Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Fluoridation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dentists and residents urge Sunbury City Council to retain water fluoridation
Summary
Multiple residents and local dentists told the Sunbury City Council that removing fluoride from the municipal water supply would increase tooth decay and disproportionately harm low-income residents. Speakers cited CDC and international public-health support, local clinic data and grant options to offset capital costs.
Dozens of residents and local dental professionals urged Sunbury City Council to keep fluoride in the city's drinking water during public comment, citing public-health studies and local clinical data.
"They say that 1 of the top 10 greatest public health achievements of the twentieth century is coordinated water," said John Lazar, a Sunbury dentist who said he has practiced in the city since 1975. Lazar referenced a May 2025 Journal of the American Medical Association study he described as projecting increased decay if community fluoridation were removed and said lower-income residents would be most affected.
A separate commenter, who spoke at length about local clinic statistics and treatment costs, told the council that an equipment upgrade for the water system was discussed at a previous meeting and that "the cost ... was $98,000 if I recall from the meeting last week." That commenter also said a local clinic's small sample of patients ages 0 to 20 showed about 50% less decay in fluoridated Sunbury compared with Shamokin and argued that even small increases in decay would raise treatment costs substantially.
Tina Hayes, a Sunbury resident and AmeriCorps alum, said she was "shocked" to hear the city was considering removal and asked the council to reconsider, saying poor dental health can affect overall health.
Speakers urged the council to explore grant funding and donations; the unnamed commenter referenced the Pennsylvania Coalition for Oral Health and said organizations including the Pennsylvania Dental Association and the American Dental Association had indicated grant money or donations might be available to help pay for equipment upgrades. Council members did not vote on fluoridation during the meeting.
Why it matters: Residents and dental providers said removing fluoridation would raise the community's dental-care needs and could shift costs to emergency rooms and publicly supported clinics, disproportionately affecting low-income and Medicaid patients.
What the council heard: public-health references to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization; local clinic comparisons showing lower decay in fluoridated Sunbury; an estimate of approximately $98,000 for equipment upgrades and a suggestion that grant funding could offset some capital costs.
The council did not take formal action on fluoridation during the meeting; speakers asked council members to retain fluoridation and to consider grant options to mitigate upgrade costs.
