Little Rock, Arkansas – This Wednesday, Arkansas state legislators proposed laws aiming at eradicating the required fluoridation of drinking water, with the aim of changing the landscape of public health in Arkansas. Should the proposed laws be approved, local decision-making would take over from state recommendations over fluoride levels.
A long-standing argument on the mineral’s advantages over its risks drives the movement to change fluoride policies. First included in public water systems in the United States in the 1940s, fluoride was first used to prevent tooth decay—a practice supported by many health organizations, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Fluoride’s dental advantages stem from its ability to fortify tooth enamel, hence reducing decay susceptibility.
But the proposed laws, Senate Bill 2 and Senate Bill 4, presented by State Sen. Clint Penzo of Springdale and State Rep. Matt Duffield of Russellville, seek to destroy the statewide fluoridation program instituted by a 2011 act requiring water systems serving over 5,000 people to maintain specific fluoride levels set by the State Board of Health.
While Senate Bill 4 suggests that local governments should have the freedom to determine whether or not to keep fluoridating their water supply, Senate Bill 2 explicitly wants to eliminate the statewide program. This later legislation permits a vote on the topic to be triggered by a majority decision from local governing bodies or a petition signed by at least 10% of the local voters.
Several other legislators, like State Sen. Bryan King of Green Forrest and Rep. Aaron Pilkington of Knoxville, who also object to the universal application of fluoride in water systems, support the ideas. Rep. Duffield expressed concerns in a recent interview based on research showing possible negative effects of fluoride on brain development in fetuses and young children, despite criticism directed on their methodology and causality conclusions.
Read also: Arkansas Scholarship Lottery issues warning to players about ongoing scam activity
Opponents of fluoridation, including some politicians and a portion of the public, contend that modern oral hygiene practices may make the advantages of water fluoridation obsolete and that the practice may cause unnecessary health concerns. Having abstained from using fluoridated water and toothpaste for more than ten years, Duffield highlighted statistics showing that dental health has improved in non-fluorinated nations.
Read also: Multi-convicted felon from Newport receives 188-month federal prison sentence for firearm possession
On the other hand, many public health groups and medical experts still advocate water fluoridation as a cost-effective public health strategy. A 2015 handout from the Arkansas Department of Health states that the advised fluoride amount in water maximizes dental benefits and reduces risks. The paper also emphasizes fluoridation’s economy since the lifetime cost per individual is less than the cost of one dental filling.
The Arkansas Department of Health is carefully considering the possible effects on public health as the debate progresses and studying the suggested laws. Reflecting a nationwide debate on how best to safeguard and advance health in the community, this legislative initiative starts a more general conversation on the balance between public health policies and personal choice in medical interventions.
