Image Credit: Canva
The Tennessee Conservative [By Olivia Lupia] –
Two separate bills have been filed by Republicans which would prohibit chemical fluoride from being added to public water supplies, with both advocating for an interest in protecting public health and offering autonomy for Tennesseans who believe the government should not be able to add chemicals to the food and water supply, especially without the consent of the governed.
Rep. Michele Reneau’s HB2396 is less than one page in length and would simply add fluoridating a public water system to the list of prohibited acts concerning water systems under the Tennessee Safe Drinking Water Act of 1983.
This bill is one of several Reneau has filed in a series aimed at “strengthening public health protections, increasing transparency and safeguarding families from unnecessary environmental and chemical exposures”.
Reneau shared her legislative slate with Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. when he visited the Tennessee capitol last week to reiterate the importance of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda.
A Senate companion bill, SB0162 is carried by Sen. Joey Hensley and was originally filed last year along with several other pieces of fluoride-related legislation which never made it out of the committee process.
HB2396 has been assigned to the House Agriculture & Natural Resources Subcommittee while SB0162 has been referred to the Senate Energy, Agriculture, and Natural Resources Committee, though neither has a calendar date yet.
The second bill filed on defluoridation from Rep. Susan Lynn, titled the “Tennessee Fluoride-Free Water Act” is more detailed and would extend defluoridation requirements to not only public water systems, but also bottled water.
HB2471 recognizes that “the addition of fluoride to public drinking water is a matter of public health concern and individual choice”, finds that consumers have a “limited ability” to avoid fluoride in municipal or bottled water supplies, and asserts the “State has a compelling interest in protecting the health and autonomy of its residents by ensuring access to fluoride-free drinking water.”
This legislation would also make adding fluoride to a public water system a prohibited action under the same statute as Reneau’s HB2396 but goes a step further by specifically listing the three different types of chemical fluoride which would be prohibited and includes any other compound “intended to raise fluoride levels in water”.
Additionally, the bill would require monthly testing and remediation for public systems whose already-required quarterly water tests exceed the maximum containment level goal (MCLG) for fluoride established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As fluoride is a naturally occurring substance, its presence in water would be expected in tested samples, but the act would ensure extra testing is performed, customers are notified, and actions are taken to reduce the amount of even naturally occurring fluoride if the amount goes beyond the recommended MCLG.
Any person who fails to comply with the defluoridation and testing requirements would be subject to a civil penalty of $1,000-$5,000 per day for each violation.
Concerning other forms of water supply, the act would also prohibit the sale or distribution in the state of bottled water containing any form of added fluoride. Any bottled water which contains naturally occurring fluoride would be required to clearly label the fluoride concentration, and if that level exceeds the MCLG of .07mg/L, the bottle must be clearly labeled with a warning reading, “This product contains fluoride at levels exceeding the recommended limit for optimal health.”
The Commissioner of Agriculture would be empowered to detain or embargo any bottled water suspected of containing added fluoride or falsely representing its natural amount and petition a judge for an order of condemnation, which would force the product’s destruction. Violations would also be punishable by a $500 civil penalty, with each individual bottle counting as a separate violation.
Furthermore, the Attorney General would also be allowed to bring an action against the violator and recover an additional $500 civil penalty per violation.
Both the House and Senate versions (SB2304 by Sen. Mark Pody) of this bill have been referred to the same committees as the Reneau/Hensley bill, so there is likely to be much upcoming discussion on the topic as lawmakers weigh both proposals.
Two utility districts on opposite ends of the state independently voted to defluoridate their water supplies last year, one in the Clarksville area and the other in Tellico, despite pushback from large medical associations and dental practitioners who argue extra fluoridation is necessary for dental protections and restricting its usage could adversely impact those with “lesser access” to healthcare.
Though the legislature was not receptive to legislation on the topic last year, with the rise of the MAHA movement, backing by national officials like Kennedy, and more research validating claims that fluoride can be a detrimental substance, particularly to children, the chances of success on this go around seem significantly bolstered.
About the Author: 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.
One Response
Fluoride should simply be provided to those stupid enough to want it. I remember well the fluoride “treatments” given to country kids and their STRONG admonition to NOT swallow. It may help teeth but is harmful to all else.