Fluorode should be taken out of the water supplies
HB691
House · 2025 sessionBipartisanKilled in HouseBan on water fluoridation
AIRepeals and prohibits the introduction of fluoride or fluoride-containing chemicals into public water systems and eliminates related statutes on local referenda for water fluoridation.
prohibiting the addition of fluoridation chemicals to public water systems.
Status
Killed in the House — Inexpedient to Legislate · March 6, 2025- ✓Introduced
- ✕House
- Senate
- Governor
- Law
Division of testimony
496 submissionsArgument digest · AI-generated
from 139 of 139 written submissionsHB691 would prohibit the addition of fluoridation chemicals to public water systems in New Hampshire. Supporters argue fluoride is a neurotoxin linked to serious health risks and that water fluoridation amounts to unconsented mass medication at an uncontrolled dose when alternative delivery methods already exist. Opponents, including many dental and medical professionals, argue fluoridation is a safe, extensively studied, and cost-effective public health measure that especially benefits children and low-income residents lacking dental access, and warn that removing it would increase decay rates and costs, often citing Calgary's reversal after eliminating fluoride.
- Fluoride is a neurotoxin linked to serious health harmsSupport20 of 139 reviewed
Supporters argue that fluoride is a neurotoxin associated with reduced IQ, cognitive impairment, and a range of other health problems including cancer, thyroid, kidney, and cardiovascular disease, citing hundreds of studies.
“Fluoride is chemical waste. It is a neurotoxin. It causes Cancer, impairs bone strength, impairs IQ, impairs kidneys, impairs thyroid, recedes gums, depresses heart and cell growth and increases infertility.”
— Rachel Soletto, Seabrook · #434615 — read full submission →
“Fluoride is a known neurotoxin that severely degrades human IQ. Statistics show a major decrease in psychometric intelligence since the 1940s.”
— Danielle Haines, Concord · #420039 — read full submission →
“Adding fluoride or any of its derivatives is scientifically shown to cause neurological damages. New studies are showing this over and over again.”
— Joshua McAllister, Keene · #461044 — read full submission →
- Water fluoridation is involuntary mass medicationSupport8 of 139 reviewed
Supporters argue that adding fluoride to drinking water forces an uncontrolled dose of a medication on the public without informed consent, comparing it to a violation of medical ethics or the Nuremberg code.
“This unscientific policy mass medicates all who are exposed without informed consent. It is violation of standard medical practice and the Nuremberg code.”
— Beverly DeCer RN, Williamsport · #461321 — read full submission →
“Delivering fluoride using the public water supply violates all principles of modern pharmacology. Infants, athletes and the elderly will all have different doses to consider”
— William Potter, Norwich · #457033 — read full submission →
- Fluoridation is ineffective and unnecessary given alternativesSupport6 of 139 reviewed
Supporters cite research suggesting fluoride works mainly topically rather than through ingestion and provides minimal benefit, and note that toothpaste, dental treatments, and other alternatives already provide fluoride for those who want it.
“The American Dental Association has published that water fluoridation is ineffective: “Fluoride incorporated during tooth development is insufficient to play a significant role in caries [cavity] protection.””
— Susan Stantejsky, Denver · #459111 — read full submission →
“flouride is still readily available in low-cost tablets, rinses, sealants, foams, pastes, toothpastes and more. There is absolutely no just cause to add fluoride to drinking water.”
— Jennifer Winand, Plainfield · #457894 — read full submission →
- Vulnerable subpopulations face disproportionate riskSupport4 of 139 reviewed
Supporters argue that infants, pregnant women, the elderly, and individuals sensitive or allergic to fluoride face heightened risk from an untailored, one-size-fits-all dose delivered through the water supply.
“My daughter happens to be part of the 1% of the public (estimated) to be ALLERGIC to fluoride. The EPA, FDA, CDC, HHS do not give ANY CONSIDERATION to this subpopulation.”
— Beverly DeCer RN, Williamsport · #461321 — read full submission →
“I urge you to support HB691 to protect our most vulnerable...infants and pregnant women.”
— Anastacia Whitman, Portland · #461461 — read full submission →
- Avoiding fluoridated water is costly and inequitableSupport2 of 139 reviewed
Supporters note that residents who do not want fluoride must pay for bottled water or expensive filtration systems, creating a financial burden that falls unevenly on those without means.
“However, many of us who don't want fluoride, can not drink city water. We have to purchase non-fluoridated water.”
— Angela Turcotte, Dover · #427459 — read full submission →
“Installing a reverse osmosis water filtration system to remove fluoride costs upwards of $20,000, presenting yet another unfair advantage the rich have over the poor in upward mobility and health outcomes.”
— Josane Cumandala, Dover · #461417 — read full submission →
- Fluoridation is safe, effective, and scientifically endorsedOppose65 of 139 reviewed
Opponents of the bill argue that water fluoridation is a well-studied, safe, and effective way to prevent tooth decay, citing endorsements from the CDC, ADA, WHO, and American Academy of Pediatrics and decades of supporting research.
“Water fluoridation has been endorsed by major public health organizations, including the American Dental Association (ADA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the American Academy of Pediatrics.”
— MICHAEL RAMSEY, Stratham · #436310 — read full submission →
“Fluoride in public water sources has reduced the incidence of caries (cavities) by 30-40%. It has been called one of the 10 most important and effective public health measures in decades.”
— Suzanne Boulter, Waterville Valley · #453714 — read full submission →
“Fluoride is one of the safest and most effective public health interventions in history. there is no reason to get rid of it.”
— Alicia Frank, Londonderry · #459872 — read full submission →
- Professional and personal experience supports fluoridationOppose17 of 139 reviewed
Dental hygienists, physicians, school nurses, and residents describe firsthand clinical or personal experience observing better dental outcomes in fluoridated communities.
“As a Registered Dental Hygienist in the state of New Hampshire, specifically Coos County, I strongly oppose this bill. I have worked as a clinical dental hygienist since 2001, seeing the obvious differences in those who have benefited from community water fluoridation”
— Angela Simino, Northumberland · #458676 — read full submission →
“I am a former school, nurse, and saw children in underserved communities with severe dental decay, through lack of ability to get oral healthcare. These children were in pain, and sometimes unable to attend school.”
— Joline Manseau, Hollis · #454401 — read full submission →
- Health-risk claims are scientifically unfoundedOppose15 of 139 reviewed
Opponents contend that claims linking fluoridation to IQ loss, cancer, or other harms rely on flawed or insufficiently rigorous studies, and that exposure at water-supply levels is below any toxic threshold.
“There is *zero* scientific evidence that fluoride has any negative impacts on humans. The single study around osteosarcoma is far from the required scientific rigor needed to make any claims of carcinogenic effects.”
— Adam Karolian, Dover · #441368 — read full submission →
“The recent publication that is often being cited for suggesting a link between fluoride exposure and a decrease in IQ is littered with fallacies.”
— Michael Maziarz, Bethlehem · #458404 — read full submission →
“Since the body does not recognize the difference between fluoride that occurs naturally in drinking water or is added, the supposed health effects are the same.”
— Catherine DiPentima, Portsmouth · #447903 — read full submission →
- Removal would increase costs to families and the stateOppose16 of 139 reviewed
Opponents warn that eliminating fluoridation would raise dental and healthcare costs for families, Medicaid, and the state, some citing the bill's own fiscal note projecting $1-3 million in added annual costs.
“This bill will cost NH taxpayers $1-3 million or more to offset the loss of municipal fluoridation with prescription fluoride supplements for children under the age of 13 in the Medicaid system..”
— Janet Lucas, Campton · #451008 — read full submission →
“The description of this bill even states that it is projected to cause a $1,000,000 to $3,000,000 increase in costs annually due to increased rates of tooth decay and dental problems caused by this bill.”
— Corinne Disenhof, Nashua · #435670 — read full submission →
- Removal disproportionately harms children and low-income residentsOppose13 of 139 reviewed
Opponents argue that eliminating fluoridation would disproportionately affect children, low-income residents, and those without regular access to dental care.
“This legislation also disproportionately harms developing children, especially those with lower socioeconomic status or who may not have access to dental care.”
— Kelsey Price, Exeter · #456340 — read full submission →
“making it especially challenging for children on Medicaid and other forms of public insurance coverage to access dental care since there are too few pediatric dentists who take these most vulnerable children.”
— Suzanne Boulter, Waterville Valley · #453714 — read full submission →
- Calgary and other cities regretted removing fluorideOppose7 of 139 reviewed
Opponents point to Calgary and similar municipalities that stopped fluoridating water, saw increased tooth decay or hospitalizations, and later reinstated fluoridation, as a cautionary precedent for NH.
“Calgary, for example, removed fluoride from public water in 2011. They have recently decided to add it back. Why? Because after 13 years they saw no positive effects come from removing it.”
— Sirus Palmer, Deering · #438073 — read full submission →
“Please look up what happened in Canada when they removed fluoride from the water. Child hospitalizations increased because kids were getting infections.”
— Heather Fritchy, DERRY · #460145 — read full submission →
- Fluoridation should remain a local decisionOppose7 of 139 reviewed
Some opponents argue that whether to fluoridate water should remain a municipal choice, characterizing a statewide prohibition as government overreach that could override existing local referenda.
“Current State Law outlines how communities can decide to add or remove fluoride from their water supply. As such, several cities and towns have followed that law and held referenda on this matter. This legislation would nullify the”
— RICHARD DiPentima, Portsmouth · #427438 — read full submission →
“This bill represents state overreach in municipal matters. Each municipality has the right, and deserves the right to choose what they do or do not do in their town.”
— Joseph Cartier, Deerfield · #440031 — read full submission →
- General frustration characterizing the bill as anti-scienceOppose12 of 139 reviewed
A number of opponents express general frustration or dismay, characterizing the bill and similar legislation as anti-science or a waste of legislative time, without offering an independent substantive argument.
“This is my 3rd time having to get on this website and oppose some dumb shit y’all are trying to do. You should be disgusted with yourselves. All of you.”
— William Couch, Nashua · #436021 — read full submission →
“Can you folks in Concord try to do something that *helps* granite staters, for a change? Maybe just one day a month, for fun?”
— Johanna Cannon, Madbury · #439097 — read full submission →
Generated by claude-sonnet-5 (claude code agent) on Jul 20, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Summaries are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.
I agree that fluoride should be taken out of the water supply
I support this bill in removing fluoride from public water supplies
There is so much research showing that ingesting fluoride is absolutely horrible for our health and it’s even worse when we have to spray it on our organic plants that we’re growing in our yard because we all have health conditions. We all have genetic defects that are triggered by these toxic chemicals. If you have children, don’t you remember when the doctor told you not to let them use fluoride toothpaste, and even when they did start using fluoride tooth paste not to swallow it? The body does not need fluoride in any way shape or form. Fluoride is a toxic waste. It reduces the IQ of our children! You might think that fluoride reduces the number of cavities i. children, but that is not true. It’s actually better oral hygiene overall such as frequent brushing, it’s not the fluoride that’s doing it. Please stop adding fluoride to our water!
Please don’t pass this when we know the benefits of fluoride in our water.
Fluoride lowers IQ. It is a toxic substance. PLEASE stop knowingly poisoning our families.
Dear Representative, As a Board-Certified Pediatric Dentist, I strongly oppose community water fluoridation based on current evidence, and I urge you to support HB691 to protect our most vulnerable...infants and pregnant women. The latest Cochrane Report findings show the benefits of water fluoridation in cavity reduction are minimal—only about a quarter of a cavity per person, including "the possibility of no benefit." In contrast, the potential risks, particularly neurodevelopment and IQ reduction, are significant. We only have one opportunity to develop a brain, and as a dentist, I cannot fix a brain, but I can fix a tooth. Comparisons between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities are anecdotal and unsupported by my 20 years of experience and current research, including WHO data. Caries rates are influenced by diet, hygiene, breathing, nutritional deficiencies, and factors like oral and gut microbiomes. Fluoride is pervasive in pharmaceuticals, ultra-processed foods, topical oral healthcare products, and other sources, making it impossible to control total exposure per individual. Mass medication without informed consent is unacceptable. The burden of proof lies in ensuring safety, especially given fluoride's presence in numerous sources. Recent data, including the National Toxicology Program and JAMA Pediatrics meta-analysis, highlight fluoride's neurocognitive risks. I urge you to prioritize children's brain and whole-body health. I encourage you to grant the community a choice. Fluoride can be used topically in toothpastes and rinses if one chooses. It should not be forced upon us. Please consider supporting the end of water fluoridation in your community. Sincerely, Dr. Anastacia M Whitman, DMD, IFMCP
I am in support of this bill. Public medication through drinking water fluoridation needs to end. The dosing per gallon is known, but the EXPOSURE rate is uncontrolled. Fluoride is naturally occurring in our food sources, and additional supplements are both not needed and at times dangerous. In the absence of public fluoridation, someone concerned with their fluoridation level being insufficient has many options to increase it individually - through toothpaste with added fluoride, mouthwash containing it, topical treatment in a dental office or via supplemental intake by prescription - all of which come with warnings against excessive ingestion - and the threshold to be "in excess" is a very small amount above "sufficient for dosing" - fluoride is not something to consume extra of safely. It is time to give the residents of NH the confidence that our public drinking water is safe from medical intervention.
I support this legislation because medicating the public without their consent is unethical and the risks presented by water fluoridation far outweigh any supposed benefit. Water fluoridation has been banned in many countries already. Installing a reverse osmosis water filtration system to remove fluoride costs upwards of $20,000, presenting yet another unfair advantage the rich have over the poor in upward mobility and health outcomes.
Dear Committee members, As a practicing family physician for over 20 years in New Hampshire, I am writing to ask you to oppose HB 691. Water fluoridation has been incredibly helpful in preventing dental decay. Having good oral health is critically important to overall physical health. The science is clear and has proven to be beneficial for decades now and is widely recognized as one of the top public health interventions that have benefited the American public over the past century. Please continue the practice of adding fluoride to our water supply and by doing so protecting the oral health of all children and adults in New Hampshire. Please oppose HB 691. Sincerely, P. Travis Harker MD MPH
For the sake of public health, no fluoride! It is a neurotoxin
As a retired nurse and mother of a fluoride injured adult daughter, I BEG YOU to vote to prohibit the addition of fluoridation chemicals to public water systems. This unscientific policy mass medicates all who are exposed without informed consent. It is violation of standard medical practice and the Nuremberg code. My daughter happens to be part of the 1% of the public (estimated) to be ALLERGIC to fluoride. The EPA, FDA, CDC, HHS do not give ANY CONSIDERATION to this subpopulation. My daughter's health was severely impacted until we finally discovered fluoridation was the cause. NO DOCTOR ever helped us, and we spent thousands of dollars and countless days in error, until we found the answer. I also live with the knowledge that my daughter was exposed prenatally to Philadelphia water, then fluoridated at 1..2 PPM. ALMOST TWICE the amount today...neurologic damage has been documented at the current level of 0.7 PPM. I tested her IQ at age 5 and it it was disappointing, I didn't know about fluoride as a neurodevelopmental toxin at that time. Nerudevelopmental damage by fluoride was proven at the Forsythe Dental Institute of Harvard IN TTHE 1990's. But that scientist, Phyllis Mullenix was silenced and FIRED. I am still furious about my daughter's prenatal exposure and it should stop for everyone IMMEDIATELY. PLEASE MAKE THE RIGHT AND SCIENTIFIC DECISION AND VOTE YES! Beverly DeCer RN 610-952-4391
Hundreds of studies linking serious health effects:? ?- neurotoxicity – cognitive impairment, reduced intelligence/IQ? – behavior issues – ADHD? – arthritis? – cancer?- cardiovascular disease? – kidney disease ?- iodine and thyroid suppression? – diabetes/endocrine disruption? – gastrointestinal effects? – premature menarche in adolescent girls?- infertility? – sleep issues r/t pineal gland laden with the chemicals ?- teeth… and skeletal fluorosis, leading to fracture?? – toxic synergy between fluoride and aluminum?? – damaging the developing brain in utero exposure is without a doubt linked with neurobehavioral issues FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK? – A phenomenal resource with over 300 research studies, at least 50 linking fluoride exposure to reduced intelligence in humans.
According to Johns Hopkins, "The fluoride in our water has passively protected the oral health of Americans for decades by reducing cavities, tooth decay, and dental health disparities. So much so, that the CDC has declared community water fluoridation one of the 20th century's greatest public health achievements." (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2024/why-is-fluoride-in-our-water) Please trust the science of our finest academic institutions.
Dear Committee Members, Please allow NH communities to choose to fluoridate our water. I like drinking water from the tap. I don't want cavities. Obviously, there's strong evidence that fluoride is good for dental health; I'm sure others will comment on this. I want to highlight some of the relevant econometric research for the committee. Aggeborn and Öhman (2021) systematically evaluated the impact of childhood fluoridation use in Sweden and found substantial positive health impacts and positive effects on labor income. These economic benefits were concentrated in lower income earners. Their research estimates that "[a]n increase in fluoride by 1 milligram/liter would thus yield a similar increase as roughly half a year of additional education." The results reproduce a finding by Glied and Neidell (2010) using US data that found a similar economic impact for women. The cost of poor dental hygiene is real and should not be ignored by the committee. Thank you, Karl Sources: - https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/711915 - https://www.nber.org/papers/w13879
Water fluoridation has been a vital and necessary public health measure that has significantly improved the population's health. I strongly OPPOSE this bill.
While it's been known for many years, it's just been widely broadcast that fluoride is a poison to the brain, especially the growing young brain. The Fluoride Action Network has worked for years to let the general public know of these dangers. Adding fluoride to drinking water can be considered as adding a pharmaceutical/drug to the water that people are drinking, and adding a 'medicine' without their consent. Topical fluoride as applied b the dentist is a better route to obtain fluoride for dental health. Too much fluoride (and fluoride in water supplies an unknown quantity of fluoride, dependent on amount of water drank and concentration of it in the water supply) leads to bone and thyroid issues. Please stop the addition of fluoride to public water by SUPPORTING hb691.
Having grown up enjoying the wild waters of our country, I have a vast appreciation for drinking as close to pure water as it gets. Adding fluoride or any of its derivatives is scientifically shown to cause neurological damages. New studies are showing this over and over again. Fluoride binds to anything with a free electron. It does this more than ANY other element, and this is partly why it is so damaging. I support the ban of the neurotoxic Fluoridation of our water supply.
Removing fluoride could substantially increase childhood cavity rates due to a number of children in this state who do not have a dental home and cannot benefit from fluoride treatments administered in the dental office.
Scientific evidence shows that fluoridation of public water supplies has a very significant impact on prevention of dental caries. I urge you as one who works in the dental profession to defeat this bill.
I support taking fluoride put of water supplies.
Is there science to show that consuming fluoride benefits people once their teeth are formed? I would prefer not to drink chemicals that I don’t need. We already have enough of that going on in our water.
As a dental hygienist of over 40 years , I have see the pros and cons of fluoride in our water and it is a huge benefit for the broad public health.
Please look up what happened in Canada when they removed fluoride from the water. Child hospitalizations increased because kids were getting infections. Many people in this state don't have dental insurance and are unable to afford going to the dentist. I think before we jump to removing it we need to look at the effects and how to mitigate the negative ones.
I grew up in Illinois. After college I moved to Boston and then to New Hampshire. I've had 3 dentists in the 35 years I've lived in New Hampshire. Each one of them have said to me, "you didn't grow-up around here did you?" I asked how they knew that. "It's because your teeth are in such good shape." I grew up in a city in Illinois which had flouride in the water system. Please don't think of taking away flouride from my grandchildren and their teeth.