Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Fluoridation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Pinellas County to end water fluoridation during public comment; officials did not act
Summary
Multiple residents used the Feb. 11 public-comment period to urge the county to stop adding fluoride to the public water supply, citing health, legal and chemical-sourcing concerns. Commissioners listened but did not take formal action; the issue was raised without staff response or a referral vote.
Several residents used the Feb. 11 Pinellas County public-comment period to press commissioners to end the county’s water-fluoridation practice, raising health, legal and chemical-sourcing concerns and asking the board to reconsider whether the additive should remain in drinking water.
Why it matters: Fluoridation of public water is a recurring civic debate in Florida and other states. County-level decisions on water additives involve utility policy, public-health guidance and state regulations; at this meeting, speakers framed the issue primarily as a question of consent and chemical sourcing rather than an immediate board action.
Public comments and key points Helen Macris, a Pinellas County resident of 25 years, said she reviewed the county’s consumer-confidence report and noted fluoride measured at 0.66 parts per million — below the 0.7 parts per million often cited as a target for dental benefit. She also said the report identifies phosphate-plant runoff as a fluoride source and asked the county to re-open the water-quality discussion.
"If that's 0.7 parts per million and only 0.66 parts per million is what the water-quality report is saying, then it's in our water but it's not effective for dental use," Macris said. "So why is it even in the water if it's not effective for dental use? It's just there."
Demetrius Makris (spoke in the meeting) and other commenters urged removal of fluoride from the water. Demetrius referenced statements by Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo and local advocacy groups opposing fluoridation.
Jeffrey Jacob summarized a constitutional framing used by several speakers: he cited Florida’s constitution (article I, section 23) on privacy and health-choice autonomy and argued that fluoridation implicates informed-consent concerns. Jacob urged the board to consider topical dental treatments (toothpaste, varnish) as alternatives to systemic water fluoridation.
"Local officials have oaths of office to uphold the Florida constitution making this more about constitutional rights than just science," Jacob said during his comment.
Chris Steiner (Zoom) and other speakers cited international and academic studies they say link fluoride exposure to cognitive and other health risks and argued the county should remove fluoridation equipment and place the question on an upcoming agenda.
What the board did Commissioners heard the public comments during the citizens-to-be-heard portion of the meeting. No staff presentation or formal board action on fluoridation occurred during the Feb. 11 session; commissioners did not vote or direct staff to prepare an ordinance or study on the topic at that time.
Ending: The public debate over fluoridation remains active among local residents. Those seeking formal policy review should expect to follow up with written requests to staff, utility management or with formal agenda-item requests; at this meeting, the board received public comment but did not initiate a policy change.
