Committee rejects proposal to repeal Arkansas' water fluoridation mandate
An Arkansas Senate committee narrowly rejected a proposal to repeal state law requiring fluoride in drinking water after supporters outnumbered opponents of the bill during public comment.
Senate Bill 2 would have deleted an entire section of state statute that currently mandates: 'The company, corporation, municipality, county, government agency, or other entity that owns or controls a water system shall control the quantity of fluoride in the water so as to maintain a fluoride content established by the Department of Health.'
Current law also requires the State Board of Health to adopt rules for 'permissible concentrations of fluoride to be maintained by a water system' and requirements for maintaining those concentrations.
The benefits and potential risks of fluoridated water have been debated for decades, but it most recently became a national topic of discussion in September. A federal judge ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to place more regulations on the concentrations of the mineral in drinking water because large amounts of it could impair children's intellectual development. Dental experts recommend fluoride to strengthen tooth enamel and prevent tooth decay.
At Wednesday's Senate Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee meeting, three people spoke against SB 2: Dr. Terry Fiddler and Dr. Niki Carter, both dentists, and Dr. Natalie Burr, a pediatrician representing the Arkansas chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
All three said there are credible studies showing that fluoride improves oral health while there are no credible studies that it poses a serious risk to public health, particularly for children.
'[If] you drink a lot of water, that has a lot of benefits, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you have an over-amount of fluoride in your system,' Fiddler said.
Proposed Arkansas legislation would repeal water fluoridation mandate, leave matter to local voters
Carter is the dental director of insurer Delta Dental of Arkansas, and she said the state ranks last in oral health nationwide. She rebuffed a comment from Sen. Ricky Hill, R-Cabot, that this statistic might mean water fluoridation does not actually improve oral health.
'Removing fluoride from water would have a negative impact on Arkansans' oral health,' Carter said. 'In fact, removing it from our water systems will burden those with lower incomes and pre-existing dental conditions… These same people have fewer prevention options and already have to deal with the socioeconomic barriers that make it difficult to maintain a healthy diet or access to dental care.'
In 2023, the Arkansas Center for Health Improvement's Health Policy Board reaffirmed its support for required statewide fluoridation of public water systems.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's recommended fluoride concentration in drinking water since 2015 is 0.7 mg of fluoride per liter of water, and the World Health Organization recommends a 1.5 mg-maximum fluoride concentration.
Supporters of SB 2 emphasized the dangers of consuming large amounts of fluoride, while opponents emphasized the benefits of consuming smaller amounts.
The nine supporters of the bill included doctors, water utility administrators and concerned citizens.
Dr. Chester Clark, a dentist, claimed studies from the 1950s about the benefits of fluoride were 'falsified.' He also noted that books have been written claiming water fluoridation is toxic, such as The Fluoride Deception and The Case Against Fluoride.
'I have yet to see one book that's written showing the safety of fluoride,' Clark said. 'It seems like if it's such a great thing, there should be some books written about it.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Clark and other supporters of the bill also said fluoride could cause bone damage, and he called water fluoridation 'experimentation on humans without their informed consent.'
Dr. Bill Smith, another supporter, spoke for 20 minutes about the potential harm of fluoride on the human body.
'We've put a regulated drug into the water supply, and we haven't given the people a choice to accept or refuse administration of this drug,' Smith said.
Committee chairwoman Sen. Missy Irvin, R-Mountain View, asked Smith if he was a dentist; Smith said he is a 'well-educated chiropractor.'
Smith, Penzo and others who supported the bill said they accepted the benefits of fluoride on tooth enamel via mouthwash and toothpaste but specifically opposed the ingestion of the chemical.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald Trump nominee for U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, has called fluoride an 'industrial waste' that causes a range of diseases. Health experts said his claims are misleading, according to KFF Health News.
SB 2 was not an attempt to conform to the public health stances of Kennedy and Trump, said Rep. Matt Duffield, R-Russellville, the bill's House sponsor.
Duffield said he has made a conscious effort not to consume fluoride for the past 14 years and has 'not had a single cavity since then.'
CONTACT US
Representatives of the Arkansas Rural Water Association and the Ozark Mountain Regional Public Water Authority spoke in favor of the bill.
After public comment, the committee's voice vote to pass the bill was split, and the audience reacted negatively to Irvin declaring the bill had failed.
On a roll call vote, Penzo, Hill and two other Republicans, Scott Flippo of Bull Shoals and John Payton of Wilburn, voted for the bill. Five votes are necessary for bills to pass eight-member committees.
Irvin was one of four senators to vote no, along with Sen. David Wallace, R-Leachville, and Democratic Sens. Greg Leding of Fayetteville and Fredrick Love of Mabelvale.
Senate Bill 4, also sponsored by Penzo and Duffield, would build on the foundation laid by SB 2 if it were to become law. SB 4 would put fluoridation of water systems in the hands of city or county voters, and it has been deferred in the Senate Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
West Virginia taps McDaniel for state health officer
Lt. Col. J.D. Underwood talks with Brig. Gen. Paige Hunter, commander of the West Virginia Air National Guard, and Lt. Col. Mark McDaniel (center), 130th Medical Group flight surgeon after assuming command of the 130th MDG, Jan. 8, 2017 at McLaughlin Air National Guard Base, Charleston, McDaniel was named West Virginia's state health officer on Thursday, Aug. 21, 2025. (U.S. Air National Guard photo by Tech. Sgt. De-Juan Haley) Mark McDaniel, a doctor of osteopathic medicine who recently retired as state air surgeon for the West Virginia National Guard, will be the next state health officer, the Department of Health announced Thursday afternoon. 'The role of State Health Officer is pivotal to the success of West Virginia as we work to make this beautiful state the best and healthiest place to live, to work, and to thrive,' Department of Health Secretary Arvin Singh said in a statement. 'We thoroughly evaluated the candidates for this position and Dr. McDaniel rose to the top of the list as someone who genuinely cares for the health of West Virginians.' According to the news release, McDaniel has 25 years of multidisciplinary medical experience in addition to his career in military and civilian health care leadership. As a civilian, McDaniel is a regional medical supervisor for AFC Urgent Care Centers in North Carolina and Virginia, as well as a Regional Medical Director of LabCorp Inc. He previously served as chief of aerospace medicine and senior flight surgeon for the 130th Medical Group at the McLaughlin Air National Guard Base in West Virginia. 'I am extremely passionate about improving the health of West Virginians. I grew up here; I have roots here, and I know that this state can be one of the best,' McDaniel said in the news release. 'I look forward to working with Governor Morrisey and Secretary Singh to tackle long-standing public health issues that have plagued this state for far too long. 'Nationally, West Virginia ranks 49th in health outcomes and 46th for overall health. We struggle with obesity, chronic disease, and heart health, among many other serious health issues,' he said. 'The Morrisey Administration has already proven that West Virginia is ready to make pivotal health changes, and I am excited to lead this vital work.' The news release lists McDaniel as 'acting state health officer.' A spokeswoman for the Department of Health said Thursday the distinction is so that McDaniel may take on the role without giving up seeing patients. The department interviewed several candidates for the role and the requirement that they not be engaged in any other business, vocation or employment was a dealbreaker for the best ones, Gailyn M. Markham, director of communications, wrote in an email to West Virginia Watch. 'That should come as no surprise given the importance of patient relations and the desire of physicians to remain current in their clinical skills,' she wrote. 'The Department is open to working with the Legislature on statutory changes to address overly-restrictive job criteria that prevent the state from hiring the most qualified candidates for such critical roles. As state health officer, McDaniel will be responsible for investigating diseases, epidemics and endemics, promoting public health, developing a state plan and other duties. He also becomes secretary for the state Board of Medicine. McDaniel fills a position that's been empty since former state health officer Dr. Matthew Christiansen resigned from the role in December 2024, weeks before Morrisey took office. Christiansen had served in the role for nearly two years. McDaniel will begin his role Monday. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE Solve the daily Crossword
Boston Globe
4 hours ago
- Boston Globe
As Trump weighs IVF, Republicans back new ‘natural' approach to infertility
Advertisement 'It's important that we reframe the conversation away from just being about IVF to a broader conversation about infertility,' she said at the February 2024 meeting, according to three people who were there. The key, she added, was not to oppose IVF but to provide a different solution. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Over the next 18 months, Waters and other conservatives would work behind the scenes to chart a new path, building a coalition within Trump's base to push what they describe as a 'natural' approach to combating infertility. Called 'restorative reproductive medicine,' the concept addresses what proponents describe as the 'root causes' of infertility, while leaving IVF as a last resort. Today, an approach long confined to the medical fringe has unified Christian conservatives and proponents of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Make America Healthy Again movement -- and is suddenly at the forefront of the fertility conversation in the Trump administration and the broader Republican Party. Advertisement Legislation that would fund restorative reproductive medicine has been proposed by Republicans in both the Senate and the House. Arkansas passed a law this spring that requires insurance companies in the state to cover this alternative approach to infertility. The Department of Health and Human Services will soon incorporate restorative reproductive medicine into government-funded health clinics for low-income women. And the approach has featured prominently in an intense series of conversations inside the White House, as top Trump aides have wrestled with what to recommend in a highly anticipated IVF report. 'All of a sudden it has gotten into the discussion,' said Kaylen Silverberg, a leading IVF doctor who has been consulting with the White House. While he has been in the infertility field for more than three decades, he said he had never heard the term 'restorative reproductive medicine' until four months ago. The field of restorative reproductive medicine, which dates back to the early 2000s, is grounded in the idea that infertility is a symptom of an underlying 'root cause.' Physicians who specialize in the approach analyze patients' diet and exercise habits, while helping them 'chart' their menstrual cycles, a process that can help expose certain reproductive health conditions, like endometriosis, that may lead to infertility. Practitioners treat reproductive health conditions but do not offer IVF, a posture that has prompted harsh criticism from leading medical associations. On the campaign trail, Trump did everything he could to signal his full backing for IVF, a procedure supported by 70% of Americans. Within a week of the Alabama ruling, which declared that frozen embryos are children, he called on the state Legislature to pass a law protecting IVF. Later that year, he referred to himself as the 'father of IVF' and pledged to make the procedure free, without offering any specifics on how he would do so. Advertisement Since the president took office, his aides have met with representatives from both sides of the IVF debate, discussing what should be in the final report. Many involved in those discussions are now waiting to see what the president's team will recommend. IVF proponents are hoping the president will work with Congress to require insurance companies to cover the procedure, while moving unilaterally to extend coverage to members of the military, veterans and federal employees. Christian conservatives, on the other hand, want the administration to invest in research and education related to restorative reproductive medicine. A White House spokesperson, Kush Desai, said in a statement that the administration was working on multiple fronts to address infertility. 'President Trump pledged to expand IVF access for Americans who are struggling to start families, and the administration is exploring every available tool to deliver on this pledge,' Desai said. 'Further, we are working tirelessly to address the root causes of infertility and chronic diseases as part of our broader mandate to Make America Healthy Again.' Leading medical organizations have weighed in over the past few months. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists called restorative reproductive medicine 'unproven' and 'not a medical term,' stressing that many patients have already tried to chart their cycles, treat existing health conditions and make lifestyle changes by the time they arrive at an infertility clinic. While those methods may work for some, several leading IVF doctors said people experiencing infertility often required more help — and months or years spent on restorative reproductive medicine could delay the IVF they would ultimately need in order to conceive. Because female fertility declines with age, doctors said those delays could jeopardize a woman's ability to get pregnant. Advertisement 'They're underestimating how hard we try to avoid IVF,' said Eve Feinberg, a medical director of fertility and reproductive medicine at Northwestern Medicine. 'When people walk into my clinic, we don't do IVF tomorrow. We try to figure out other things.' In the weeks after the standing-room-only meeting on Capitol Hill, Waters joined forces with several other young conservative women, including Natalie Dodson, who now works as a senior adviser at the Department of Health and Human Services. A small group began reaching out to physicians who practice restorative reproductive medicine, eager to learn more about the field and what kind of support the practitioners could use from the federal government. 'Honestly, it was a little surprising,' said Monica Minjeur, the U.S. director of communications for the International Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine, a professional body created by a small group of physicians who coined the term in 2000. Minjeur and others had been working for years toward getting the field officially recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties, but the term was still largely unknown. 'I had a Google alert set up for 'restorative reproductive medicine' for a few years,' she said. 'And honestly forgot I even had it.' Then Minjeur and her colleagues learned that the approach was the subject of legislation proposed in the Senate. Two Republican senators, Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi and James Lankford of Oklahoma, signed on to introduce a bill that would allot federal funding for research and education on restorative reproductive medicine. But everyone involved understood that the bill had to be framed carefully, according to three people involved in the early stages of the effort. Before agreeing to introduce the legislation, Hyde-Smith wanted to make sure it would not send the message that its supporters were against IVF, according to one of the people involved. Advertisement The legislation fizzled. But it took on symbolic importance among those pushing for a new approach to infertility, prompting conversations on Capitol Hill that were intensely personal and emotional — as well as overwhelmingly female. At a briefing on the topic organized by the Senate Pro-Life Caucus and the Values Action Team last summer, several congressional staff members cried while sharing their experiences with reproductive health conditions and infertility, according to several people who attended. One person in the audience said, 'I think I have endometriosis,' after hearing the presentation, multiple people recalled. 'People came up to me after that and said: 'Can you help me? Can you help my friend?'' said Marguerite Duane, a family physician who specializes in restorative reproductive medicine and has worked with Waters and Dodson. 'There are babies that are here now because of that briefing,' she said, adding that she was referring to 'people who became patients of mine or who I connected to other RRM physicians.' When Trump promised last August to make IVF free if he became president, people at the center of the restorative reproductive medicine effort began to view their work with new urgency. They took Trump's statements as evidence of an 'education gap,' several people said: Like much of the country, he thought IVF was the only way to treat infertility. They hoped their movement would show him that there was another option, the people recalled. Advertisement Once in office, the Trump administration moved swiftly to signal its continued support for IVF, issuing an executive order in February that promised to lower costs and expand access. The order offered no specifics on how the administration would achieve that goal but promised that a detailed report with recommendations on the topic would be prepared by late May. Three months later, the report has not been released. The coalition backing restorative reproductive medicine was diverse but organized, including leading members of the MAHA movement, anti-abortion groups and representatives from the medical field. Connected through regular calls and meetings at the Heritage Foundation's Washington headquarters, led by Waters, they presented a unified vision for what the administration could do on infertility. Many who met with the White House directed Trump aides to the legislation proposed the previous year by Hyde-Smith and Lankford, according to several people at those meetings. Inside the Senate offices, staff members worked throughout the spring to prepare a new version of that bill that incorporated the priorities of each faction of the new coalition -- eager for the White House to review it before the administration issued its report, according to the person involved in early stages of the effort. The updated version of the legislation includes a greater emphasis on lifestyle changes as a solution to infertility, reflecting the priorities of MAHA leaders involved in the conversations. Senator Tammy Duckworth speaks at a press conference concerning access to IVF treatment at the Capitol in Washington, June 12, 2024. TIERNEY L. CROSS/NYT While those central to the restorative reproductive medicine effort say they see potential for bipartisanship, leading Democrats are opposed to Hyde-Smith's legislation. Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., said she felt 'sick to my stomach' when she considered the implications of Hyde-Smith's bill. 'They want to delay and delay and delay and essentially come up with fake science and ways to delay so that people can never actually get to the IVF solution,' said Duckworth, who has had two children through IVF. Duckworth, meanwhile, has been working to expand IVF access. She recently added coverage for military families into a draft of the annual defense policy bill. It is not clear whether that provision will survive. Last year, Duckworth added similar language to the same bill, and it was stripped out by Republicans. Hyde-Smith said in a statement that she believed leaders could 'get past the politics' and 'come together in support of genuine solutions.' Her legislation, she added, 'is not in opposition to IVF; it is a separate and potentially complementary effort to address fertility concerns in a cost-effective manner that focuses on healing couples and empowering them with autonomy over how they build their families.' At a recent event on women's fertility in downtown Washington, Waters expressed optimism that the administration would prioritize the alternative approach she had been pushing for. 'This is a historic political moment,' Waters said at the event, co-hosted by the Heritage Foundation and the MAHA Institute. 'For the first time, the White House and top political leaders are directly spotlighting family formation, real reproductive health and root cause infertility care as national priorities.' This article originally appeared in .
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Fecal indicator bacteria prompt water quality advisories at five Bay County beaches
PANAMA CITY— The Florida Department of Health in Bay County has issued water quality advisories for fecal indicator bacteria at five local beaches. The following locations are under advisories for high levels of enterococcus bacteria: Laguna Beach: 19440 Front Beach Road, Panama City Beach Panama City Beach City Pier: 16101 Front Beach Road, Panama City Beach Rick Seltzer Park: 7419 Thomas Drive, Panama City Beach Beach Drive: U.S. 98 West Beach Drive, Panama City Earl Gilbert Park: 6601 Oak Shore Drive, Parker The Department of Health is advising against entering the water at these locations. Advisories will remain in place until bacteria levels are below the accepted health standards. Meanwhile, Carl Gray Park in Panama City has had its Aug. 12 advisory lifted. Enterococci bacteria live in the digestive systems of mammals and can indicate fecal contamination in the water. The Environmental Protection Agency says leaky septic systems, stormwater runoff, effluent from wastewater treatment plants, discharge from boats and agricultural runoff are all sources of fecal indicator bacteria. The News Herald previously reported that aging wastewater infrastructure in Bay County can sometimes lead to sanitary sewer overflows, especially during extreme weather events. Enterococci bacteria aren't harmful, but their presence means that there could be pathogens present that are. Eating raw fish or shellfish from affected waters can also cause illness. According to the Florida Healthy Beaches Program, swimming in affected waters could lead to gastrointestinal disease, infections or rashes. Bay County issues guidance for ways local residents can help preserve water quality. They suggest that septic tanks should be pumped and inspected to prevent leakage every three to five years. Authorities also advise fertilizer be used sparingly and lawn chemicals be used with discretion. Fertilizer flows downstream and can cause algae blooms. This article originally appeared on The News Herald: Fecal-indicator bacteria prompt advisories at five local beaches Solve the daily Crossword
