Committee recommends ITL on bill to prohibit fluoridation after contested hearing with experts and agencies

The House Resources, Recreation and Development Committee recommended “inexpedient to legislate” (ITL) on HB 691, a proposal that would prohibit adding fluoridation chemicals to public water systems in New Hampshire. The committee’s recommendation followed an extended hearing that included public health officials, dentists, toxicology researchers and numerous members of the public.

Representative Peter Schmidt, the prime sponsor, framed the bill as a public‑health and precautionary measure, citing a federal court finding in an ongoing case that directed the Environmental Protection Agency to re‑examine potential neurotoxic risk from fluoride exposures. “This is not a bill about banning fluoride topical applications,” Schmidt said. “This bill concerns adding fluoride to community water.”

Proponents included Stuart Cooper of Fluoride Action Network, who said recent federal reviews and a court decision show developmental neurotoxicity at exposures relevant to community fluoridation. ‘‘We won the federal lawsuit that asked the EPA to look again,’’ Cooper told the committee, and he urged the legislature to act quickly so communities would not remain fluoridated while federal rulemaking proceeds.

Opponents included licensed dental and public‑health professionals. Dr. Laurie Rosado, a Concord general dentist, told the committee she sees measurable oral-health benefits in fluoridated communities and said she had not seen evidence tying properly managed community fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L to neurological harm. Michael Auerbach, executive director of the New Hampshire Dental Society, said the society opposes a statewide ban and supported local decision making.

Department staff briefings emphasized differences in regulatory authority and potential fiscal impacts. Whitney Hammond, Deputy Director of DHHS Division of Public Health Services, noted that fluoridation is one of the most cost‑effective preventive interventions for dental decay and that the division’s school and community programs serve children who would be affected if community-level fluoridation were removed. DHHS dental consultant Dr. David Gruet provided an estimate of increased prescription costs for fluoride tablets and varnish if community fluoridation were eliminated, with an approximate cost projection discussed in testimony.

Department of Environmental Services staff explained that many public water systems in New Hampshire have naturally occurring fluoride at varying levels and that state rules require reporting or corrective action at higher concentrations (for example, notification requirements at 2 mg/L and a maximum contaminant level at 4 mg/L). DES staff told the committee they monitor systems required to test for fluoride and do not take a policy position but noted the technical and regulatory complexity of water chemistry and public‑supply oversight.

Following the hearing and subsequent executive session, the committee recorded an ITL recommendation on HB 691 with a roll-call result read as “14 1.” The chair placed the measure on the consent calendar as ITL.

Why this matters: Community water fluoridation is an established public‑health intervention used in a limited number of New Hampshire public water systems; proponents cite broad oral‑health benefits and cost efficiency, while opponents point to recent toxicology reviews and legal actions as motivation for an immediate prohibition or further study.

What’s next: The ITL recommendation halts committee action for the current session. Several witnesses urged ongoing review by federal agencies; state agencies signaled they will continue to evaluate federal guidance and local water chemistry on an ongoing basis.

Provenance: The hearing opened after lunch with Representative Peter Schmidt introducing the bill; testimony continued through the afternoon and the committee closed the hearing and later recorded the ITL roll call.