Editor:
The recent decision by the City Council to repeal the fluoride ordinance is deeply troubling — not only because of the outcome, but also because of the process.
This change affects the health of all 10,000 residents of our community.
Yet the first public notice of the repeal appeared only in the July 2 edition of the local newspaper, with no meaningful effort made to solicit public input or encourage open dialogue.
For a policy with such far-reaching public health implications, the lack of transparency is alarming.
The mayor noted that the city received multiple requests to remove fluoride — a classic example of a vocal minority influencing policy while the silent majority, generally satisfied with the status quo, remained unheard due to lack of outreach.
While a public comment period technically existed, no real effort was made to inform or invite participation from the broader community.
One councilor cited consultation with a dentist, from outside Sweet Home, who supported
fluoride removal. Yet public health policy cannot hinge on isolated anecdotes.
Sound decisions must be grounded in peer-reviewed evidence and expert consensus, not selective conversations from an individual naysayer.
No legitimate forum for debate was provided. Testimony was limited to three minutes per
speaker, reducing complex scientific issues to sound bites. This is especially concerning given the flood of misinformation and fear-based claims circulating about fluoride.
A thoughtful, city-level discussion should have preceded any vote.
Some council members spoke of representing their constituents, yet failed to seek input from the wider community or put the issue to a public vote. A policy originally approved by the people was quietly overturned by seven council members, with no scientific justification
provided.
Not a single peer-reviewed study has been cited to support this repeal.
In a particularly questionable move, the council conducted two of three readings of the
ordinance in a single night. While this may have been legally permissible, it gave the
appearance of a rushed and poorly handled process.
Compounding the concern, one councilor was unable to remotely participate in that meeting due to technical problems at City Hall — raising further questions about fairness and transparency.
Equally concerning is the fact that the City Health Committee was neither consulted nor
informed, and local or state public health experts were not brought into the conversation. The omission is glaring.
Suggestions that residents can simply “take supplements” or “just brush their teeth” fail to
recognize that fluoride supplements are expensive and impractical, and that brushing does not replicate the topical as well as systemic benefits of fluoridated water — particularly for children, the elderly, and those without regular dental care.
Concerns raised about a federal court case in California are misleading. The case hinges on misinterpretations of the National Toxicology Program report. This report examined studies from foreign countries such as China and India with much higher fluoride levels due to environmental pollution, not water fluoridation.
The federal judge explicitly noted in his ruling that the NTP report was not designed to evaluate a potential risk of harm from drinking water containing fluoride at the optimal U.S. level of 0.7 mg/L.
As with all substances, dosage makes the difference between benefit and harm.
Vitamin A and D are essential to life, but can be toxic in excess.
There is also a significant question of legal accountability. If the fluoridation system has been non-functional since 2019, the city may be in violation of its own ordinance.
Moreover, funds have reportedly been appropriated in the municipal budget for the repair and operation of the system, yet those funds appear to have gone unused. This raises serious concerns about potential negligence, mismanagement of public resources, and exposure to liability.
Public health experts overwhelmingly support community water fluoridation at 0.7 ppm as safe and effective. This isn’t fringe science — it’s backed by virtually every major public health institution in the world.
The current U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, has stated: “Community water fluoridation is one of the most practical, costeffective, equitable, and safe
measures communities can take to prevent tooth decay and improve oral health.”
Just across the river, the city of Camas, Wash., voted on July 7 to maintain its fluoridation
Program — recognizing its public health value. Notably, Camas has a poverty rate of 5.1%,
compared to 17.4% in Sweet Home. The need here is greater, not less.
This repeal was not based on evidence, not rooted in science, and not conducted with adequate transparency. Sweet Home deserves better.
Let’s prioritize public health over politics, science over anecdotes, and transparency over expedience.
I urge the city to hold a public forum or town hall — inviting residents, healthcare professionals, and public health experts — to openly discuss the facts, concerns, and values surrounding water fluoridation. If the council truly seeks to represent the will and well-being of the community, then transparency and inclusive dialogue must come first.
Dr. Ivan H. Wolthuis, DMD MAGD
Sweet Home