logo
As Utah's fluoride ban begins, health officials urge Utahns to protect their teeth

As Utah's fluoride ban begins, health officials urge Utahns to protect their teeth

Yahoo05-05-2025
As Utah's law banning fluoridation in water takes effect, health officials are focused on educating the public and reminding them that fluoride is now readily available at most pharmacies. (Photo by)
Utah is set to become the first state in the nation to ban fluoride in drinking water, with a new law taking effect later this week, on Wednesday.
That day, the fluoride taps will turn off, if they haven't already. While Davis and Salt Lake counties, and Brigham City, are the only governments that still add fluoride to drinking water, roughly half of the state's population lives there.
Sponsored by Rep. Stephanie Gricius, R-Eagle Mountain, HB81 prevents counties and municipalities from adding fluoride to drinking water, while adding it to the list of drugs pharmacists can prescribe.
The reasoning, Gricius said, is that the decision should be left to the individual.
'I would just say it doesn't get more local control than my own body,' she said during the legislative session earlier this year.
RFK Jr. 'proud' of Utah's ban on fluoride in drinking water, hopes other states will follow
Gricius' bill was one of several that aligned with the 'Make America Healthy Again,' or MAHA, agenda promoted by U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who praised the law earlier this year.
Now, for health officials like Stacey Bank, executive medical director for the Utah Department of Health and Human Services, the focus is on educating the public and reminding them that fluoride is now readily available at most pharmacies.
'I'm grateful for the opportunity to have this conversation. We haven't talked about oral health and fluoride this much in my career as long as I can remember. This is an opportunity to get the message out to the entire state,' she said on Friday. 'I know it's not always easy to get into a doctor or dentist, there are barriers there. Going to your local pharmacist, talking to the person behind the counter, is enough to take care of your teeth.'
There are currently 25 water systems serving about 1.6 million people spread out across Davis and Salt Lake counties, and Brigham City, that add fluoride to the water. Brigham City has been adding fluoride to the water since the 1960s; Davis County started in 1999; and Salt Lake County in 2003.
Some treatment plants have already stopped adding fluoride to the water, including a handful in Davis County, and Salt Lake County's City Creek Water Treatment Plant.
'If I was looking into a crystal ball, we're going to see a decline in oral health if our community doesn't take action, and now go to their dentist and talk about what's best for them and receive their supplements. If that happens, I don't think we'll see much of a change,' said Brian Hatch, director of the Davis County Health Department.
In Salt Lake County, where the water has been fluoridated for almost two decades, health officials say they're losing an effective public health tool.
'From a public health standpoint, we know that community water fluoridation is the best way to benefit individuals and the overall community's oral health,' added Ron Lund, environmental health director for the Salt Lake County Health Department. 'It's the most efficient and effective way to do that for people who cannot afford or may not be able to go to routine dental visits.'
But while health officials say it's possible they'll see an uptick in cavities in regions currently fluoridating their water, others see the bill as an opportunity. Most of rural Utah has already stopped adding the mineral to the public water supply.
Fluoride is a hot topic now, and with the May 7 deadline approaching, it gives public health experts a chance to educate communities, they say.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
'It's an opportunity for our more rural communities. Other than Brigham City, none of our rural communities have been adding fluoride to the water. So this is bringing more attention to how important fluoride is and giving them access to get it, that they may not have known they needed,' said State Dental Director Stacey Swilling.
But concern remains. Shifting the responsibility to individuals means Utahns will have to be more proactive about getting fluoride, which could be a burden, especially to low-income families that may already struggle with access to transportation or public health information.
Swilling, who used to practice dentistry in another state, said it was clear which patients have access to fluoridated water.
'Anectdoally, where I used to practice, I can tell you I saw a huge difference … There's plenty of research out there that does show the disparities,' she said, pointing to studies conducted in Juneau, Alaska, and Calgary, Alberta, where the removal of fluoride from drinking water resulted in a spike in cavities.
Most officials agree — Utah is headed into uncharted waters. While there are case studies in other cities, counties, states and countries, Utah is the first U.S. state to pass a sweeping ban, while also trying to make fluoride more accessible over the counter.
'We don't know how this is going to turn out,' Bank said. 'We know about barriers to care, that's our job, to look for and eliminate those. At this point, we're trying to educate the public. It is going to take a more proactive effort, and we are going to have to look at those barriers and let this unfold to see how those barriers are affecting people.'
Fluoride is a mineral that has been shown to strengthen teeth by replacing minerals that are lost from acid breakdown, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Since the 1940s, communities around the country have been fluoridating their water.
A recent report from the National Toxicology Program found that high levels of fluoride in drinking water can be associated with a lower I.Q. in children, but according to the report, those levels are twice as high as the current recommended amount of fluoride.
'The thing we need to know about those studies is that they were done looking at fluoride levels that were far outside what we are recommending for oral health,' Bank said. 'We know what we're trying to do today is a safe and effective dose of fluoride.'
Still, that drop in I.Q. is often cited as a reason to stop adding fluoride to water, part of a nationwide movement against the mineral. Perhaps the most prominent critic of fluoride is Kennedy Jr., who applauded Gricius' bill during a stop in Utah in April.
'It makes no sense to have fluoride in our water. The evidence against fluoride is overwhelming … we know that it causes I.Q. loss,' Kennedy, a longtime critic of certain public health policies and medical practices, said during his visit 'I'm very, very proud of this state for being the first state to ban (fluoride). I hope many more will come.'
Gricius' bill passed mostly along party lines, with a handful of Republicans joining Democrats in opposition. Despite the pushback from dentists and other health professionals, it was signed by Utah Gov. Spencer Cox on March 27.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

NIH cancels mRNA vaccine contracts, citing lack of public trust
NIH cancels mRNA vaccine contracts, citing lack of public trust

The Hill

time6 hours ago

  • The Hill

NIH cancels mRNA vaccine contracts, citing lack of public trust

National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya claims the federal government recently cancelled millions of dollars' worth of mRNA research contracts because the general public does not trust the technology. Bhattacharya explained the reason behind the abrupt contract cancellations, first, during an episode of Republican political strategist Steve Bannon's podcast 'War Room' last week and again in an opinion piece recently published in The Washington Post. In the article, Bhattacharya called the mRNA platform a 'promising technology' and acknowledged that it may lead to breakthroughs in treatment for diseases like cancer. 'But as a vaccine intended for broad public use, especially during a public health emergency, the platform has failed a crucial test: earning public trust,' he wrote. 'No matter how elegant the science, a platform that lacks credibility among the people it seeks to protect cannot fulfill its public health mission.' Bhattacharya's explanation for the administration's pivot away from mRNA technology differs from that of his boss, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Kennedy announced last week the agency would wind down its mRNA vaccine development activities under the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) and cancel $500 million worth of contracts related to the technology. He said that mRNA technologies funded during the pandemic failed to meet current scientific standards and that the federal government would shift its focus to whole-virus vaccines and novel platforms. Bhattacharya expressed concern in the article about mRNA vaccines' ability to direct human cells to produce spike proteins to trigger an immune response. He argues the scientific community does not have a clear understanding of where mRNA product stays in the body, for how long, and whether other proteins are created in the process. Scott Hensley, a microbiology professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine, told STAT that these are also issues with vaccines that use live but weakened viruses like the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, which federal health agencies have deemed safe and effective. 'This is why we complete human clinical studies before vaccines are widely used in humans,' he told the outlet. 'The mRNA and live attenuated vaccine platforms have both proven to be safe and effective in clinical trials.' He blamed public distrust in mRNA on the Biden administration's COVID-19 vaccine mandates during the pandemic. Bhattacharya expressed concern in the article about mRNA vaccines' ability to direct human cells to produce spike proteins to trigger an immune response. He argues the scientific community does not have a clear understanding of where the mRNA product stays in the body, for how long, and whether other proteins are created in the process. 'Science isn't propaganda,' he wrote. 'It's humility. And when public health officials stopped communicating with humility, we lost much of the public, an absolute necessity for any vaccine platform.'

California providers see ‘chilling effect' if Trump ban on immigrant benefits is upheld
California providers see ‘chilling effect' if Trump ban on immigrant benefits is upheld

Los Angeles Times

time10 hours ago

  • Los Angeles Times

California providers see ‘chilling effect' if Trump ban on immigrant benefits is upheld

If the Trump administration succeeds in barring undocumented immigrants from federally funded 'public benefit' programs, vulnerable children and families across California would suffer greatly, losing access to emergency shelters, vital healthcare, early education and life-saving nutritional support, according to state and local officials who filed their opposition to the changes in federal court. The new restrictions would harm undocumented immigrants but also U.S. citizens — including the U.S.-born children of immigrants and people suffering from mental illness and homelessness who lack documentation — and put intense stress on the state's emergency healthcare system, the officials said. Head Start, which provides tens of thousands of children in the state with early education, healthcare and nutritional support, may have to shutter some of its programs if the new rules barring immigrants withstand a lawsuit filed by California and other liberal-led states, officials said. In a declaration filed as part of that litigation, Maria Guadalupe Jaime-Milehan, deputy director of the child care and developmental division of the California Department of Social Services, wrote that the restrictions would have an immediate 'chilling effect' on immigrant and mixed-status families seeking support, but also cause broader 'ripple effects' — especially in rural California communities that rely on such programs as 'a critical safety net' for vulnerable residents, but also as major employers. 'Children would lose educational, nutritional, and healthcare services. Parents or guardians may be forced to cut spending on other critical needs to fill the gaps, and some may even be forced out of work so they can care for their children,' Jaime-Milehan said. Rural communities would see programs shutter, and family providers lose their jobs, she wrote. Tony Thurmond, California's superintendent of public instruction, warned in a declaration that the 'chilling effect' from such rules could potentially drive away talented educators who disagree with such policies and decide to 'seek other employment that does not discriminate against children and families.' Thurmond and Jaime-Milehan were among dozens of officials in 20 states and the District of Columbia who submitted declarations in support of those states' lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's new rules. Six other officials from California also submitted declarations. The lawsuit followed announcements last month from various federal agencies — including Health and Human Services, Labor, Education and Agriculture — that funding recipients would be required to begin screening out undocumented immigrants. The announcements followed an executive order issued by President Trump in which he said his administration would 'uphold the rule of law, defend against the waste of hard-earned taxpayer resources, and protect benefits for American citizens in need, including individuals with disabilities and veterans.' Trump's order cited the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, commonly known as welfare reform, as barring noncitizens from participating in federally funded benefits programs, and criticized past administrations for providing exemptions to that law for certain 'life or safety' programs — including those now being targeted for new restrictions. The order mandated that federal agencies restrict access to benefits programs for undocumented immigrants, in part to 'prevent taxpayer resources from acting as a magnet and fueling illegal immigration to the United States.' California and the other states sued July 21, alleging the new restrictions target working mothers and their children in violation of federal law. 'We're not talking about waste, fraud, and abuse, we're talking about programs that deliver essential childcare, healthcare, nutrition, and education assistance, programs that have for decades been open to all,' California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said. In addition to programs like Head Start, Bonta said the new restrictions threatened access to short-term shelters for homeless people, survivors of domestic violence and at-risk youth; emergency shelters for people during extreme weather; soup kitchens, community food banks and food support services for the elderly; and healthcare for people with mental illness and substance abuse issues. The declarations are part of a motion asking the federal judge overseeing the case to issue a preliminary injunction barring the changes from taking effect while the litigation plays out. Beth Neary, assistant director of HIV health services at the San Francisco Department of Public Health, wrote in her declaration that the new restrictions would impede healthcare services for an array of San Francisco residents experiencing homelessness — including undocumented immigrants and U.S. citizens. 'Individuals experiencing homelessness periodically lack identity and other documents that would be needed to verify their citizenship or immigration status due to frequent moves and greater risk of theft of their belongings,' she wrote. Colleen Chawla, chief of San Mateo County Health, wrote that her organization — the county's 'safety-net' care provider — has worked for years to build up trust in immigrant communities. 'But if our clients worry that they will not be able to qualify for the care they need, or that they or members of their family face a risk of detention or deportation if they seek care, they will stop coming,' Chawla wrote. 'This will exacerbate their health conditions.' Greta S. Hansen, chief operating officer of Santa Clara County, wrote that more than 40% of her county's residents are foreign-born and more than 60% of the county's children have at least one foreign-born parent — among the highest rates anywhere in the country. The administration's changes would threaten all of them, but also everyone else in the county, she wrote. 'The cumulative effect of patients not receiving preventive care and necessary medications would likely be a strain on Santa Clara's emergency services, which would result in increased costs to Santa Clara and could also lead to decreased capacity for emergency care across the community,' Hansen wrote. The Trump administration has defended the new rules, including in court. In response to the states' motion for preliminary injunction, attorneys for the administration argued that the rule changes are squarely in line with the 1996 welfare reform law and the rights of federal agencies to enforce it. They wrote that the notices announcing the new rules that were sent out by federal agencies 'merely recognize that the breadth of benefits available to unqualified aliens is narrower than the agencies previously interpreted,' and 'restore compliance with federal law and ensure that taxpayer-funded programs intended for the American people are not diverted to subsidize unqualified aliens.' The judge presiding over the case has yet to rule on the preliminary injunction.

Defend Public Health Releases Alternative To RFK Jr.'s 'MAHA' Agenda
Defend Public Health Releases Alternative To RFK Jr.'s 'MAHA' Agenda

Forbes

time13 hours ago

  • Forbes

Defend Public Health Releases Alternative To RFK Jr.'s 'MAHA' Agenda

WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 22: U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. talks about a new Make America Healthy Again Commission report in the East Room of the White House on May 22, 2025 in Washington, DC. The commission, which is tasked with studying the potential causes for the "childhood chronic disease crisis," recommends reassessing the nation's childhood vaccine schedule, scrutinizing ultra-processed foods and studying pesticides used in commercial farming. The Trump administration has proposed a FY2026 budget of $94 billion for the Department of Health and Human Services — a reduction of about 26-percent from the 2025 level — cutting programs and staff at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (Photo by) Getty Images Robert F. Kennedy, Jr's Make America Healthy Again report was due to be released on August 12, by executive order. The release has been delayed due to scheduling difficulties. Kennedy plans to reveal is strategy for addressing the root causes of the health problems he sees facing America — poor nutrition and ultra-processed food, inactivity, pesticide and chemical use, and children receiving too many medicines and vaccines. Kennedy outlined these in the spring 'MAHA Report.' Per Politico, the Trump administration is already receiving pushback from competing factions—those concerned about pesticide use, for example, and agricultural groups not wanting them limited. Similarly, the food industry is prepared for limits on food dyes, but is concerned about added targets. Defend Public Health, a grassroots volunteer group of thousands of healthcare providers, scientists, advocates and allies, has just issued its own report, Improving the Health of Americans Together: An evidence-based framework for addressing the root causes of illness in the U.S. The IHAT report, prepared by members of DPH's Coordinating Committee, covers an array of science-based strategies designed to counter many of the distortions from Kennedy Jr. They cover a wide range of topics including nutrition and physical activity, from a broader, public health and science perspective. For example, 'food' includes nutrition, food safety, and cuts to inspections under this administration, and access to healthy foods when there are so many food deserts. Kennedy rails against ultra-processed grains, sugars, and fats, which he says account for over two-thirds of calories in a child's diet. He says this 'may play a significant role in childhood obesity, type 2 diabetes, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.' After pressure from Kennedy, who said that 'sugar is poison,' Coca-Cola is changing to sweetening its cola with cane sugar rather than high-fructose corn syrup, a move that nutritionists say won't provide significant benefit. Kennedy similarly has gone after dyes in Froot Loops and other foods. Elizabeth Jacobs, a retired epidemiologist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Arizona, put this brouhaha over Kennedy's choices in perspective saying, "Why are we talking about dyes in Froot Loops or cane sugar in Coca Cola while the Trump Administration is cutting SNAP benefits, and 13 million children don't know where their next meal is coming from?" Thomas Galligan, principal scientist for food additives and supplements at the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest told ''We're hearing all this rhetoric from RFK Jr. about how he wants to fix the food system, but then he's making massive cuts within HHS and FDA that will directly impede his ability to fix the food system.' Strengthening pandemic preparedness is essential for our future. Yet Kennedy has falsely said that mRNA vaccines 'fail to protect effectively' against COVID-19 and are unsafe. He promoted a 'let 'er rip' approach to bird flu in poultry and cancelled a $760 million contract with Moderna for a human bird flu vaccine. We have no vaccine and are left totally unprotected should bird flu infect more people. The MAHA report expresses concern over the number of vaccines children receive. As the IHAT report notes, children were not previously 'healthy.' In fact, 'statistics on childhood mortality show that, despite real problems, our children are vastly more likely to live to adulthood today than they were 75 years or more ago.' The IHAT report describes the MAHA report section on vaccines as 'particularly duplicitous and egregious.' Some of Kennedy's actions against vaccines will greatly harm millions of people, especially children. He has removed the COVID-19 vaccination from the CDC's recommended immunization list for healthy children, despite it causing MIS and long Covid in many. Similarly, pregnant women are not able to get a COVID-19 vaccine, although they are at high risk of death or miscarriage from infection. Kennedy has removed the seventeen experts on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, replacing them with an anti-vaccine cadre of seven mostly unqualified individuals. Similarly, he has planned to fire all sixteen members of the United States Preventive Services Task Force. As Jacobs and Miranda Xaver, an assistant professor of Health Policy and Management at the University of Pittsburgh, note in a new Op-Ed in The Hill, 'Under the Affordable Care Act, the recommendations of both of these committees are required to be covered by private health insurance, as well as, in some cases, Medicaid and Medicare.' For now, the ACA must cover recommended vaccines and cancer screenings. By gutting these two committees, Kennedy will be able to severely weaken the ACA, something the Republicans have thus far not been able to do legislatively. Last month, Kennedy said he was going to overhaul the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Some have concerns that weakening the protections will drive manufacturers out of the vaccine business. This week, the prestigious Annals of Internal Medicine medical journal published a large Danish study that looked at 1.2 million Danish children over two decades and found no increased risk from vaccines containing aluminum and no increase in autoimmune, atopic or allergic, or neurodevelopmental disorders. Kennedy challenged these findings on Trial Site News, which is rated as 'a strong Pseudoscience source' by Media Bias/Fact Check based on 'promoting misleading and false claims regarding Covid-19 vaccines.' He 'described the research as 'a deceitful propaganda stunt by the pharmaceutical industry,'' and demanded the journal retract the study, which they have refused to do. This type of demand — essentially censorship of an independent medical journal—was previously unheard of. But Kennedy has also proposed banning federal scientists from publishing in journals he doesn't like, although they are leading journals (e.g., Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA). In terms of Kennedy and vaccines, there is so much to write—from his fueling the measles epidemic by his anti-vax statements, to this week's shooting at the CDC. The assailant, Patrick White, 'reportedly motivated by anti-vaccine beliefs, fired more than 180 rounds at the Atlanta headquarters campus.' White reportedly blamed the Covid vaccine for his health problems. Kennedy had described the vaccine as the deadliest vaccine ever made. While exercise is important in both reports, DPH stresses that the social determinants of health—the economic and social factors, often related to poverty and discrimination--make exercise nearly impossible for millions. Other topics in the IHAT report range from improving access to vaccines and health care, including medical, dental, and sexual and reproductive health care, to clean air. Pollution is a major contributor to asthma, chronic lung diseases, and cancer. Combatting scientific misinformation from the government and social media is a growing concern. As the government is scrubbing websites, formerly reliable sources of information have disappeared. Guns are the leading cause of death for children and teens, yet Kennedy didn't even mention gun violence in last spring's MAHA report. Reducing gun violence in the country is critical in improving our physical and mental health. Other countries have achieved this; our politicians lack the will to do so. Defend Public Health's IHAT report is thoroughly researched and extensively referenced, a model for what a health planning report should look like. They don't hold back, stating, 'The HHS Secretary must be a person who respects expertise and has the humility to listen to scientists and healthcare professionals who provide critical analysis of health strategies for Americans. All of the 17 dismissed members of ACIP should be reinstated, and the unqualified members of the committee appointed by Kennedy should be permanently removed. Further, all members of USPSTF should be returned to their roles.' Defend Public Health concludes, 'Secretary Kennedy is a threat to the health of every person in the United States. He must resign or be removed from office in order to improve the health of Americans together.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store