logo
DeSantis Signs Bill to Make Florida 2nd State to Ban Fluoride Drinking Water Systems

DeSantis Signs Bill to Make Florida 2nd State to Ban Fluoride Drinking Water Systems

Epoch Times15-05-2025

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Thursday signed a bill that made the Sunshine State the second to ban fluoride from its drinking water systems.
The Republican governor signed the measure at an event in Dade City after state lawmakers
At a Thursday event where he signed the bill, DeSantis
Fluoride is 'readily available now, so that led to this being put' in the bill to say that local governments 'cannot engage in this fluoride forced medication,' the governor added.
Some local governments in Florida have already voted to remove fluoride from their water ahead of the statewide ban. Earlier this month, Miami-Dade County commissioners voted to override a veto by Mayor Daniella Levine Cava and move forward with plans to remove fluoride from the county's drinking water.
Some Republican-led states have moved to impose bans following a push by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to stop fluoridating water, and earlier this year, Utah became the first state to
Related Stories
5/13/2025
5/7/2025
Fluoride is a mineral that has been added to drinking water since the 1940s to strengthen teeth and reduce cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Excess fluoride intake has been associated with streaking or spots on the teeth, and studies have also traced a link between excess fluoride and brain development.
Last year, a landmark ruling on the matter was issued by a federal judge in California who told the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review the risks of adding fluoride to drinking water.
The agency was mandated by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen to make sure that there is a margin between the hazard level and the exposure level, his order said.
'If there is an insufficient margin, then the chemical poses a risk,' the judge said in the September order. 'Simply put, the risk to health at exposure levels in United States drinking water is sufficiently high to trigger regulatory response by the EPA [under federal law].'
In 2024, the federal National Toxicology Program
When Utah's governor signed its fluoride bill into law, multiple medical associations said they opposed such a move.
'With the weight of the evidence and nearly universal support of community water fluoridation in all corners of the health care sector, we urge your veto of HB 81,' said the American Dental Association (ADA), group that has long backed water fluoridation, in a
The ADA added that Utah's measure, which went into effect earlier this month, would 'take away the most effective, efficient and equitable way for dental disease prevention.'
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Most Republicans Enrolled in Medicaid 'Worried' About Funding Cuts—Poll
Most Republicans Enrolled in Medicaid 'Worried' About Funding Cuts—Poll

Newsweek

time23 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Most Republicans Enrolled in Medicaid 'Worried' About Funding Cuts—Poll

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. While Republicans in Congress have been pushing for major Medicaid cuts in the new budget, many Medicaid enrollees are worried about what this means for their health coverage — including those who identify as Republican. A new poll from KFF revealed that 76 percent of Republicans enrolled in Medicaid are worried about potential funding cuts. The survey also shows that 17 percent of Republicans identify as Medicaid enrollees. This didn't come as a surprise to experts who spoke with Newsweek. "Many of the heavily Republican-controlled states are often the highest per capita recipients of government assistance," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. Why It Matters Republican lawmakers have advanced sweeping changes to Medicaid as part of their budget reconciliation package, known as the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act." The bill, which passed the House in late May 2025, proposes to cut over $700 billion in federal Medicaid spending, threatening coverage for millions of Americans. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that more than 10 million people could lose Medicaid coverage if the proposal becomes law. Beds and medical equipment are seen inside the US Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort while docked at the Port of Miami, Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida on June 3, 2025. Beds and medical equipment are seen inside the US Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort while docked at the Port of Miami, Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida on June 3, 2025. CHANDAN KHANNA/AFP via Getty Images What To Know Potential Medicaid reductions under the new legislation target several key areas, including the federal match for Medicaid expansion, spending caps, new work requirements, and more frequent eligibility checks. While the GOP viewpoint has historically been pro-Medicaid reductions, cuts at this level could significantly impact the nearly 80 million Americans who rely on the program for health insurance, including a significant number of Republicans. In the new KFF report, 76 percent of Republicans enrolled in Medicaid said they were worried about potential funding cuts. Additionally, more than a quarter of Medicaid enrollees are Republican, including one in five who identify with MAGA. "As a government program, Medicaid provides benefits to millions of Americans in 'red' and 'blue' states," Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek. "As such, it should come as no surprise a sizable number of Republicans either receive benefits from the program or know someone who does." The federal government currently pays 90 percent of Medicaid expansion costs, but proposed reductions would lower this rate, threatening financial stability for states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Changes could also introduce per-capita caps or block grants, limit the use of provider taxes to finance Medicaid, and roll back simplified enrollment rules implemented under President Biden. Together, these measures could force states to limit enrollment, reduce benefits, or impose new costs on enrollees. Republican leaders have tied these reductions to broader budget goals, including $4.5 trillion in tax cuts championed by former President Donald Trump. "Many of the heavily Republican-controlled states are often the highest per capita recipients of government assistance," Thompson told Newsweek. "That's not meant to be disingenuous—it simply shows where the power lies: with the wealthy who control the districts and seats in those regions. The truth is, people often vote for their party and don't believe these policies will ever impact them personally—until they do." House Republicans identified more than $880 billion in savings from Medicaid, with much of the debate focused on whether Medicaid should continue to support able-bodied adults without dependents, or remain narrowly focused on children, seniors, and people with disabilities. The bill would also restrict Medicaid funding for certain health care providers, such as Planned Parenthood, and prohibit federal matching funds for gender-affirming care for minors. Nationally, 54 percent of U.S. adults are worried that reductions in federal Medicaid spending would negatively impact their own or their family's ability to get and pay for health care, the KFF report found. "It's a wake-up call for anyone who thinks Medicaid is just a Democratic issue," Michael Ryan, a finance expert and the founder of told Newsweek. "Medicaid isn't red or blue. It's the safety net stretched under millions of American families, including a significant slice of the GOP base." What People Are Saying Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "Over the last three election cycles, the Republican base has expanded far past the days of simply promoting tax cuts and has a large number of supporters who rely on programs like Medicaid for essential services. And while cuts to the program could occur, we've already seen blowback to any proposed reductions. That's more than likely because some Republican members of Congress know cuts could dramatically affect their reelection chances." Michael Ryan, a finance expert and the founder of told Newsweek: "There's a real disconnect between the political talking points and reality. Many Republican voters may not realize just how much their communities (especially rural ones) depend on Medicaid to keep hospitals open and doctors in town. The myth that Medicaid is for 'someone else' is crumbling fast." Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "There will be a significant number of people kicked off the Medicaid program—either because they didn't submit their work requirements on time, were removed due to the rollback of Medicaid expansion, or simply no longer qualify." What Happens Next Ryan said if the cuts are enacted, rural hospitals will close, and working-class families will lose their health coverage. "The fallout will land squarely in the heart of Republican country," Ryan said. "You can't gut the safety net and expect your own voters to walk away unscathed." "Medicaid cuts are political dynamite. History shows voters punish politicians who take away health coverage. Just ask Missouri and Tennessee. If Republicans push too hard, they risk alienating their own base."

'Problematic' MAHA report minimizes success of lifesaving asthma medicines, doctors say
'Problematic' MAHA report minimizes success of lifesaving asthma medicines, doctors say

Yahoo

time43 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

'Problematic' MAHA report minimizes success of lifesaving asthma medicines, doctors say

Jun. 6—Medical experts are dismayed over a federal report's claim that kids are overprescribed asthma medications, saying it minimizes how many lives the drugs save. Safe treatment protocols for asthma management have been carefully studied over the years, said Dr. Perry Sheffield, a pediatrician and professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. "The federal government actually has some really beautiful and clear guidelines and strategies, and things that are vetted by and carefully edited by many experts in the field," said Sheffield, who co-directs a region of the federally funded Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units that serves New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Asthma affects more than 4.6 million American children, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It's one of the most common long-term diseases in U.S. children. The Make America Healthy Again Commission report released in late May, parts of which have been widely criticized, alleges that American children are on too much medication of various kinds, including asthma treatments. Experts worry that the administration will set policy based on the assessment that would dissuade insurers from covering asthma prescriptions. They also say that the report's assertions could worsen disparities that affect children's access to those medications and undermine years of research around the drugs. The MAHA commission has until August to release a strategy based on the findings in the report. Black and Indigenous children as well as those living in inner cities or in lower-income households are among those with the highest rates of asthma. Pollution disproportionately shrouds communities of color and can be a trigger that exacerbates the disease. The report's message could heighten those disparities, said Dr. Elizabeth Matsui, a University of Texas at Austin professor and a past chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics' Section on Allergy and Immunology. "One thing that has been very clear is that kids of color are less likely to be appropriately managed in terms of their asthma medication management," she said. "So a message of overprescription that is simply not supported by the evidence also could potentially exacerbate already-existing racial and ethnic disparities in asthma that we have really not made much headway on." The commission's claims The report touches on childhood prediabetes, obesity and mental health. However, firearm injuries — the leading cause of death for children and teens in 2020 and 2021, according to the CDC — weren't mentioned. The 70-page report from the commission, chaired by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., claims four main issues are the drivers behind childhood chronic disease: poor diet, aggregation of environmental chemicals, lack of physical activity and chronic stress, and "overmedicalization." Matsui and other experts said the report's use of that word is "problematic." "The implication could be, unfortunately, that when a child has asthma — so, they have coughing, chest tightness, wheezing — that that is not really a disease," said Matsui. "We know for a fact that that's a disease, and we know that it is quite treatable, quite controllable, and that it has profound impacts on the child's day-to-day life." Other scientists have similarly criticized the report, saying it makes sweeping and misleading generalizations about children's health without sufficient evidence. The White House corrected the report after nonprofit news outlet NOTUS found that it cited studies that didn't exist. In an emailed statement to Stateline, Health and Human Services press secretary Emily Hilliard wrote: "The MAHA report discusses concerns about the potential overprescription of asthma medications—particularly in mild cases—not to question their importance, but to encourage evidence-based prescribing." When it comes to asthma, the report says, "Asthma controller prescriptions increased 30% from 1999-2008." That sentence originally cited a broken link to a study from 2011; the link was later replaced. Controller meds include inhalers. The MAHA report also claims that "There is evidence of overprescription of oral corticosteroids for mild cases of asthma." The original version of the report listed estimated percentages of oral corticosteroids overuse, citing a nonexistent study. The wording was changed and the citation was later replaced with a link to a 2017 study by pediatric pulmonologist Dr. Harold Farber. The study was not a randomized controlled trial, which increases reliability. Farber told NOTUS that the report made an "overgeneralization" of his research. Stateline also reached out to Farber, whose public relations team declined an interview request. The implication could be, unfortunately, that when a child has asthma ... that that is not really a disease. We know for a fact that that's a disease. — Dr. Elizabeth Matsui, University of Texas at Austin professor Oral corticosteroids are liquid or tablet medications used to reduce inflammation for conditions including allergies, asthma, arthritis and Crohn's disease. For asthma, they're used to treat severe flare-up episodes. The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America says the medications have been shown to reduce emergency room visits and hospitalizations, and that while they do come with risk of side effects, they're mostly used in acute flare-ups. And while rare, asthma-related deaths in kids do occur, and are often preventable. "Asthma medications, including oral steroids, are lifesaving," said Dr. Elizabeth Friedman, a pediatrician at Children's Mercy Kansas City. "I believe that physicians, not politicians, are best equipped and most effectively trained to make the determination of whether or not these medications are needed for our patients." Friedman worries that federal characterizations of asthma meds will affect how state Medicaid agencies cover the drugs. When Medicaid coverage changed for a common prescribed inhaler last year, many of her Missouri Medicaid patients were suddenly without the drug. They ended up hospitalized, she said. Friedman directs Region 7 of the Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units, a network of experts that works to address reproductive and children's environmental health issues. Region 7 provides outreach and education in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska. She also said she's concerned that the report is "making a broad, sweeping statement based on one epidemiologic study from one state." Increased use An increase in inhaler prescriptions is not necessarily a bad thing, experts say. It's a sign that kids are getting their medication. There has been an increase in inhaler prescriptions, along with a corresponding decrease in the oral corticosteroids, which is what experts would want to see, said Chelsea Langer, bureau chief of the New Mexico Department of Health's Environmental Health Epidemiology Bureau. She said that means kids are "following their asthma action plans and taking the controller medications to prevent needing the relief or treatment [oral] meds." Asthma prevalence has increased over the years, meaning more people need medication, noted Dr. Alan Baptist, division head of Allergy and Clinical Immunology at Henry Ford Health in Michigan. He said that because steroid tablets come with risk of side effects, it is best to limit them. But for kids without access to a regular pediatric provider or to health insurance that covers an inhaler, cost can be an obstacle, he said. Fluticasone propionate, an FDA-approved medicine for people 4 and older, costs on average $200 or more for one inhaler without insurance. "What often happens with kids, and especially kids who are in Medicaid, or who are in an underserved or disadvantaged population, they are not given appropriate asthma controller medication," said Baptist, who helped write federal guidelines for asthma treatment best practices as part of a National Institutes of Health committee. Baptist noted that while he was glad to see pollution mentioned in the report as a danger for kids, it's at odds with the recent cuts to environmental health grants that aimed to address such asthma triggers. "They're somewhat cherry-picking some of the data that they're putting down," he said. "It says the U.S. government is 'committed to fostering radical transparency and gold-standard science' to better understand the potential cumulative impacts of environmental exposure. If that's what they're saying, then they should be funding even greater studies that look at the effects." Dr. Priya Bansal, an Illinois pediatric allergist and immunologist and past president of the Illinois Society of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, said she's concerned the report doesn't define mild, moderate or severe asthma to differentiate the different best-practice treatment plans. Bansal also said she worries that federal officials' characterization of an FDA-approved drug will lead to insurance companies refusing to cover inhalers or oral steroids for her patients who rely on them. "I'm going to be worried about coverage for my asthmatics," she said. "The question is, what's the next move that they're going to make? If they think that, are they going to now say, 'Hey, we're not going to cover inhalers for mild asthmatics'?" Editor's note: This story has been updated with a response from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Stateline reporter Nada Hassanein can be reached at [email protected]. YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.

Georgia Dept. of Public Health confirms measles case in unvaccinated Atlanta resident
Georgia Dept. of Public Health confirms measles case in unvaccinated Atlanta resident

Yahoo

time43 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Georgia Dept. of Public Health confirms measles case in unvaccinated Atlanta resident

ATLANTA () — The Georgia Department of Public Health (DPH) has confirmed a secondary case of measles in an unvaccinated metro Atlanta resident. This individual is a family member of the person with measles who was confirmed in May. The DPH confirms it was acquired outside of the country. People who may have been exposed to either of these individuals have been given the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine or antibodies to help reduce the risk of developing measles and are being monitored for symptoms. Currently, no new cases of measles have been reported outside of this family. This is the fifth reported case of measles in Georgia in 2025. In 2024, there were six reported cases of measles in the state. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that children receive their first dose of MMR vaccine between 12 and 15 months of age and a second dose between 4 and 6 years of age. More than 95% of the people who receive a single dose of MMR will develop immunity to all three viruses. A second dose boosts immunity, typically enhancing protection to 98%. For more information about measles, log on to or Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store