Committee recommends ITL on bill to prohibit addition of fluoridation chemicals after wide-ranging hearing

The Resources, Recreation and Development Committee voted to recommend that House Bill 691 — which would prohibit adding fluoridation chemicals to public water systems — be declared inexpedient to legislate (ITL).

Representative Peter Schmidt, the bill sponsor, framed HB 691 as a public‑health precaution. He and proponents cited a recent federal court ruling that ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to reassess risks associated with fluoride in drinking water and urged the committee to act to stop community fluoridation pending updated federal guidance.

"This is not a bill about banning fluoride use topically," Representative Peter Schmidt said. "This is about adding fluoride to the water supply." Proponents argued ingestion is different from topical use and raised studies that have linked fluoride exposure in utero and in infancy to neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Supporters included Stuart Cooper of the Fluoride Action Network, who said an extensive body of research and a federal court finding support a prohibition. "The science has changed," he told the committee, and he urged the legislature to prohibit fluoridation now rather than wait for a protracted federal rule‑making process.

Opponents included dentists, the New Hampshire Dental Society, the New Hampshire Oral Health Coalition, and state public‑health officials from the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Environmental Services. Those witnesses said community water fluoridation at the Centers for Disease Control's recommended level (about 0.7 mg/L) is a long‑standing, cost‑effective public‑health measure that reduces tooth decay, especially for children and adults who lack access to regular dental care.

"Dental caries are a significant chronic disease among children in New Hampshire," said Whitney Hammond, deputy director of the Division of Public Health Services at DHHS. "Around 59 percent of children in the state have dental decay; many have untreated cavities that impair eating and school participation." DHHS projected significant additional costs if systemic fluoride delivered through water were removed and supplementation were left to prescriptions or clinic programs.

Representatives of the Department of Environmental Services said DES regulates fluoride concentrations in public water systems and monitors compliance; DES noted many small water systems have naturally occurring fluoride at a range of levels and described the state's monitoring and notification framework for higher concentrations.

The hearing included experts on both sides debating the interpretation of recent studies and federal findings. Several dental practitioners testified that, in clinical practice, community fluoridation at the recommended level prevents cavities and that no compulsory ban was warranted. Proponents relied on systematic reviews and a federal court decision that judges the underlying evidence sufficient to require EPA risk assessment.

After deliberation in executive session, the committee voted to recommend ITL (committee roll call recorded as 14 in favor, 1 opposed). Committee members who spoke during the floor discussion said they favored preserving local decision‑making and relying on the existing public‑health and regulatory review processes rather than enacting a statewide ban.

Votes at exec session: HB 691 — committee recommendation: ITL (inexpedient to legislate).