Ohio Republican lawmakers want to ban adding fluoride — which prevents tooth decay — to water
A group of Ohio Republican lawmakers is moving to ban the state and public water systems from adding fluoride, which prevents tooth decay and cavities, to water.
The Buckeye State is known for its water benefits, dentist Dr. Matthew Messina said.
'We've had that kind of a profound increase in public health that comes from modern dentistry and fluoride is a part of that,' Messina said.
Naturally occurring in water, fluoride is a mineral that years of research has shown strengthens teeth and prevents cavities and tooth decay. As the four-decade-long serving dentist explains, most public water systems add fluoride.
'It's hailed as one of the top public health measures in the last century, because really, for a very low cost and very low amount of effort, the massive benefit that this produces for the community is tremendous,' he said.
He has worked in communities that didn't have fluoride, he said, and the difference between children from cities and ones from rural areas that didn't have public water fluoridation was night and day.
'We got a chance to see rampant dental decay in children,' he said. 'It was like going back to the dark ages, so I really hope we'd never go back there again.'
There has always been a back-and-forth for decades on fluoride, much like vaccines. In recent years, there has been a campaign to push back on the mineral in water.
Although U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is not a doctor, he has claimed that the mineral is toxic.
'Fluoride is an industrial waste,' he wrote on X.
The effort has trickled down to Ohio.
State Rep. Levi Dean, R-Xenia, has proposed House Bill 182, which would ban public water systems from adding fluoride.
'It just says that individuals can then choose whether they want to ingest it or not — it's not forced on them,' Dean told me.
Current law requires water systems to fluoridate water if the natural content is less than .8 milligrams per liter.
'It's just for some people for health reasons or just even for individual freedom reasons, they don't want the local governments to force this into their drinking water,' he said.
Dean and his GOP cosponsors want to prohibit this. He argued that fluoride is bad for you. We asked him where he got this idea from since dozens upon dozens of research papers for decades disagree.
He cited a recent research study sharing that fluoride may be linked to lower IQ in children.
A study published by JAMA Pediatrics in January did a review and meta-analysis of whether exposure to fluoride was associated with kids' IQ scores.
The authors found that there is a link between slightly lower IQ in children that have more exposure to the mineral.
But Messina explained that this research article is being taken out of context.
'It brings up a study of parts of the world where naturally occurring fluoride levels are much higher than in most of the United States, and they're higher than the target levels that we have set,' the dentist said.
Looking into the paper, the authors acknowledged that a majority of the studies they looked at were considered 'highly biased,' none of the data is from the United States, and that there was 'uncertainty in the dose-response association.'
When the fluoride in the water was less than 1.5 mg/L, the link wasn't apparent. As mentioned, Ohio has a cap of .8 mg/L.
'Now, there's disagreement on the concentration of where that starts and how, but that's why I think it should be up to the individual to choose what levels they engage with fluoride at,' Dean said.
The lawmaker argued that if people really want fluoride, they can buy toothpaste, tablets, or drops.
'I'm not arguing with the fact that it could be beneficial to some people for dental health,' he said. 'I'm arguing with the fact that should we be ingesting it, if the benefit is for your teeth, shouldn't you be applying it just to the teeth and not consuming it?'
Toothpaste has significantly more fluoride than water does, which is why you are told to spit it out, according to the CDC.
The Republican continued that this is about Ohioans having a choice — just like he does, as he uses fluoride-free toothpaste.
'What kind of concerns do you have with Ohio considering to remove fluoride from all public water?' we asked Messina.
'Well, if Ohio did that, we would be stepping back in time,' he responded. 'We have a known beneficial, preventative part of our tool kit, and for us to continue to go forward without that — we're really leaving one of our best weapons behind.'
Ohio House Speaker Matt Huffman, R-Lima, seemed interested in the proposal because when asked if the state should keep fluoride in public water, he acknowledged that he 'didn't know.'
'Fluoride naturally occurs in water, I just found that out this week,' he said. 'They started adding it.'
He said that people over the past few years have been 'dismissed.'
'Now there appears to be some science that says too much fluoride, including adding fluoride, is bad for folks,' he said. 'I'm not a scientist, I'm not a chemist… We're going to sort of litigate that question… in the legislature here over the next couple of months. I don't know the answer to your question.'
House Minority Leader Allison Russo, D-Upper Arlington, whose background is in public health, was not thrilled to hear about the bill.
'I entirely support fluoride in water,' she said, noting that the benefits are clear in dental health.
We asked her if she saw this as an effort to privatize water.
'I see this as a basic human right,' she continued. 'I think the expectation of every household in this country is that you have access to clean tap water in your households.'
Gov. Mike DeWine, who is routinely against non-doctors making health decisions, is not commenting on this bill yet.
Knowing the governor, this would not be out of the realm of a possible veto. He consistently states that he supports science, vaccines, best practices of doctors in gender-affirming care, prevention of tobacco for kids and the stopping of medical misinformation.Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on Twitter and Facebook.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hamilton Spectator
5 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
States sue Trump, saying he is intimidating hospitals over gender-affirming care for youth
Seventeen Democratic officials accused President Donald Trump's administration of unlawfully intimidating health care providers into stopping gender-affirming care for transgender youth in a lawsuit filed Friday. The complaint comes after a month in which at least eight major hospitals and hospital systems — all in states where the care is allowed under state law — announced they were stopping or restricting the care . The latest announcement came Thursday from UI Health in Chicago. Trump's administration announced in July that it was sending subpoenas to providers and focusing on investigating them for fraud. It later boasted in a news release that hospitals are halting treatments. The Democratic officials say Trump's policies are an attempt to impose a nationwide ban on the treatment for people under 19 — and that's unlawful because there's no federal statute that bans providing the care to minors. The suit was filed by attorneys general from 15 states and the District of Columbia, plus the governor of Pennsylvania, in U.S. District Court in Boston. 'The federal government is running a cruel and targeted harassment campaign against providers who offer lawful, lifesaving care to children,' New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. Trump and others who oppose the care say that it makes permanent changes that people who receive it could come to regret — and maintain that it's being driven by questionable science. Since 2021, 28 states with Republican-controlled legislatures have adopted policies to ban or restrict gender-affirming care for minors. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states have a right to enforce those laws . For families with transgender children, the state laws and medical center policy changes have sparked urgent scrambles for treatment. The medical centers are responding to political and legal pressure The Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children's Hospital Los Angeles, the biggest public provider of gender-affirming care for children in teens in the U.S., closed in July. At least seven other major hospitals and health systems have made similar announcements, including Children's National in Washington D.C., UChicago Medicine and Yale New Haven Health. Kaiser Permanente, which operates in California and several other states, said it would pause gender-affirming surgeries for those under 19 as of the end of August, but would continue hormone therapy. Connecticut Children's Medical Center cited 'an increasingly complex and evolving landscape' for winding down care. Other hospitals, including Penn State, had already made similar decisions since Trump returned to office in January. Alex Sheldon, executive director of GLMA, an organization that advocates for health care equity for LGBTQ+ people, said the health systems have pulled back the services for legal reasons, not medical ones. 'Not once has a hospital said they are ending care because it is not medically sound,' Sheldon said. Trump's administration has targeted the care in multiple ways Trump devoted a lot of attention to transgender people in his campaign last year as part of a growing pushback from conservatives as transgender people have gained visibility and acceptance on some fronts. Trump criticized gender-affirming care, transgender women in women's sports, and transgender women's use of women's facilities such as restrooms. On his inauguration day in January, Trump signed an executive order defining the sexes as only male and female for government purposes, setting the tone for a cascade of actions that affect transgender people. About a week later, Trump called to stop using federal money, including from Medicaid, for gender-affirming care for those under 19. About half of U.S. adults approve of Trump's handling of transgender issues, an AP-NORC poll found. But the American Medical Association says that gender is on a spectrum , and the group opposes policies that restrict access to gender-affirming health care. Gender-affirming care includes a range of medical and mental health services to support a person's gender identity, including when it's different from the sex they were assigned at birth. It includes counseling and treatment with medications that block puberty, and hormone therapy to produce physical changes, as well as surgery, which is rare for minors. In March, a judge paused enforcement of the ban on government spending for care. The court ruling didn't stop other federal government action In April, Attorney General Pam Bondi directed government investigators to focus on providers who continue to offer gender-affirming care for transgender youth. 'Under my leadership, the Department of Justice will bring these practices to an end,' she wrote. In May, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a report discouraging medical interventions for transgender youth and instead focusing solely on talk therapy. The report questions adolescents' capacity to consent to life-changing treatments that could result in future infertility. The administration has not said who wrote the report, which has been deeply criticized by LGBTQ+ advocates. In June, a Justice Department memo called for prioritizing civil investigations of those who provide the treatment. In July, Justice Department announced it had sent more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics involved in gender-affirming care for youth, saying they were part of investigations of health care fraud, false statements and other possible wrongdoing. And in a statement last week, the White House celebrated decisions to end gender-affirming care, which it called a 'barbaric, pseudoscientific practice' Families worry about accessing care Kristen Salvatore's 15-year-old child started hormone therapy late last year at Penn State Health. Salvatore said in an interview with The Associated Press before the lawsuit was announced that it was a major factor in reduced signs of anxiety and depression. Last month, the family received official notice from the health system that it would no longer offer the hormones for patients under 19 after July 31, though talk therapy can continue. Salvatore has been struggling to find a place that's not hours away from their Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, home that would provide the hormones and accept Medicaid coverage. 'I'm walking around blind with no guidance, and whatever breadcrumbs I was given are to a dead-end alleyway,' she said. The family has enough testosterone stockpiled to last until January. But if they can't find a new provider by then, Salvatore's child could risk detransitioning, she said.

5 hours ago
Multiple medical groups say they have been barred from work on CDC's panel of vaccine advisers
Multiple medical groups say they have been barred from working on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's panel of vaccine advisers. It comes weeks after Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired the original panel of independent experts and replaced them with his own handpicked members -- many of whom have expressed skeptical views on vaccines. Liaisons representing major medical groups were historically invited to meetings of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) as non-voting members to provide their independent expertise in respective fields. In a joint statement, the groups said they have now been excluded "from the process of reviewing scientific evidence end informing vaccine recommendations." A total of eight groups signed on to the statement, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, teh American College of Physicians, the American Medical Association and the National Medical Association among others. In a statement provided to ABC News, an HHS spokesperson said: "Under the old ACIP, outside pressure to align with vaccine orthodoxy limited asking the hard questions. The old ACIP members were plagued by conflicts of interest, influence, and bias. We are fulfilling our promise to the American people to never again allow those conflicts to taint vaccine recommendations." The statement went on to say: "Experts will continue to be included based on relevant experience and expertise, not because of what organization they are with." In their statement, the medical organizations said they learned the groups will be excluded from the panel's work in an email late Thursday and noted they were "deeply disappointed and alarmed" by the move. "To remove our deep medical expertise from this vital and once transparent process is irresponsible, dangerous to our nation's health, and will further undermine public and clinician trust in vaccines," the statement read.


Boston Globe
8 hours ago
- Boston Globe
N.H. Governor Kelly Ayotte signs bills banning gender-affirming care for minors
Proponents have said the ban is an important way of protecting children from treatments they believe to be harmful and irreversible. But opponents say the new law discriminates against transgender youth, removing treatments they view as life saving, and interfering with doctors' ability to make appropriate medical decisions with families. Get N.H. Morning Report A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox. Enter Email Sign Up Violations of the new law will go before New Hampshire's board of medicine, which can take administrative disciplinary action. Advertisement The new law also allows someone who was harmed by receiving this care to bring a lawsuit against the person who provided the care and violated the law. The new ban comes as legislative efforts targeting transgender people have grown in recent years. Last year, New Hampshire lawmakers passed a bill banning gender-affirming genital surgeries for minors, even though providers have said such procedures are exceedingly rare in New Hampshire. All of the other New England states have laws protecting access to gender-affirming care, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a Colorado-based think tank that promotes equality. Advertisement Some New Hampshire families with transgender children have been warily watching as the bill advanced and, in some cases, have been Republican lawmakers in New Hampshire who championed the ban were encouraged by a But some attorneys say there are still avenues for pursuing a possible legal challenge of New Hampshire's new law. That could include a challenge based on the New Hampshire constitution, arguing that the intent of the law was to harm transgender people, or a challenge on the basis of parental rights, according to Chris Erchull, a senior staff attorney at GLAD law. Ayotte also signed a second bill banning gender-affirming surgeries for minors. The bill explicitly prohibits 'transgender chest surgery' for minors as part of a gender transition. Violating the law is classified as unprofessional conduct and would be subject to discipline by the board of medicine. The law also allows minors to sue for damages if they received such a treatment in violation of the law. And the attorney general can bring a suit to enforce compliance with the law. Amanda Gokee can be reached at