This bill establishes a committee to study the effects of fluoride and fetuses on children.
Bill sponsor Peter Schmidt (D-Dover) said he developed concerns about the issue after hearing studies about the impact on fluoride and felt it was a matter of extreme urgency.
Currently 199 municipalities in New Hampshire do not have fluoride in their water supplies.
Shapiro asked Schmidt what legislation might come out of this, Schmidt did not want to direct the study committee, but hoped that the latest and best science should be used in studying the issue.
Layon asked if Schmidt would serve on the committee, although he would although his age might be a factor
Dr, Brenda Burkal of the New Hampshire Dental Society spoke in opposition to the bill, stating that the study committee would give air time to support those opposed to the use of fluoride in dental health.
Other health advocates and dental experts spoke against the bill, stating that concerns over fluorosis are minor compared to the benefits related to the impact of fluoride on dental health, especially for children.
King said that there would be no guarantee that members of the study committee would be opposed to fluoride, but Burkal said there has already been massive studies of fluorides over the past 80 years.
Phillips returned to state that fluoride is a neurotoxin and was unsure why there would be opposition to the bill.
“What are we so afraid of, the truth?” said Phillips.
Cushman asked if there are other studies to an individual testifying in support of the bill, learning that there are ongoing studies in Hawaii, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania.
As of Thursday, in regard to online testimony, there were 76 people in support of the bill and none opposed.
*Original full-text article online at: https://manchesterinklink.com/vaccines-fluoride-medical-records-and-more-on-thursday-legislative-docket/