[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6224121,"mediaKeyId","3554456-7e1821a38fe4d4387fcb886f1304718f","parentId",3554456,"title","Proposal to prohibit mandatory water fluoridation draws heavy opposition; committee involuntarily defers bill","audioSeconds",5593,"startMs",4923000,"endMs",10516000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3554456-7e1821a38fe4d4387fcb886f1304718f&start=4923&end=10516","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3554456-7e1821a38fe4d4387fcb886f1304718f/thumbnail_4923000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6224121/Louisiana/Proposal-to-prohibit-mandatory-water-fluoridation-draws-heavy-opposition-committee-involuntarily-defers-bill","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6224121-3f668eac6ab981182b6a99b39779025d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771030942&Signature=icEAWXaFA3tNOtEc5uAd48jKS2llUdfd0hMQWd8jrjP8HGDkPIRkkUrAwoeb4hlN2FYfiRu5fOVjiygSL9EDmaF0aXH52dVlE4GHpO5zZ5t5SZ-9PlE-VGwrnBpKjvdoDoRa~GCyI7rjLuN8VC~Dq-83Z1Y1KWIe9TsAFwggLzV-JVxp4~s8y35LGztObvga9ZHgubuIB3dDJhnS5yMhcV5hSbq6tW7ECcmuZTik0qgcshjChBnsVRGvcx4KvOIrxdjaj1C0PgphrPkbTETQ231kUVgG4eAv7vG2xLxO~zje0ill8J~s2J3QmxOXzm8lySHlbCRDug~R~c8SARc92Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Louisiana Legislature","date","2025-05-28T00:00:00Z","article","Senate Bill 2 — a proposal to repeal mandatory water fluoridation under the Louisiana Department of Health and to prohibit fluoridation unless approved in a local election — drew sustained public comment on May 28 and was involuntarily deferred by the House Health and Welfare Committee.

Senator Faizi introduced SB 2 as a bill to prohibit fluoridation of public water systems unless local voters approve adding it. Proponents described fluoride as a medication that should not be added to a public water supply without explicit consent and raised concerns about possible developmental effects and thyroid disruption. Senator Faizi said fluoride “is known to displace iodine in the body” and presented informed-consent arguments.

The committee heard extensive opposition from dental, pediatric and public-health groups, community health centers and clinicians. Douglas Cross, dental director for ExChange/ExHealth and chair of a clinical branch of the Louisiana Primary Care Association, said fluoridation is a proven cavity-prevention measure that protects low-income patients who cannot access regular dental care. Celeste Terry, a dental hygienist, noted that roughly 1.5 million Louisiana residents (about 38% of the state) receive the benefit of optimally adjusted fluoridated water and emphasized that many of the communities that benefit most are dental health professional shortage areas.

Doctors and public-health experts described clinical and population impacts. Pediatricians and pediatric specialists warned that tooth decay is the most common chronic disease in children and can lead to pain, missed school and serious infections. Dr. Jennifer Cameron recounted that she grew up in an area with naturally higher fluoride and maintained strong dental health; dentist and oral surgeon witnesses testified to long-standing clinical support for fluoridation. The Louisiana chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Louisiana Dental Association urged rejection of the bill.

Supporters of the bill pointed to studies and a recent federal court decision cited in testimony that questioned neurodevelopmental risk at some exposure levels; opponents countered those studies were not directly applicable to the fluoride concentrations used in U.S. water systems and said overall reviews by public-health bodies support fluoridation at recommended levels.

Representative Egan offered an amendment in concept to allow parish governing authorities or city councils to be the approving body to reintroduce fluoridation locally; that concept amendment failed on a roll call. The committee then took a roll on a motion to report SB 2 favorably; the tally showed more negative votes than affirmative and the bill was not reported favorably. Representative Stagney moved to involuntarily defer the bill; no objection was recorded and the bill was involuntarily deferred.

The discussion repeatedly raised equity and practicality issues: opponents warned that removing fluoridation would disproportionately affect low-income families and rural residents who lack access to dental care or filtration, and they pointed to studies and local examples (Calgary, Windsor) where cessation of fluoridation preceded higher rates of dental disease. Supporters said citizens should have the choice not to ingest fluoride and asked for local control.

Outcome: SB 2 was involuntarily deferred by the committee pending further consideration; no local prohibition was enacted by the committee.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Health & Welfare May 28, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 2, which would repeal mandatory fluoridation and require local approval to fluoridate public water systems, prompted extensive testimony from dentists, pediatricians and public-health groups opposing the measure. After heated debate, the committee recorded more no votes than yes and involuntarily deferred the bill.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature LA, Louisiana","taxId",78558,"location","Louisiana","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6224126,"Committee advances bill allowing ivermectin dispensing under LDH standing order after amendment on prescriptive authority",321,2429000,2750000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3554456-7e1821a38fe4d4387fcb886f1304718f&start=2429&end=2750","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3554456-7e1821a38fe4d4387fcb886f1304718f/thumbnail_2429000.jpg","/articles/6224126/Louisiana/Committee-advances-bill-allowing-ivermectin-dispensing-under-LDH-standing-order-after-amendment-on-prescriptive-authority","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6224126-a2afd02b497b09f80fe53e48f1a029c7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771030942&Signature=dFF3mSjUs-q-IHbe9PTJyJ0otmHDixUSB9bhlGZ44O31Tv9jcFbzmsLN3QRUJZoCyUo844gN0Cjyj1PO7Nk8NhkfDXdFqBS01Osl7iEGQnRbsIo8ptH33iTdTqtDaS88H-bFFaarG7a1bH0WWJkX2MzpcsyHNQzQ70eTd0FWHKeLFbXeLN44-WHGljwgt5jasO5VHxGDgoXyrtgm05Hs1t6c~FbX0r208DjuyvM-sHU57IZFLRQIP79zVb4c61UbvpkA8UHIwIQra-majYrpeSBgvfvQwnslXweuwKcp0jdrmIIr~w57c2a2NBkLlBxDYaP2GGofUjdYZVmDbkVaNg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Health and Welfare Committee on May 28 reported Senate Bill 19, a measure to permit the dispensing of ivermectin for human use under a standing order, after members adopted a clarifying amendment that the standing order must be issued by a health care professional with prescriptive authority within the Louisiana Department of Health.

Senator Fessy introduced the bill and the committee heard medical and public testimony both in favor and opposed. Dr. Ralph Abraham, who identified himself as a surgeon general and physician, told the committee ivermectin is “FDA-approved medication for humans” for certain parasitic infections and argued for broader access. Supporters in the audience and several witnesses — including Jill Hines of Health Freedom Louisiana and representatives of advocacy organizations — urged easier access and compared Louisiana to other states that have expanded availability.

Opposition and caution came primarily from professional medical and pharmacy representatives. Pharmacist Jonathan Hartman testified that pharmacists’ statutory duty is to protect patient safety and that making ivermectin broadly available without a prescriber encounter raises concerns about weight-based dosing, off-label use and pharmacist liability. Hartman said pharmacies counsel patients about indications and dosing and that removing the prescriber step could expose patients and pharmacists to risk. Representatives of medical groups and the Louisiana Society of Health-System Pharmacists expressed similar concerns about clinical oversight and standardization.

Representative Stagney offered an amendment clarifying that any statewide standing order must be issued by a health care professional with prescriptive authority within LDH; the sponsor said he accepted the change and the amendment was adopted without objection. The committee then moved the bill forward. The roll call that followed recorded an objection, the committee recalled the roll and the bill was ultimately reported favorably with amendments.

Testimony and committee discussion focused on balancing patient access with safeguards: supporters framed the measure as a patient-choice and access issue, while pharmacists and some physicians emphasized the need for standardized assessment, weight-based dosing and liability protections. The committee did not mandate an OTC classification — the bill establishes an administrative pathway (standing order) through LDH rather than changing federal OTC status.

The committee adopted technical and substantive amendments during consideration and reported the measure to the House with the standing-order requirement referencing LDH prescriptive authority.","The committee reported Senate Bill 19, which would allow a standing order to authorize pharmacists to dispense ivermectin for human use; members adopted an amendment requiring the standing order be issued by a health care professional with prescriptive authority within Louisiana Department of Health before reporting the bill favorably.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6224131,"House committee asks LDH to review statewide chlorine residual policy after debate on health, costs",1422,141000,1563000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3554456-7e1821a38fe4d4387fcb886f1304718f&start=141&end=1563","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3554456-7e1821a38fe4d4387fcb886f1304718f/thumbnail_141000.jpg","/articles/6224131/Louisiana/House-committee-asks-LDH-to-review-statewide-chlorine-residual-policy-after-debate-on-health-costs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6224131-e645eb5ea39073c76c6f9b0c9ee83785/orig.mp4?Expires=1771030942&Signature=nCMXIU1nSx77PjYFkfnM8Nitg0XAAtoDSB1IctOcyqmMMmvKvauroAS4HUnY19HByUxLqq26HWniV96-I~fUl7-eBj-tcnX8F0rOGW71Sqg3LpaKxPVv25jdrVkOavSSfT0bSKfVSXRcyqRBNckdOrY85XXCMy3Sc9sl8kehDGb8VbMcxAAO0i1mzBznFQvZW014tQfiUOUk7V5uU6Wo67Qa9GXy4GZOkNlak5Ak8ZPD3TuLT~h6yBZlGftOBDcjYVuTJ07TBgFhuZP7ocCkKGxxunY1IT~Fr5tl51C9IMPOdQjEQhWOctEXYoE5OcTbkaZGvzslfnCEK0Fl2QEzoQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Health and Welfare Committee on May 28 voted to report House Concurrent Resolution 54, asking the Louisiana Department of Health to conduct a comprehensive review of rules requiring a 0.5 milligram-per-liter chlorine residual in public water systems.

Representative Desotel introduced the HCR, saying she has sought documentation from LDH about why the 0.5 standard has remained in place since an emergency rule in 2013 and asking that LDH “review and revise regulations regarding the minimum required chlorine concentration in public water systems.” The committee adopted a technical amendment clarifying that treatment needs differ between surface water and groundwater.

The resolution grew out of concerns raised by residents and water operators from rural parishes who said the uniform 0.5 requirement raises operating costs for small systems, worsens staining and manganese problems, and can increase disinfection byproducts such as trihalomethanes (THMs). Jerry Smith, a former state health employee who said he worked on water regulation for decades, and Randall DeCote, public works director for Avoyelles Parish and an operator for local systems, urged a system-specific review. DeCote told the committee that “because we have to treat the chlorine at such a high residual, it’s costing the water systems a lot of money,” and he said smaller systems are stretched thin by the current standard.

LDH’s interim chief engineer, Karen Benjamin, told the committee the 0.5 mg/L level was recommended in 2013 by an advisory team convened after amoeba-related deaths and was chosen because studies showed the organism is killed at that residual within about an hour of contact. Benjamin said testing in distribution systems showed that lower residuals (0.2 mg/L) could require more than 24 hours of contact time for 99% eradication in the absence of biofilm or sediment and that detections in distribution systems were generally associated with little or no chlorine at the point of detection. She also said LDH has previously provided materials to legislators and that the department has received an estimate of about $250,000 from a third-party consultant to perform a statewide study.

Several technical points were emphasized in testimony and committee discussion: LDH staff said iron and manganese occur naturally in many groundwater sources (they told the committee about roughly 500 systems statewide with elevated iron/manganese), and any oxidant such as chlorine will oxidize those metals and can make them visible, requiring sequestering or specialized removal treatment. Witnesses warned that increasing chlorine can increase THM formation when organic matter is present; committee members and speakers referred to federal actions that have reduced the total trihalomethane standard from 100 parts per billion to 80 parts per billion as part of a broader regulatory picture.

Representative Jackson moved to report HCR 54 with the adopted amendment; there were no objections and the measure was reported favorably. The resolution asks LDH to perform a comprehensive review with input from independent scientists, environmental health experts and local water authorities to assess whether the 0.5 mg/L requirement remains justified across all system types.

The committee record captures both the department’s rationale tied to fatal Naegleria fowleri detections in 2013 and the operators’ concerns about brown water, manganese-related staining and higher operating costs. The committee did not adopt prescriptive technical remedies; instead it asked LDH to assemble the evidence and recommend system-appropriate approaches.","The House Health and Welfare Committee voted to report House Concurrent Resolution 54 asking the Louisiana Department of Health to review minimum chlorine residual rules after testimony that the 2013 emergency increase to 0.5 mg/L imposes costs, may raise disinfection byproducts and may be unnecessary for some groundwater systems.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Proposal to prohibit mandatory water fluoridation draws heavy opposition; committee involuntarily defers bill

Committee advances bill allowing ivermectin dispensing under LDH standing order after amendment on prescriptive authority

House committee asks LDH to review statewide chlorine residual policy after debate on health, costs