Miami-Dade mayor should veto the fluoridation vote
The fluoride wars that have been raging in Florida for months recently reached Miami-Dade County. Now Mayor Daniella Levine Cava, who has said she supports keeping fluoride in water, must decide by Friday whether she'll veto an 8-2 county commission vote on April 1 to end the decades-long practice of adding fluoride to the water to improve dental health.
Vetoes should be used sparingly. In this case, a veto is appropriate.
As we have said before, the scientific consensus remains that tiny amounts of fluoride in drinking water is both safe and helpful to dental health. The American Academy of Pediatrics says it helps reduce tooth decay and lessens cavities in children. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention called it one of the greatest achievements in public health in the 20th century, and says added fluoride continues to show no risk in the tiny amounts used in drinking water.
Miami-Dade adds 0.7 milligrams per liter, the CDC's recommended amount. Concerns cited by opponents often focus on studies looking at much higher amounts, of 1.5 milligrams per liter or more. Miami-Dade has fluoridated its water since the 1950s. As Dr. Aileen Marty, a professor at Florida International University's medical school, said during a hearing in Miami-Dade: 'I want to be very clear that the levels that are in Miami-Dade County's water are safe. Not only are they safe... they're necessary for the health and well-being of the children and adults in this county.'
Removing fluoride from our drinking water is likely to penalize families of limited income the most, those without easy and affordable access to dental care. And make no mistake: Dental care is health care. Poor oral health can lead to serious health issues like heart disease and diabetes.
The debate over fluoridation grew after a federal judge in September ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to further address regulating it. The ruling came out of a report by the National Institutes of Health that indicated a link between high exposures — double the standard amount — and developmental delay in kids.
In Miami-Dade, some of those opposed to fluoride have echoed the national discussion, likening its addition to the public water supply to forced medical treatments. Rejecting fluoride would be a victory for medical freedom, they said.
Unfortunately, this has become a political issue. Mistrust of public health systems reared its head during the COVID pandemic. And Robert Kennedy Jr., the secretary of health and human services under President Trump, claims fluoride can lead to health problems. On Tuesday, he said he plans to tell the CDC to stop recommending fluoridation, and that he is assembling a task force on the issue.
But how much value should anyone give Kennedy's medical opinion? He's been a years-long vaccine skeptic, yet on Sunday, after visiting Texas families who lost children to measles, he publicly advocated on X for the MMR vaccine.
The fluoride issue arose in Miami-Dade when Commissioner Roberto Gonzalez sponsored legislation to remove it from the water. He held a March 11 hearing when Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo and other fluoridation critics spoke. The commission voted April 1; Ladapo was allowed to address them again right before the meeting. On Monday, Levine Cava held a roundtable discussion with pro-fluoride medical professionals, the first time advocates had been allowed extended time to address the issue in County Hall. Commissioners were not invited.
There have been mixed decisions in local governments across Florida. Collier County voted to stop fluoridating water in February; Seminole County did the same this week. But the Central Florida town of Bartow voted to keep fluoride. So did Delray Beach in Palm Beach County. There's also a Florida Senate bill being considered by the Legislature, SB 700, to ban fluoride in the water supply.
Even if Levine Cava vetoes the legislation, commissioners could override her decision with nine of the commission's 13 votes. Because there were three commissioners absent during the April 1 vote to remove fluoride from the water supply in 30 days, it's unclear whether there would be enough votes to do so.
Miami-Dade commissioners ignored much of the scientific consensus on fluoride. With a veto, Levine Cava could bring it back to the county.
Click here to send the letter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
14 minutes ago
- Medscape
Year-Long Methotrexate Not Helpful for Inflammatory Knee OA
Compared with placebo, low-dose methotrexate administered weekly at doses up to 15 mg for 52 weeks did not relieve knee pain or reduce the size of effusion-synovitis in patients with inflammatory knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODOLOGY: Researchers in China conducted a multicenter, clinical trial between July 2019 and January 2023 to examine whether low-dose methotrexate can reduce knee pain and effusion-synovitis in knee OA. They included 215 patients (mean age, 60.6 years; 89% women) with inflammatory knee OA and effusion-synovitis who were randomly assigned to receive either methotrexate or placebo, with weekly 5 mg folic acid supplementation given 1 day after treatment. Participants continued their regular medications (except corticosteroids and anti-synovitis drugs), did not take trimethoprim, and avoided alcohol during the trial. Primary outcomes were changes in knee pain on the visual analog scale (VAS) and inflammation measured by the effusion-synovitis maximal area on MRI over 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes were assessment of pain, stiffness, and physical function; changes in infrapatellar fat pad signal intensity; and evaluation of response to the assigned treatment. TAKEAWAY: At week 52, no significant difference was found between methotrexate and placebo groups in terms of VAS pain and effusion-synovitis maximal area (between-group difference, 0.3 mm; 95% CI, -6.7 to 7.3 mm and 0.1 cm 2 ; 95% CI, -0.8 to 1.0 cm 2 , respectively). ; 95% CI, -0.8 to 1.0 cm , respectively). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of any of the prespecified secondary outcomes. The frequency of experiencing at least one adverse event was comparable between the methotrexate and placebo groups (29.6% and 24.3%, respectively); however, elevated concentrations of liver enzymes were more common in the methotrexate group. IN PRACTICE: 'Given the lack of efficacy of MTX [methotrexate] across knee OA studies and the known potential adverse events, it is not recommended for the treatment of painful, inflammatory knee OA. We now need to focus our attention on treatments that can both inhibit joint inflammation and stimulate chondrocytes within the cartilage to synthesize replacement matrix. The future of pharmaceuticals for knee OA needs to move past MTX,' Nancy E. Lane, MD, UC Davis Health, Sacramento, California, wrote in an accompanying editorial. SOURCE: This study was led by Zhaohua Zhu, PhD, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China. It was published online on June 2, 2025, in JAMA Internal Medicine . LIMITATIONS: This study was conducted during COVID-19 shutdowns, which delayed recruitment and potentially increased loss to follow-up and nonadherence rates. The findings may not be fully generalizable because most participants were women, and racial and ethnic diversity was limited. The relatively small number of participants in each subgroup may have limited the ability to detect significant benefits in specific populations. DISCLOSURES: This study received funding from the National Key Research and Development Program of China, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Clinical Research Startup Program of Southern Medical University. One author reported providing consulting advice on scientific advisory boards for various pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Groups begin lobbying N.S. government over potential booze sale changes
With the provincial government launching consultation on whether to expand sales points for alcohol in Nova Scotia, interested parties are not waiting for a phone call. Organizations on both sides of the issue have started issuing news releases and open letters to Finance Minister John Lohr, whose department is overseeing the process. Lohr announced last week that Infuse Public Relations and Crestview Strategy will collectively manage the public opinion polling of 1,500 random people and stakeholder engagement with 194 groups. The contract for the work is worth $300,000. A news release this week from the Atlantic division of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said 77 per cent of small businesses in Nova Scotia support allowing convenience stores and grocery stores to sell alcohol. "This moment is the government's chance to support local retailers at a time when over six in 10 are experiencing lower demand, and provide much-needed shelf space to local producers," Duncan Robertson, the federation's director of legislative affairs, said in the release. The CFIB's recommendations include allowing the sale of beverages that do not exceed alcohol by volume of 7.1 per cent in convenience and grocery stores — similar to steps taken in Ontario — and opening those rules to all small businesses, not just large retailers. Nova Scotia already permits alcohol to be sold in some private wine and specialty stores, in on-site stores at breweries and wineries, and farmers' markets. Lohr also received an open letter this week from a group of 14 doctors who specialize in addiction medicine, urging the government not to expand alcohol sales because it would increase consumption and "worsen individual and societal harms." "Every day we care for patients and families suffering from alcohol use disorder and medical complications of alcohol use," the letter said. "Alcohol causes more than 500 deaths, 5,000 hospital admissions, and 35,000 emergency department visits in Nova Scotia each year, and creates more health care and social costs to our province than any other substance." The doctors went on to say that revenue earned through taxation on alcohol sales does not compensate for society-wide costs of health harms, violence and driving accidents attributable to alcohol. They wrote that alcohol is already widely available in Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation retail and agency stores. "It is crucial that the government keeps control of alcohol distribution to minimize further public costs and health harms," they said. Finance Department officials said 194 groups are included in stakeholder engagement so far. That includes 126 craft breweries, wineries and distillers, along with another 11 groups or agencies also in favour of opening things up, such as the Retail Council of Canada. Jim Cormier, the group's Atlantic director of government relations, said members have been looking at this issue particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic. "They've been looking at any way to try and get more people to get away from online shopping, using their smartphones to shop, and get them to come out to go into bricks-and-mortar stores," he said in an interview. Cormier said there can be extended benefits for the local economy by getting people into retail stores where it's possible to cross-promote Nova Scotia craft beer, wine and spirits with other products, such as cheese, berries and glassware. "Obviously it would be more than just Nova Scotia products, but that's the pitch we're making," he said. Council members are looking for things to be as open as possible so there are no winners or losers, said Cormier. "If you're in a rural community and there happens to be a hardware store and they think that they could make a case that they could sell beer and do so in a responsible manner and meet all the rules and regulations, why shouldn't they be allowed to at least apply to do that?" Dr. Kirstin Weerdenburg, a pediatric emergency physician and a trauma team leader at the IWK Health Centre, said it is vital that the government not make any changes without first speaking to the people responsible for caring for those most impacted by alcohol. During her 10 years working in Nova Scotia since moving from Ontario where she also practised medicine, Weerdenburg said she's seen an increase in the number of young people presenting to the emergency department with intoxication. Data needs to be reviewed under the current regulatory regime to understand what's happening before access is expanded, she said. "I do start to get more concerned nowadays, if kids have more access, what their futures will look like." Weerdenburg is also a member of the Nova Scotia Alcohol Policy Coalition, which recently wrote to the government outlining its concerns. The group is one of several dozen representing interests related to health care, intimate partner violence prevention, addictions and marginalized communities slated to be consulted. Although the stakeholder list does not include Nova Scotia Health, the IWK Health Centre or Public Health, a Finance Department spokesperson said the three agencies would be consulted as part of an internal engagement process for government departments. MORE TOP STORIES
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. has promoted 'freedom of choice' while limiting vaccines, food
Prior to becoming Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had espoused the idea of "medical freedom," the ability of people to make personal health decisions for themselves and their families without corporate or government coercion. It's an idea supported under Kennedy's Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement to reduce the prevalence of chronic disease in the U.S. by making healthier lifestyle choices. On topics, such as vaccines, Kennedy has said he wouldn't prevent children from being able to receive vaccines but would leave the choice up to parents. MORE: CDC official who oversaw COVID vaccine recommendations resigns "I'm a freedom-of-choice person," Kennedy told Fox News host Sean Hannity during an interview in March. "We should have transparency. We should have informed choice, and if people don't want it, the government shouldn't force them to do it." Some public health experts told ABC News, however, that the HHS has been limiting choices on some products for many Americans despite Kennedy's talk about "freedom of choice." Just last week, Kennedy announced the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would no longer recommend the COVID-19 vaccine for certain groups. Additionally, Kennedy has called on states to ban recipients of food stamps from being able to use them to purchase soda. He has also praised states for banning fluoride from public drinking water and indicated he will change federal guidance on recommending adding fluoride. The public health experts said Kennedy's actions are setting up a dichotomy on public health. "I think that RFK Jr. has done a really good job of identifying some of the problems [in public health], but it's the solutions that are problematic," Dr. Craig Spencer, an associate professor of the practice of health services, policy and practice at Brown University School of Public Health, told ABC News. "What you're seeing with RFK Jr. and his approach to health is an individualization of public health. It's this idea that you can make decisions for your health, and that's always been true." He went on, "We need to be able to follow their guidance, not just have them tell us, 'Follow your own science.' As the focus shifts from community to individuals, we're losing a lot of that underpinning, which has led to a lot of the gains in public health." Kennedy has repeatedly stated that he is not anti-vaccine and that he supports vaccination. Shortly after Trump's election, Kennedy said in an interview with NBC News that "if vaccines are working for somebody, I'm not going to take them away. People ought to have choice, and that choice ought to be informed by the best information." MORE: CDC official who oversaw COVID vaccine recommendations resigns During his confirmation hearings, Kennedy said he supported the childhood vaccination schedule and that he would not do anything as head of HHS that "makes it difficult or discourages people from taking vaccines." Separately, in an opinion piece Kennedy wrote for Fox News in March on the nationwide measles outbreak, he said the measles vaccine helps protect individuals and provides "community immunity" but also called the decision to vaccinate a "personal one." However, last week, Kennedy announced the removal of the COVID-19 vaccine from the CDC's immunization schedule for "healthy children and healthy pregnant women." The CDC's immunization schedule is not just a guide for doctors but also determines insurance coverage for most major private plans and Medicaid expansion programs. Following Kennedy's announcement, the schedule was updated noting all children would be eligible for COVID vaccines, but now under a shared-clinical decision-making model -- allowing parents to choose whether their children are vaccinated alongside advice from a doctor. "Regarding the vaccines, HHS is restoring the doctor-patient relationship," HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon told ABC News in a statement. "We are encouraging those groups to consult with their health care provider to help them make an informed decision. This is freedom of choice." "If you restrict access, you necessarily restrict choice," Dr. Matthew Ferrari, a professor of biology and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics at Pennsylvania State University, told ABC News. "Those two things are antithetical. You can't do both. You can't say you're allowing choice if you're restricting access." Ferrari said the idea of "medical freedom" is catchy, but public health recommendations are made based on how to protect the most vulnerable individuals. "If you look at the outcomes, if you look at the consequences of that movement, it has been to disproportionately restrict access to -- and restrict support and infrastructure to allow people to access -- preventive medicine," he said. "It's sort of easy to say, 'Well, take the vaccine away. But [vaccines] prevent a future outcome of illness for yourself and for others in the community." Traditionally, the CDC's Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices decides if there is a benefit to a yearly vaccine and who should get it. The independent advisory committee then makes recommendations to the CDC, which has the final say. The committee was set to meet in late June to vote on potential changes to COVID vaccine recommendations. Spencer said Kennedy's bypassing of traditional avenues when it comes to changing vaccine recommendations is also taking away choice from people. "This did not go through the normal process that it should have, and he basically just made a decision for people while at the same time saying that he's going to let people make a decision," Spencer said. Kennedy has also campaigned to prevent Americans from using food stamps -- provided under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program -- to buy candy and soda. "It's nonsensical for U.S. taxpayers to spend tens of billions of dollars subsidizing junk that harms the health of low-income Americans," Kennedy wrote in an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal last September. MORE: RFK Jr. to tell medical schools to teach nutrition or lose federal funding At a MAHA event in late May, Kennedy said the governors of 10 states have submitted waivers to the United States Department of Agriculture requesting permission to ban SNAP recipients from using benefits to buy candy and soft drinks. "The U.S. government spends over $4 trillion a year on health care," Nixon said in a statement. "That's not freedom -- it's failure. Secretary Kennedy is unapologetically taking action to reverse the chronic disease epidemic, not subsidize it with taxpayer dollars. Warning Americans about the dangers of ultra-processed food isn't an attack on choice -- it's the first step in restoring it." Nutrition experts agree that sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) are unhealthy. Frequent consumption of SSBs is linked to health issues such as weight gain, obesity, type 2 diabetes, tooth decay, heart disease and kidney diseases, according to the CDC. Kristina Petersen, an associate professor in the department of nutritional sciences at Pennsylvania State University, told ABC News there is a crisis of diet-related diseases in the U.S., which increase the risk of disability and reduces lifespan. However, she said there needs to be strong evidence of the benefits of restrictive policies if they are to be put in place. "In terms of limiting people's choices, it is important to consider all the different roles that food plays in someone's life, and so obviously we want people eating nutritious foods, but also we need to acknowledge that food is a source of enjoyment," Petersen said. "A lot of social situations revolve around food. So, when we're thinking about reducing people's access to given foods, we need to think about the consequences of that." One unintended consequence could be an eligible family not signing up for SNAP benefits because of the restrictions, she said. Even if a ban on buying candy and soda with SNAP benefits does occur, Petersen said she is not aware of any evidence that shows banning certain foods leads to healthier diets. She added that the nation's dietary guidelines are written to emphasize healthy foods like fruits and vegetable rather than telling people to avoid or restrict less healthy foods. "All foods can be consumed as part of a healthy dietary pattern. It's really just the amount and the frequency that determines whether that pattern is helpful overall or less helpful," Petersen said. "People can have small indulgences, but really, we're interested in what is their pattern over a period of time." Providing incentives for purchasing healthier foods may be more effective and still allow people to have choice, Petersen said. A 2018 study used a model simulation to study the effects of food incentives, disincentives or restrictions in SNAP. One of the simulations involving incentives for foods such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, whole grains, fish and plant-based oils found to have the most substantial health benefits and be the most cost-effective. "Things like fruits and vegetables, they do tend to be more expensive, so if you incentivize them by providing more benefits … that's making the dollar go further, and it's kind of making the economic piece of this a bit stronger," Petersen said. "A lot of this is framed around personal choice. Rather than restricting access to, how can we give people more access to healthy foods? I think that's going to have the greatest benefit here." ABC News' Youri Benadjaoud and Cheyenne Haslett contributed to this report. RFK Jr. has promoted 'freedom of choice' while limiting vaccines, food originally appeared on
