Voters will weigh in on the proposed Rutland charter change on Town Meeting Day [March 5 ]

In addition to elections and the municipal budget, Rutland voters will weigh in next month on whether to keep fluoride in the city’s water supply.

The question is back again on the Town Meeting Day ballot after local opponents of water fluoridation collected at least 562 signatures in support of a referendum. It asks voters to approve a change to the Rutland charter that would explicitly forbid adding fluoride to the city water supply.

Charter changes must also be approved by the state Legislature. If the “yes” votes succeed on March 5 and lawmakers follow suit, the initiative would reverse a local practice that has been in effect since 1983.

The ballot measure has support from vocal anti-fluoridation campaigners who question the city’s right to add fluoride into the water supply, but it has drawn concerns from local and regional dentists who say fluoride is safe at appropriate levels and maintains oral health.

At two public hearings on the proposed charter change last week, multiple city residents spoke in favor of removing fluoride from the water system. Some questioned whether fluoridation truly prevents tooth decay — although the scientific evidence behind this connection is the reason it’s been implemented so broadly. Others blamed the additive for causing a variety of physical and mental health problems.

Jack Crowther, a prominent opponent of fluoridation in Rutland, described fluoride as a drug, arguing that local officials therefore need to gather city residents’ informed consent before adding it into the water supply.

“Why is it that the (public works) commissioner is able to practice medicine without a medical license?” Lopi LaRoe, a local artist, said at the Jan. 29 hearing. “He’s essentially prescribing medication and putting it directly into our water, without a medical license.”

LaRoe said installing a household system to remove fluoride from tap water is too costly. If Rutland water stopped being fluoridated, she said, those who want to include it in their drinking water can choose to use a fluoride additive.

“I think it’s unfair to put the onus on the people who don’t want it in their water,” she said.

No local residents spoke at the hearings in favor of keeping fluoridation.

Michael Talbott, president of Rutland’s Board of Aldermen, suggested this reflected the dynamic among people who support the current system, versus those who are advocating for change.

“People have reached out to me individually to express that they want fluoridation to continue. But I think that’s pretty typical, right?” Talbott said in an interview. “People who support fluoridation, that is the status quo, they’re going to tend to be less vocal, less visible. Perhaps if the ballot measure passes, they will become more vocal and more active.”

 Fear of a return to the ‘dark ages’

Two dentists from out of town, who attended the Jan. 29 public hearing, advocated for keeping Rutland water fluoridated, emphasizing that it has lowered the rate of tooth decay and diseases.

“Chronic tooth decay is the most common chronic disease for adults and children in the United States,” said Joseph Errante, an executive with Northeast Delta Dental insurance. “As a practicing dentist, I would hate to see us revert back to … the dark ages, in a way, where we would have much, much, much more tooth decay than we have today.”

A reversal of the current water treatment regulation, he said, would be a “catastrophe” for Rutland, which is facing a steep shortage of dentists.

Steve Rayes, a member of the Vermont State Dental Society, said there have been thousands of scientific studies of fluoride, and none show any link to serious health problems, such as neurological toxicity and cancer that the opponents earlier mentioned. But the dentists acknowledged that too much fluoride intake during childhood can lead to dental fluorosis, or changes in the appearance of tooth enamel.

State Oral Health Director Robin Miller, who participated in the event, said Vermont communities that fluoridate their water maintain the optimal fluoride concentration of 0.7 parts per million. The state, she said, monitors the communities’ concentration levels and contracts with an engineer to do site visits.

Some Rutland dentists who spoke to VTDigger said they’re providing information to their patients about the benefits of fluoridation ahead of Town Meeting Day on March 5.

Judith Fisch, a dentist who has been practicing in Rutland for about 35 years, said that, over the decades, she has seen a decrease in the number of local children and teenagers who need restorative work on their teeth. These are issues, Fisch said, she more commonly sees among people in their 50s and older, the generation who might not have been exposed to fluoridated water.

“The effects that the opposition claims occur are not really backed by reputable scientific organizations, research organizations,” said Fisch, who has served on the board of trustees of the American Dental Association.

Fisch said she is among only eight dentists who are practicing in Rutland, and who also serve people in neighboring counties.

The question of whether to stop water fluoridation had previously gone before Rutland voters in 2016, and the status quo prevailed.

Ballot voting on March 5 will be held at polling places for the city’s four wards.

Original article online at https://vtdigger.org/2024/02/11/upcoming-rutland-fluoridation-vote-pits-naysayers-against-dentists/