Madison water board's move to stop fluoridation draws sharply divided public comments

Madison — Madison Utilities' water board voted to discontinue adding fluoride to the city's public drinking water, a decision that prompted a lengthy public hearing in which residents, health professionals and scientists offered sharply divided testimony.

The debate centered on three issues: health risks and benefits of ingesting fluoride, the cost and corrosion impacts of fluoridation equipment, and legal and ethical questions about adding a substance to a public water supply. Supporters of continuing fluoridation warned that removing the additive would raise tooth decay, especially among children with limited access to dental care. Opponents cited recent scientific reviews and a federal court ruling as reasons to remove fluoride and said the city should prioritize choice and worker safety.

At the hearing, pediatric dentist Mark Masterson, who said he has practiced in Madison for more than 20 years, urged the water board not to remove the additive because children would be most affected. "If there is one group that this decision will impact the most, it will be the children of our community, I assure you," Masterson said. He and other dental professionals told the board that community-level fluoridation prevents cavities that otherwise fall disproportionately on young children and lower-income families.

Several speakers who favored ending fluoridation cited a 2024 National Toxicology Program (NTP) review and recent litigation. Resident Robin Grignon said the water board had "the courage to vote unanimously to stop the additional fluoride for drinking water" and described fluoridation as "mass medication" with no dosage control. Ben Brevion read from a manufacturer safety data sheet and warned the additive is corrosive, saying the product's paperwork lists eye and ingestion hazards.

Scientists at the hearing offered contrasting interpretations of the evidence. Melanie Stomer, senior scientist at the HudsonAlpha Institute, said the NTP review is a qualitative assessment that found associations, not causal proof, and cautioned that most studies referenced by opponents were conducted in countries where baseline fluoride levels and exposures differ from the United States. "There is no evidence that fluoride at levels in the U.S. water supply causes lower IQ in children," Stomer said, urging the board to reconsider removing fluoridation.

Speakers also discussed the local costs of keeping the system. Michael Goodman said Madison Utilities' water manager, David Moore, had reported repair costs for the fluoridation system of about $500,000 and an annual operating cost of about $14,000; Goodman presented rough per-household calculations and described the annualized cost as small compared with the potential community benefit. Several commenters asked whether the board had fully examined alternatives such as targeted dental programs, topical fluoride distribution, or an opt-out provision for residents.

Other residents urged a precautionary approach. Kathy Patrick, a chemical engineer and Madison customer, invoked the precautionary principle and said that, given studies that show associations between fluoride exposure and neurodevelopment, removing fluoride could be defensible as a public-health risk-management decision.

Public commenters also raised process questions. Jim Chamberlain and others asked the city to delay implementing removal until the board provides a fuller public record: a detailed cost-benefit analysis, input from public-health officials, and a customer preference survey. Paul Jackson, an expectant father, and others asked the board to consider the limits of the studies cited, noting many studies referenced by opponents were conducted outside the U.S. at higher fluoride concentrations than Madison's.

Madison Utilities' most recent publicly available water-quality report cited by commenters listed fluoride at about 0.15 parts per million (ppm) in 2023. By comparison, the U.S. Public Health Service and CDC recommend an optimal fluoridation level near 0.7 mg/L (0.7 ppm) for cavity prevention; 0.15 ppm is below that level. Speakers disagreed on how those numbers should shape policy for Madison.

The hearing produced no new formal motion recorded in public comment; the board's prior vote to discontinue fluoridation was the central action under discussion. Commenters who opposed removal asked the board to reverse or pause that decision; those who supported removal asked the board to proceed and to consider worker safety, equipment corrosion and emerging legal risk following recent federal litigation challenging fluoridation.

The public hearing made clear the community is divided and that the board will confront competing claims about health evidence, equipment costs and ethical considerations. Several residents asked the board for additional analysis and public outreach before finalizing implementation steps. The utility has not announced a timeline for completing work related to the board's decision.