Early this year, 30 Republican state house representatives sponsored HB 103, a prospective law that would grant local communities autonomy with regards to water fluoridation policy. The bill, which also seeks to immunize local officials from liability regarding these decisions, passed house committee favorably with one amendment on Jan. 28.
While the legislators behind this bill are focusing on local medical freedoms rather than the clinical merits of fluoride itself, the move reignites a long-standing national debate. Why do Americans drink fluoridated water in the first place? And more importantly, if a new law gives us the option, why would we consider stopping it?
A “spin contest”
Trending
The debate over fluoride is rarely as simple as pundits suggest. Dental industry leaders, such as Steve Robertson, executive director of the Kentucky Dental Association, maintain there is zero cause for alarm.
Robertson went on record at the house committee meeting, stating; “The preponderance of evidence shows that fluoride has been safe … I think we’ve reached the point on fluoride that the science part of this has turned into a spin contest.”
The arguments for fluoridation are well-established. Studies show it significantly reduces dental cavities, and it’s often reiterated that fluoride itself is a naturally occurring mineral. Proponents point out that after 80 years of implementation, community water fluoridation remains a cornerstone of American public health efforts.
Emerging red flags
However, recent years have seen significant scientific red flags regarding potential risks of fluoride consumption. These concerns are now reaching the highest levels of government. U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently signaled a shift in federal perspective, linking fluoride to various neurodevelopmental and endocrine issues. In a 2024 social media post, he called fluoride a “dangerous industrial waste product.”
In January 2025, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) published a meta-analysis concluding with “moderate confidence” that fluoride exposure — specifically levels above 1.5 milligrams per liter — is associated with lower IQ in children.
Trending
Local water systems typically aim for a lower concentration of around 0.7 mg/L, but recent research suggests the margin of safety may be thinner than previously thought. A 2024 study from the Keck Medical School found that children exposed to slightly elevated fluoride levels in the womb were nearly twice as likely to show clinically significant behavioral problems, including anxiety and emotional reactivity. Further research published in the National Library of Medicine has explored fluoride’s potential toxic effects on neurodevelopment; published in 2023, “Fluoride Exposure and ADHD: A Systematic Review of Epidemiological Studies” states that “Current epidemiological evidence indicates that fluoride exposure may have neurotoxic effects on neurodevelopment, including behavioral alterations, cognitive impairment and psychosomatic issues.”
It is a common misconception that fluoridation is a universal standard of the “First World.” In reality, the United States is one of the few developed nations to actively fluoridate its water. Countries such as Israel, Germany, France, The Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Sweden, amongst many others in Europe, Africa and Asia, do not. With regards to this matter, the 2010 European Commission reported, “A body of scientific literature seems to suggest that fluoride intake may be associated with a number of adverse health effects. Dental fluorosis and effects on bones (increased fragility and skeletal fluorosis) are two well documented adverse effects of fluoride intake.”
The question of informed consent
With benefits and risks appearing in scientific literature, the issue before us is not black and white. To ignore the evidence that fluoride supports dental health would be rash. However, it is equally rash to ignore the growing body of legitimate science suggesting that even moderate exposure may carry neurological risks, particularly in young children.
In clinical terms, these risks are most accurately labeled “side effects.” Fluoride, in this context, acts as a drug: it has an intended benefit, but it also has risks. Yet, unlike any other treatment, fluoridation lacks informed consent.
When a citizen turns on their tap, they do not receive a warning label or a list of potential contraindications. The treatment is prescribed not by a personal physician who knows the patient’s medical history, but by a government body making sweeping decisions for the whole public
HB 103, then, offers Kentucky communities something they have lacked for decades: a voice. If passed, it would return the freedom of medical choice to the local level, allowing communities to decide for themselves what they put into their bodies, and the bodies of their children.
Brennan Lippert, of Frankfort, is running for city commission. He can be emailed at blippert@kydigitalnotary.org
Original article online at: https://state-journal.com/2026/02/25/guest-columnist-hb-103-and-the-fluoride-debate/