Rep. Mark Hart, R-Falmouth, speaks on House Bill 103 during Wednesday’s meeting of the House of Representatives Local Government Committee. A high-resolution photo can be found here.
FRANKFORT — A bill that would shift decision-making power over fluoride in public water systems was approved by a House committee Wednesday after lengthy debate from lawmakers, dentists and public health advocates.
Rep. Mark Hart, R-Falmouth, testified that House Bill 103 would allow local water systems to decide whether to continue adding fluoride to their water supply, emphasizing the proposal does not ban fluoride.
Hart explained the bill includes an immunity clause that would protect water districts from civil lawsuits whether they choose to maintain fluoridation or discontinue it. Language was added to the bill Wednesday after discussions with legal counsel to clarify how that protection would apply, he said.
Dr. Jack Kall, a Louisville dentist and executive chair of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, spoke in support of the bill and cited studies on the potential negative effects of fluoride-treated water.
Kall emphasized a risk associated with fluoride consumption, saying studies “show a trend of association between lower IQ and the level of fluorides consumed by pregnant women and their infants after birth.”
Rep. Sarah Stalker, D-Louisville, asked about the current standard in dentistry regarding fluoride treatment.
Kall said informed consent is central to dental care and argued that people do not have that same choice when fluoride is added to public water.
“It’s a very common procedure,” Kall said. “I am more cautious about it. Patients often feel that the dentist, dental hygienist or dental staff is not respectful of their personal choices. Informed consent is essential here. That’s the problem we have with water fluoridation. If you don’t want it, you’re kind of stuck.”
Rep. Rachel Roarx, D-Louisville, questioned how local boards would handle decisions traditionally guided by public health expertise and asked what medical or scientific background local water boards are required to have.
Hart said the board has requirements similar to those of a legislature.
“None of us are an expert in this field, and we are asked to make decisions without the medical knowledge,” Hart said. “These executive and elected boards aren’t going to have the medical knowledge either. They’re going to have to seek out professionals, like I have, to help inform us.”
Opponents of the bill, including some dental and public health advocates, warned that reducing fluoridation could increase tooth decay and long-term health costs.
Mary Ann Burch, a retired dental hygienist, said community water fluoridation has been proven for decades to reduce cavities and is especially important for seniors and low-income residents.
“For over 70 years, community water fluoridation has been proven safe, reliable and cost-effective,” she said. “It prevents cavities by at least 25%.”
She warned the consequences of reducing fluoridation would impact poorer communities, especially historically vulnerable populations in Eastern Kentucky, and drive up Medicaid costs due to increased dental.
Rep. Savannah Maddox, R-Dry Ridge asked about opponents’ views on a 2024 federal court ruling in Food & Water Watch v. EPA. The court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that recommended levels of community water fluoridation could present an unreasonable risk of injury to health, specifically citing potential IQ reduction.
Dr. Stephen Robertson, executive director of the Kentucky Dental Association, said he believes the court overreached in its decision and that the preponderance of evidence shows that fluoride has been safe.
He added that more recent research challenges claims of a link between fluoride and lower IQ and that the science has been turned into a “spin contest.”
Rep. George Brown Jr., D-Lexington, voted no, saying he was not convinced fluoride poses a health risk.
“I think we’re going down a slippery slope,” Brown said. “It’s been a standard since the 1940s, and I don’t think anything has been explained here that says fluoride is a problem.”
However, Rep. Ken Fleming, R-Louisville, voted in favor and explained his support for the measure.
“I’m going to trust my local water district to do the right things,” Fleming said. The committee voted 13-5 to advance House Bill 103. The measure now moves to the full House for consideration
Original article online at: https://lexingtonky.news/2026/01/29/committee-advances-legislation-on-fluoride-in-tap-water/