Residents urge Maitland council to consider removing fluoride from public water; council says it will review

Several Maitland residents urged the City Council on March 24 to consider removing fluoride from the city’s public water supply and asked the council to put the item on a future agenda.

The comments came during the meeting’s public comment period, when Justin Harvey, a resident of 1025 Hamlet Drive, told the council that 25 Florida jurisdictions had addressed fluoridation recently and that 19 had removed it. “I don’t think that you all should be in the business of dental care as city councilors,” Harvey said, arguing that a recent federal court decision and scientific studies show risks to children and pregnant women.

Other speakers made similar requests. A resident identified as Elizabeth of 215 South Vista Lane asked the council to hear “pros and cons” and not simply defer the issue to the utilities director. Tara Miles said she was speaking on behalf of a client and thanked the council for considering the public health question. Robert Hayes asked the council to “place this issue on the agenda so we can have a full, transparent, and informed discussion.”

Why it matters: the speakers cited scientific studies and a federal court ruling that they said link fluoride exposure to reduced cognitive development in children and argued that topical fluoride (toothpaste, rinses) provides dental benefits without mass ingestion. Those making the requests asked the council to give residents an opportunity to weigh evidence and to allow public input at a council meeting.

Council response: Mayor Bowne acknowledged the concern and told speakers the topic is receiving attention statewide. “It is something that’s coming out of our radars and we will discuss it and give it some thought,” the mayor said. Council members did not take formal action at the meeting to add the item to a future agenda; no vote was recorded to direct staff to place the matter on a calendared meeting.

Context and limits: Speakers repeatedly referenced a federal court case and scientific reviews (including a 2014 Lancet characterization and a 2023 review by the National Toxicology Program) as justification for review. At least one speaker described previous local decisions in nearby cities. Council members noted that some utility decisions are traditionally made by the utility director but also acknowledged that councils elsewhere have debated and voted on fluoridation.

What’s next: Council members indicated they will discuss the topic further; no staff assignment, formal directive, or deadline was recorded in the minutes of this meeting.

Ending: The city took no immediate action at the March 24 meeting. Residents who asked for an agenda item will need to await a future council meeting or a council vote to formally place fluoride on an agenda for full deliberation.