Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Fluoridation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State committee hears competing science on water fluoridation; panel rolls fluoridation bill one week
Summary
The committee heard contrasting expert testimony on HB 23 96 — one scientist warned of neurotoxicity and opposed community water fluoridation, while the Tennessee Dental Association emphasized a 25% reduction in oral disease at 0.7 mg/L. Members voted to roll the bill one week for more information.
The House Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee heard extended testimony and questioning on House Bill 23 96, a proposal that would limit or prohibit community water fluoridation policy in Tennessee. Sponsor Representative Renaud framed the bill as a measure restoring individual choice and called for reconsideration of fluoridation following recent litigation and scientific studies.
Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, president and senior scientist at the Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis, told the committee that "Community water fluoridation is not associated with improved dental health" and cited a recent federal-court ruling she said found fluoride exposure at certain levels posed an unreasonable neurodevelopmental risk in children. Dr. Thiessen argued that modern fluoride exposure from toothpaste and dental products makes mass water fluoridation unnecessary and raised concerns about systemic exposure to silico-fluoride compounds used in municipal systems.
Andrea Hayes, executive director of the Tennessee Dental Association, testified for maintaining community water fluoridation and cited public-health benefits: "Community water fluoridation ... at 0.7 still reduce oral disease by 25 percent." Hayes warned that removing fluoridation statewide would be costly and difficult to reverse, and cited an ADA Health Policy Institute estimate that discontinuation could increase dental-care costs for the state by more than $1.2 billion over five years.
Committee members probed chemistry and exposure pathways, asked about the applicability of foreign studies, and discussed the difference between a state ban and preserving local option. Representative Grills moved to roll the bill one week so members could gather additional information; the motion carried without objection.
