Kansas Committee on Water holds informational hearing on community water fluoridation; no action taken

TOPEKA — The Committee on Water held an informational hearing on water fluoridation on Oct. 27, 2025, hearing testimony from dentists, public-health advocates and Kansas Department of Health and Environment officials but taking no action.

The hearing included pro-fluoridation testimony from Dr. Beatrice Britton, DDS, of Abilene; Kevin Robertson, executive director of the Kansas Dental Association; and Tanya Dorf Bruner, executive director of Oral Health Kansas. KDHE’s Tom Stiles, director of the Bureau of Water, described the state’s regulatory role and monitoring requirements. Two dentists who oppose community fluoridation, Dr. Julie Babcock and Dr. Griffin Cole, also testified.

Committee Chair (unidentified) opened the presentations by saying, “I do not intend to take any action on this unless some members of the committee want to move something forward. So we're gonna calmly and quietly discuss fluoridation in municipal water today and have a good discussion here.” The committee then limited questions because of the number of people who wanted to testify.

Why it matters: Testimony and KDHE data framed fluoridation as a public-health measure intended to reduce tooth decay, particularly among children and low-income residents, while opponents raised concerns about dosing, emerging scientific questions about neurodevelopmental effects and federal review of fluoride safety.

Dr. Beatrice Britton told the committee she returned to her rural hometown of Abilene to provide dental care and that she had urged her city commission to continue fluoridation when the commission considered stopping it. “Numerous credible scientific studies show that fluoride is safe and beneficial to oral health at regulated low levels,” Britton said, and she listed endorsing organizations including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American and Kansas Dental Associations, the CDC, the World Health Organization and the U.S. Department of Defense. Britton described fluoridation as “a critical component of good oral health and public health” and cited local comparisons she said were drawn from Kansas Department of Health and Environment and CDC screening data: Solomon’s natural fluoride at about 0.3 parts per million and Harrington at about 0.34 parts per million versus the recommended 0.7 parts per million. Britton said KDHE school screenings showed rates of children needing urgent dental care were “nearly 50 percent higher” in Solomon and “more than 300% higher” in Harrington compared with Abilene, a fluoridated community.

Kevin Robertson reiterated the Kansas Dental Association’s support for community water fluoridation as “a safe cost effective measure to prevent tooth decay,” describing fluoride as a naturally occurring mineral and comparing community fluoridation to other public-health fortifications such as iodized salt.

Tanya Dorf Bruner summarized the history of fluoridation and the evidence base, noting Grand Rapids, Michigan, conducted an early trial that influenced national adoption. Bruner said the CDC’s recommended level of 0.7 milligrams per liter (parts per million) reflects reductions made after additional topical fluoride sources—such as toothpaste—became widespread.

KDHE regulation and monitoring: Tom Stiles, director of KDHE’s Bureau of Water, said the state does not mandate fluoridation and that adding or removing fluoride is a local utility decision. He summarized KDHE thresholds and monitoring expectations: a federal/state maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 4 milligrams per liter triggers regulatory action; a secondary standard of 2 milligrams per liter triggers public notification; and the CDC’s recommended target for community fluoridation is 0.7 milligrams per liter. Stiles explained that most public water suppliers sample for fluoride annually (surface-water-influenced supplies) or once every three years (groundwater), while systems that choose to fluoridate must sample quarterly. He said about 53 public water systems in Kansas—roughly 6% of the state’s utilities—currently add fluoride. “We can't mandate fluoridation. It is a local decision,” Stiles said.

Opposing testimony and scientific dispute: Dr. Julie Babcock, speaking by Webex, told the committee, “I think fluoride is completely unnecessary in the water,” and argued that newer studies show toxicity concerns to brain and bone and that population dosing cannot be controlled by adding fluoride to drinking water. Dr. Griffin Cole, a retired dentist who has testified in other jurisdictions, cited a recent Cochrane review and large U.K. studies (LOTUS and CATFISH) and said those reviews show a much smaller cavity-reduction effect than commonly cited: “the most that we could find was 1 quarter of 1 tooth difference,” he said. Cole also referenced a federal court ruling that directed the Environmental Protection Agency to reexamine fluoride’s risks based on National Toxicology Program reports.

Committee members asked technical and policy questions. One member asked KDHE whether a three-year sampling cycle for groundwater is adequate where local water quality is changing; Stiles said sampling frequency increases when thresholds are exceeded and noted that systems exceeding limits are monitored quarterly until the situation is resolved. Another member asked whether sources of fluoride used for fluoridation are byproducts of other industrial processes; Stiles said KDHE would not allow recycled or improper materials to be used and that typical fluoridation chemicals are standard sources such as sodium fluoride.

No action taken: The committee’s chair closed the hearing by reiterating that the session was educational only and that the committee would not vote: “It's been an educational process here, and this was just for education only.” The chair announced upcoming hearings on unrelated water issues and a separate hearing on Senate Bill 58.

What remains unresolved: The committee received conflicting scientific and policy testimony and was told KDHE’s role is regulatory oversight, not policy adoptions. Several lawmakers and witnesses referenced ongoing national discussion, including a federal court ruling that ordered further EPA review and recent National Toxicology Program reports; proponents emphasized the historic public-health endorsements and local dental data, while opponents emphasized newer studies and concerns about population dosing.

The Committee on Water did not introduce bills or motions at the hearing. Committee members and staff were given presenters’ contact information for follow-up questions.