Heavily Amended Fluoride Removal Bill Fails In Tennessee Senate Committee

Heavily Amended Fluoride Removal Bill Fails In Tennessee Senate Committee

Heavily Amended Fluoride Removal Bill Fails In Tennessee Senate Committee

Image Credit: TN General Assembly

The Tennessee Conservative [By Olivia Lupia] –

SB1141, sponsored by Senator Rusty Crowe (R-Johnson City-District 3), failed in the Senate Energy, Agriculture, and Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday, March 19. 

The legislation would have revised the water testing standards for fluoride and reduced the amount of allowable detectable fluoride in analysis of public water systems from 1.5 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to .7 mg/L. The bill originally proposed lowering the limit to .4 mg/L but was raised with an amendment. 

Initially, based on growing health concerns surrounding the chemical, the legislation would have also required the complete removal of fluoride from the public water system and made adding fluoride to public supplies a prohibited action but those provisions were stripped from the bill, leaving it a rather emaciated version of the original. 

Sen. Crowe elaborated on the drastic amendments to the bill, stating the 0.7 mg/L number is “what our dentists want, the EPA recommends as the optimal, and where we probably hope we are today. It simply requires that we’re going to test and see that that’s where we are. And if you’re not, then you’re in violation of the Tennessee Safe Water Act.”

The committee heard from Leon Stanislav, a recently retired dentist who has also served on the National Fluoridation Advisory Committee of the American Dental Association (ADA) for 15 years. Stanislav agreed the .7mg/L level would be an acceptable “target” to the ADA, but stated he thinks it would be too difficult for water operators to hit that level “on the nose”.

“I think they would like a range. 0.7 to 0.9, something like that. If we leave it strictly so close to 0.7 that they have to hit it precisely, they’re going to go below. And if they go below, we’re going to lose that optimum benefit of fluoride,” he testified. 

Sen. Crowe rebutted by reminding the committee that his bill does provide a range of 0.7 to 0.75 and argued that range should be sufficient given the amount of fluoride also found in many dental products like toothpastes and mouthwashes, which he believes puts usage well over the 0.7 target. 

Sen. Adam Lowe (R-Calhoun-District 1) asked Stanislav, “Can you name another situation where we’ve forced the public to consume a chemical?” To which the dentist replied, “I don’t think anyone’s forced to consume it. They can drink water from different supplies, they can use reverse osmosis in their homes. There’s no one that is forced to drink the water.”

A representative from the Department of Health also spoke to the committee stating the Department, “is not opposed to an optimum level being set in statute. I think we have similar concerns that the dentist relayed for water authority being able to comply with the statute as written.”  

In closing, Sen. Crowe implored, “I think the concern is if we start testing it like we should to make sure we’re not hurting children, they’re afraid that they might find that they are hurting children and that many of them might stop using it altogether. That’s the fear, I think, of the dental society. We’ve been champions for our dentists throughout the years, but there comes a time, it’s kind of like tough love, you’ve got to do what’s right and start testing this stuff to see where we are. We don’t know where we are, we have no idea. It’s time we start doing what’s right and start checking things out.”

Ultimately, the vote was 6-3 against, with members voting “No” being Campbell, Harshbarger, Oliver, Reeves, Seal, and Walley. Members voting “Yes” were Sens. Bowling, Lowe, and Pody.

The Senate committee did, however, pass SB1142, also sponsored by Crowe which according to the bill’s summary, “requires each utility system to obtain a certificate of analysis for any water sold by the utility system that contains fluoride, and post the certificate and the material safety data sheet for fluoride online.” The bill passed in a 7-2 vote along party lines.

Olivia Lupia is a political refugee from Colorado who now calls Tennessee home. A proud follower of Christ, she views all political happenings through a Biblical lens and aims to utilize her knowledge and experience to educate and equip others. Olivia is an outspoken conservative who has run for local office, managed campaigns, and been highly involved with state & local GOPs, state legislatures, and other grassroots organizations and movements. Olivia can be reached at olivia@tennesseeconservativenews.com.

Share this:

3 Responses

  1. Did the supplier of the fluoride for the public water system threaten to stop their financial support for campaigns???

  2. These “experts” leave a lot to be desired when it comes to consuming the by-product, hazardous waste from commercial phosphate fertilizer plants being dumped into the water supply and called “fluoride” that’s good for your teeth. This isn’t pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride a dentist might paint on your teeth. It’s industrial waste from a wet scrubber at a phospate fertilizer plant – because the fluoride gases produced by the manufacturing process are illegal to exhaust into the atmosphere. Why? “Airborne fluorides have caused more worldwide damage to domestic animals than any other air pollutant” (Lillie 1970).

    A) “Fluoride” isn’t the only thing being added to the water. It is in the form of hydroflurosilicic acid. It includes other poisonous contaminants included that are never discussed in these legislative dog-and-pony shows. Get the SDS (safety data sheet) from your municipal water supply for the “fluoride” they are adding to your water…if they will share it. Many years ago (2013-2014 when Republicans last refused to even allow localities to vote to remove the additives to their water), Knox Chapman Utility District refused to provide it to me on request. Why do the utility companies refuse to test their water? Show water quality before and after the additives. Show the silica, lead and arsenic levels before and after adding the “fluoride”.

    B) There is no recommended dosage rate for this substance – and note they only talk about the “fluoride” and will not address the other pollutants included. The expert here (as always) talks about a concentration of “fluoride” in the water, but that’s it. Well, how much water should a person drink at that approved concentration to get the proper dose of “fluoride”? Should a 3-year old have the same amount as a grown adult? What about a 150-lb man vs. a 200-lb man? They drink different amounts of the “fluoride”. How much do they need? How much is too much, because fluoridosis is a real thing. Why can’t the experts give anyone a number of ounces per day of water needed per unit body weight? That would be a scientific dose. They don’t have one, because this is junk science and it is simply an avenue to get you to pay to have industrial waste dumped into your water supply.

    It’s illegal to dump it anywhere else.

    https://fluoridealert.org/content/phosphate01/

Leave a Reply

Stay Informed. Stay Ahead.

Before you go, don’t miss the headlines that matter—plus sharp opinions and a touch of humor, delivered to your inbox.

Subscribe now and never miss a beat.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
Please prove you are human by selecting the tree: