Tennessee committee hears competing scientific testimony on water fluoridation bill; sponsor asks for more time

Representative Renaud, sponsor of House Bill 23 96, told the House Agricultural and Natural Resources Committee that recent litigation and scientific studies justify removing fluoridation from public water supplies and that he filed an amendment moving the bill’s effective date to 2026. Representative Renaud said a federal court review concluded current fluoridation levels present an "unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children," and argued that adding fluoride to drinking water is "mass medication delivered without informed consent." (Representative Renaud)

The committee heard two three‑minute expert witnesses on opposite sides. Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, president and senior scientist at the Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis, testified that community water fluoridation is not associated with improved dental health, pointed to studies she said show average IQ losses of 1–5 points at U.S. recommended levels (0.7 mg/L) and asserted that silicofluorides used in municipal systems have not been safety tested and can introduce contaminants. "By fluoridation of drinking water, governments and water suppliers are indiscriminately mass medicating the population," she testified. (Dr. Kathleen Thiessen)

Andrea Hayes, executive director of the Tennessee Dental Association, said decades of U.S. research show community water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L reduces oral disease by roughly 25 percent and prevents severe complications such as abscesses. Hayes also told the panel that fluoridation developed as a local option in Tennessee and warned a statewide ban would be costly and difficult to reverse, citing an American Dental Association estimate that her testimony summarized as roughly $1.24 billion in increased dental costs statewide over five years if fluoridation were halted. "Community water fluoridation is a local option," she said, and urged the committee to consider the public‑health benefits and local process. (Andrea Hayes)

Committee members pressed both witnesses on specific scientific and practical points. Representative Fritz asked detailed chemistry questions about hydrogen fluoride formation and HF toxicity; Dr. Thiessen said HF concerns are generally tied to industrial circumstances but that fluoride chemistry and population calcium levels affect toxicity. Representatives pressed Hayes on historical county‑by‑county improvements seen when communities adopted fluoridation and on the procedural steps water districts must follow to start or stop fluoridation. Both witnesses differed on whether the best research supports systemic benefits from fluoridation of public water. (Representative Fritz; Andrea Hayes; Dr. Kathleen Thiessen)

After extended questioning and member comments about public safety, costs and individual choice, Representative Grills moved — and the committee agreed without objection — to roll HB 23 96 for one week to allow members to gather more information. The roll postpones a final committee recommendation while staff and members seek additional technical and legal clarification. (Chair)

What happens next: the sponsor and staff will supply follow‑up materials and the bill will return to the committee calendar; no final vote on the policy change was taken on the day of the hearing. (Chair)