Fluoride bill loses its bite: Legislature says it will not consider
mandate, essentially killing chances
By Jon Brodkin / Daily News Staff
Saturday, March 4, 2006

E-mail article   View text version   View most popular
A proposal to mandate fluoridation of most water supplies in the
state was effectively killed this week when the Legislature's Public
Health committee decided not to consider it any further this
session.

    The bill, opposed by many people concerned about the health
effects of fluoride, was put into "study," a move used to end
discussion.

    "For all intents and purposes, it means it's not likely to move
forward this session," said Rep. Peter Koutoujian, D-Waltham, co-
chairman of the Public Health panel.



    Natick chemist Myron Coplan, whose research found that children
in fluoridated communities are at risk for excess levels of lead in
their blood, said the move is good news for fluoridation opponents.

    "From what I know about the Legislature, that's the offhanded
way of saying, 'We don't want to talk about it anymore,'" Coplan
said.

    The unanimous vote to table the statewide fluoridation proposal
was not surprising. In December, the measure's leading proponent in
the Senate, Sen. Pamela Resor, D-Acton, said research linking
fluoridated water to bone cancer and other problems had convinced
her that lawmakers should not vote on the proposal until a study is
performed.

    Putting a bill into study does not actually require anyone to
look at the proposal again, unless they take an action like forming
a commission to examine the issue.

    But Sen. Susan Fargo, D-Lincoln, co-chairwoman of the Public
Health committee, said the bill may not be dead yet.

    "It's not necessarily a black hole. We can take it out of
study," she said.

    Fargo said she has no worries about the health impacts of
fluoride. But she said the committee was concerned about taking
control over fluoridation away from communities, and a provision in
the bill that would require the state to reimburse cities and towns
for fluoride costs.

    Resor's bill would require fluoridation of any municipal water
supply that serves at least 5,000 people.  [continue]


Currently, more than one-third of Massachusetts cities and towns
have fluoridated drinking water, including all of those served by
the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.