Utah’s Controversial Proposal to Ban Fluoride in Public Water Systems
A Historic Move in Utah: The Push to Ban Fluoride in Public Water
Utah is on the brink of making history as the first U.S. state to fully ban fluoride in public water systems under a proposed bill. This bill, which has cleared its final legislative hurdle, does not allow cities or communities to decide whether to add fluoride, a cavity-preventing mineral, to their water supplies. The proposal comes at a time when Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the newly appointed federal health secretary, has expressed skepticism about water fluoridation, a practice widely regarded as one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century. The bill, sponsored by Republican state Rep. Stephanie Gricius and Sen. Kirk Cullimore, is now headed to Gov. Spencer Cox, whose stance on the issue remains unclear. A spokesperson for Cox did not immediately respond to questions about whether he would sign the bill into law.
The Broader Context: A Growing Trend Against Fluoridation
Utah’s proposal reflects a growing national debate about water fluoridation. In recent years, several cities across the U.S. have removed fluoride from their water supplies, and others are considering similar actions. This trend gained momentum after a federal judge recently ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate fluoride in drinking water, citing concerns that high levels could pose risks to children’s intellectual development. Utah, which ranks 44th in the nation for the percentage of residents receiving fluoridated water, has long been a state where access to fluoridated water is limited. According to 2022 data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), only about two in five Utah residents served by community water systems have access to fluoridated water.
The Debate Over Costs and Benefits
Lawmakers supporting the bill argue that adding fluoride to water is too expensive. Rep. Gricius emphasized that the bill is not anti-fluoride but pro-informed consent and individual choice. She also noted that the bill includes a provision to deregulate fluoride prescriptions, allowing individuals to choose whether to use fluoride pills. However, opponents of the bill, including Lorna Koci, chair of the Utah Oral Health Coalition, argue that water fluoridation is the most cost-effective way to prevent tooth decay on a large scale. Koci expressed concern that anti-fluoride advocates are capitalizing on Kennedy’s skepticism to push their agenda, potentially harming public health. She noted that fluoridated water is often the only form of preventive dental care for low-income residents, who may not have access to regular dental visits.
The Science Behind Fluoridation and Its Impact
Fluoride works by strengthening teeth and reducing cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the CDC. Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population drinks fluoridated water, a practice that has been widely supported by dental and public health professionals. In Utah, however, fluoridation is far from universal. Out of 484 Utah water systems that reported data to the CDC in 2024, only 66 fluoridated their water. The largest of these is Salt Lake City, the state’s biggest city. Despite the limited use of fluoridation in Utah, some communities have pushed back against efforts to remove it. For example, in 2023, voters in Brigham City, located north of Salt Lake City, overwhelmingly rejected a measure to remove fluoride from their public water supplies by a margin of more than two to one.
The Potential Consequences of Utah’s Proposal
If Utah’s bill becomes law, it could set a precedent for other states to follow, according to both supporters and opponents of the measure. Dental professionals like Val Radmall, executive director of the Utah Dental Association, warn that removing fluoride from public water will have significant consequences, particularly for low-income communities. Radmall, who worked in a non-fluoridated community for 30 years, recalls that patients from that area often had more cavities than those from fluoridated areas. “I’d have a patient come in without cavities or anything else like that, and I’d say, ‘You didn’t grow up here. Where did you grow up?’” he said, noting that the lack of fluoride was evident in his patients’ dental health.
The Future of Water Fluoridation in Utah and Beyond
As Utah’s bill awaits Gov. Cox’s decision, the broader implications of this proposal are being closely watched. Proponents of the bill frame it as a victory for individual choice and fiscal responsibility, while opponents argue that it undermines a proven public health intervention. The debate in Utah reflects a larger national conversation about the role of government in public health decisions and the balance between individual choice and community well-being. Whether Utah’s proposal becomes law and how it influences other states will be a critical turning point in the ongoing debate over water fluoridation. For now, only time will tell if Utah’s move will pave the way for a nationwide shift away from this longstanding public health practice.
