates say it comes down to personal choice and government overreach, while opponents say it risks severe health repercussions.<\/p>\n

The Utah House whether fluoride is a choice or a public health risk<\/h2>\n

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Stephanie Gricius, R-Eagle Mountain, would give Utahans a choice on the matter of fluoride consumption. She contends that fluoridation shouldn\u2019t be required, referencing a recent federal court decision that called on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reconsider its guidelines on fluoride.<\/p>\n

Gricius said the ruling noted the risk of fluoride to physical health, particularly neurological impacts, but did not conclude that fluoride exposure is damaging. People who back the bill, including Salt Lake County Councilwoman Aimee Winder Newton<\/strong>, argue that public water systems aren\u2019t the right way to deliver fluoride.<\/p>\n

Newton said there would also be concerns\u2002over inconsistent dosing, saying, \u201cPublic water supply is not the best vessel to distribute medications because dosing amounts can\u2019t be controlled.\u201d Supporters behind the bill say those wanting to ingest fluoride can get supplements from pharmacists. However, advocates say that getting rid of fluoride would be harmful to the public health.<\/p>\n

Dr. Sarah Woolsey, a family physician, remembered how after Salt Lake County fluoridated its water<\/strong>, she noticed that childhood dental extractions fell dramatically. As a result, voluntary fluoride use tends to be ineffective, particularly in under-served communities where access to dental care is limited, she emphasized.<\/p>\n

Lawmakers question the price of fluoride. Is it worth it?<\/h2>\n

In addition to health issues, economic considerations are a major factor in the debate. DJ Bott, the mayor of Brigham City and a supporter of the bill, cited the expense of fluoridation. The program costs the city about $200,000 a year to operate, although experts say only 5% of the treated water is consumed. The remainder is needed for non-drink purposes including washing, gardening, and flushing toilets.<\/p>\n

Brigham City residents have voted on this before, with 67% voting in favor of keeping fluoridated water<\/strong> in the most recent ballot measure. Even so, Bott and others contend, the expenditure doesn’t merit the amount of fluoride that ultimately gets to residents\u2019 teeth.<\/p>\n

Others, including some local leaders, voiced similar trepidation about those funds being used more wisely elsewhere. Opponents of the legislation contend that it conflicts with current Utah law, which says decisions on fluoridation treatments must be made by local voters.<\/p>\n

James Bekker of the University of Utah\u2019s School of Dentistry noted that the Safe Drinking Water Act requires that the addition of fluoride or removal of fluoride<\/strong> (like Oregon\u2019s rejection of fluoride in drinking water<\/a>) be done by way of an election. He said the measure if enacted would take away the ability of communities to vote on fluoridation.<\/p>\n

The Utah House debates the fluoride bill. Will it be removed?<\/h2>\n

The vote in the House Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee was 10-3 in favor of sending the bill to the full House, showing broad support among legislators. Many public comments at the committee meeting supported fluoride removal, with many stating reasons for medical freedom and potential health risks. However, the bill\u2002has met with considerable opposition from the medical and dental communities.<\/p>\n

The Utah Dental Association<\/strong>, whose members should know something about the subject, is unanimous in support\u2002of retaining fluoride in your water, saying that fluoridation is the most effective and equitable means<\/strong> of preventing man has ever devised, particularly for kids.<\/p>\n

The bill now heads to\u2002the full Utah House for consideration, where it is likely to provoke more debate. If it passes, it will represent a significant change in Utah\u2019s public health policy that\u2002could inspire other states currently grappling with similar discussions over fluoridation.<\/p>\n

As lawmakers in Utah debate the future of fluoride in public water (such as China\u2019s historic discovery for safe drinking water<\/a>) systems, the argument underscores a larger battle playing out nationwide over public health measures and personal rights. Proponents of the bill are framing it as a matter of personal choice and economic efficiency<\/strong>, while opponents are raising alarms about dire dental health consequences<\/strong>, especially for vulnerable populations. With the entire House poised to vote, the decision will affect not only Utahans but could lay the groundwork for other states that are looking back at their fluoridation policies.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This measure is one of many hotly debated public health measures, and Utah is the latest state to take a … <\/p>\n

Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":11112,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11111","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-energy","resize-featured-image"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ecoticias.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11111","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ecoticias.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ecoticias.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ecoticias.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ecoticias.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11111"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.ecoticias.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11111\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ecoticias.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11112"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ecoticias.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11111"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ecoticias.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11111"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ecoticias.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11111"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}