Committee rejects proposal to repeal Arkansas' water fluoridation mandate
From left: Chiropractor Dr. Bill Smith; Sen. Clint Penzo, R-Springdale; Rep. Matt Duffield, R-Russellville; and dentist Dr. Chester Clark address the Senate Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee on Wednesday, February 12, 2025. Penzo and Duffield presented a bill that would have repealed the state's water fluoridation mandate, and Smith and Clark spoke in favor of the bill, but the committee rejected it. (Tess Vrbin/Arkansas Advocate)
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
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Medicaid spending in Mass. has nearly quadrupled in the past 20 years. It needs reform.
Advertisement Medicaid was The cost of this is staggering. The budget for the state's Medicaid program, called MassHealth, has to over Advertisement But this explosion in the cost of Medicaid begs the question: Has all this spending led to better health outcomes? Surprisingly, Despite these findings, even modest Medicaid reform in Republican proposals before Congress — like encouraging community engagement through volunteering or work, preventing duplicate payments to insurers, and closing state-level However, it should be noted that the current proposals in Washington — which the House passed last week and are now in the Republican-controlled Senate — will result in more Medicaid spending over 10 years, not less. The bill merely slows the rate of growth. Only in Washington, D.C., is more spending decried as a cut. The fundamental issue remains: Are we prioritizing the right goals? Advertisement The evidence on the power of connection is . Past state-level experiments with work engagement in programs like food stamps and welfare cash assistance offer a promising road map. A Medicaid reform could similarly refocus state efforts on connecting enrollees with community engagement rather than solely maximizing federal funding. Encouragingly, these past reforms also saw a halving of the time individuals needed to stay on public assistance. Shouldn't we celebrate if someone like J.D. could earn enough to transition to employer-based or ACA coverage? Sadly, too often, critics characterize any transition off Medicaid as Advertisement While Medicaid reform often faces bipartisan heartburn, paradoxically there's longtime bipartisan agreement that major entitlement programs are growing unsustainably. If we can't at least slow the rate of growth, in part by delivering better outcomes, then our fiscal house of cards may fall, which hurts the most vulnerable. Our leaders must shift the debate from simply protecting the flow of federal dollars to ensuring that every Medicaid dollar genuinely improves patient health. Current inertia seems more about preserving the status quo than addressing the health impact on individuals like J.D. Meanwhile, our communities suffer as we miss out on J.D.'s contributions to society. The federal proposals provide a crucial moment to discuss opening doors of opportunity rather than defending a system that requires poverty for coverage. It's time to move beyond simply paying insurance companies for a card in J.D.'s pocket and focus on reforms that foster human thriving.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Lack of doctors causing cancer delays
A senior radiologist has said there are not enough doctors to keep up with the number of cancer patients needing scan results, diagnosis and treatment. Dr Tom Roques, vice president of clinical oncology at the Royal College of Radiologists, who also works at Norwich and Norfolk University Hospital, claimed the NHS was struggling to meet the government's 62-day diagnosis targets in cancer care. However, Steffan Aquarone, North Norfolk MP, believed another significant challenge was ensuring patients in rural areas could access treatment. A spokesman for the Department of Health and Social Care said: "We are determined to tackle delays, diagnose cancer earlier and treat it faster." Dr Roques described a shortage of both radiologists and doctors. He said: "People are waiting for scan results or waiting for diagnoses and we're also really short of cancer doctors. "There are delays further down the line in actually having that treatment because there aren't enough people to provide it." However, he says the problem was not just a Norfolk issue. "We are just not able to meet the government-set targets which themselves, are not that ambitious really. "If you don't have the staff and nurses and the physical space to treat them [patients] then people are not going to be able to have the treatment they deserve." Matt Sample, from Cancer Research UK, said the 62-day government target had been missed annually since 2015, with 74,000 people not beginning treatment within that target last year. He said: "For people affected by cancer, every single day waiting to get that diagnosis and begin treatment is a worrying and stressful time even when they are seen within targets. "When those targets are missed, those worries and stresses are just compounded - it can impact their treatment options and ultimately their outcomes. Liberal Democrat Aquarone agreed, saying "more people die than are necessary". He remains concerned about the ability of people in rural areas to get cancer care. "This is entirely about access to treatment," he said. Julie Keeling, nurse director for planned care at Norwich and Norfolk University Hospital, said: "Our latest validated figures show that as of March 2025, 51.8 % of patients receiving first treatment for cancer are treated by day 62, with 48.2 % of patients waiting over 62 days for first cancer treatment. It is encouraging that this is an improvement on previous data. "We know that we have more to do and are sorry that some patients have had to wait longer than expected to see us following a cancer referral." The Department of Health and Social Care said: "We are delivering 40,000 more appointments every week, investing £1.5bn in both new surgical hubs and AI scanners, rolling out cutting-edge radiotherapy machines to every region in the country and backing our radiologists and oncologists with above inflation pay rises for the second year in a row." Follow Norfolk news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X. Cancer patient's treatment was delayed - coroner Hospital praised for breast cancer surgery wait time Hospital has second-longest waiting time for care NHS struggling to provide safe cancer care, say doctors Department of Health and Social Care Norwich and Norfolk University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Cancer Research UK
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Townhall of concerned Arkansans voice fears over Medicaid, SNAP cuts in Trump's proposed bill
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -In a packed town hall at the Hillary Rodham Clinton Children's Library and Learning Center, central Arkansans gathered to voice their concerns about the effects of proposed cuts to Medicaid and SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). The discussion centered on President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill,' currently under consideration in the U.S. Senate and its potential to impact those across the country with disabilities, the elderly and low-income families. Faith leaders protest 'big, beautiful bill' One of the most impassioned voices at the town hall was that of William Gerard, a SNAP beneficiary with cerebral palsy who also depends on Medicaid to survive. Unable to work due to his condition, Gerard shared his testimony about how these programs are 'literally life-saving' for him. 'If I didn't have Medicaid, I don't know how I would survive,' said Gerard, who is on a regimen of 10 to 12 medications, some of which cost thousands of dollars. 'Some of my seizure medications, for example, can be in the thousands. With Medicaid paying for it, I might have to pay $2, and that really helps me.' Gerard's story is a poignant reminder of how Medicaid and SNAP provide vital support for millions of Americans. Under the budget reconciliation bill that passed the House of Representatives, $600 billion in cuts to Medicaid could result in nearly 11 million Americans losing coverage over the next decade according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis released Wednesday. For Gerard and approximately 190,000 other Arkansans, these cuts would have catastrophic consequences. Beyond the cuts to Medicaid, the proposed bill also includes steep reductions to SNAP benefits, totaling an estimated $230 billion over the next ten years. Gerard, who receives just $60 in food stamps each month, expressed the challenges this would create. 'I only get $60 in food stamps. So, what's $60 going to buy me?' he asked. 'We need to get Arkansans more food stamps that deserve it, instead of taking it away from us and making us decide what can I eat?' This concern was echoed by others at the meeting, who worried that the cuts to both Medicaid and SNAP would place an even greater burden on already struggling families, according to the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. The bill proposes several requirements, including the potential for states to take on more financial responsibility for these programs. The town hall participants discussed the wider implications of these cuts, particularly the snowball effect they would have on the lives of Arkansans. The potential loss of Medicaid coverage alone could leave thousands of individuals without access to necessary healthcare, while the SNAP cuts could push more people into food insecurity, according to the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. According to the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, more than 97,000 people in Arkansas Congressional District 2 could be impacted by the proposed $109 million cut to SNAP. These cuts could devastate families, particularly those with children, since nearly 45% of SNAP enrollees in Arkansas are parents who rely on the program to feed their families, according to . Another significant concern voiced at the town hall was the proposed work requirements that would accompany these cuts. Gerard, who receives both Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), expressed his fears for those who, like him, are unable to work due to their disabilities. 'What about the elderly, the disabled, the people who can't work? How are they supposed to make a living?' Gerard asked. 'I went to a school for handicapped children, and I've seen kids who could barely feed themselves, let alone work.' Big, beautiful bill heads to the Senate For many at the town hall, these proposed cuts aren't just about numbers in Washington—they represent the erosion of a safety net for vulnerable citizens who have no other means of support. The bill, if passed, could force these individuals into even more precarious situations, with few options for survival. 'I'm not fighting for just me,' Gerard said. 'I'm fighting for all Arkansans who are struggling to make ends meet, for all of us who depend on Medicaid and food stamps to survive.' The town hall concluded with a clear message: for concerned Arkansans to contact their congressional representatives and 'make their voices heard.' 'Stop and think about what you're doing to Arkansans—those on disability, the elderly, the most vulnerable,' Gerard said. 'If these cuts go through, it's not just about money, it's about survival.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
