Miami-Dade Mayor Vetoes Fluoride Removal from Water Supply

Miami-Dade Mayor Vetoes Fluoride Removal Legislation Amid National Debate

In recent developments regarding public health policy, Daniella Levine Cava, the mayor of Miami-Dade County, announced on Friday her intention to veto legislation aimed at removing fluoride from the drinking water supply of Florida’s most populous county. This decision comes amid a rising national campaign against fluoride, a well-established mineral known for its efficacy in preventing dental cavities.

Surface tension against fluoride has gained momentum, with influential figures such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent public figure and former health secretary under President Trump, advocating for the ban of fluoride in drinking water across states. Recently, Utah took the unprecedented step of becoming the first state to outlaw the addition of fluoride to public water supplies. This move has prompted various states, including Florida, to consider similar bans.

At a press conference on Friday, Mayor Levine Cava firmly defended the inclusion of fluoride in public water, stating, “The science is very clear.” She expressed concern that eliminating fluoridation could lead to "real and lasting harm," particularly affecting children and families who struggle to afford routine dental care.

The Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners had previously passed the measure to ban fluoride with an 8 to 2 vote on April 1, a result that included three commissioners being absent during the vote. To successfully override the mayor’s veto, nine votes from the thirteen-member commission would be necessary, should all members be present. The next board meeting, where this issue may be revisited, is scheduled for May 6.

Among the commissioners, six identify as Republicans, including Kevin Marino Cabrera, a close ally of Mr. Trump, who is poised to take on the role of the U.S. ambassador to Panama shortly. This political landscape puts Mayor Levine Cava, a prominent Democratic figure in a county where Republicans hold all other elected countywide offices, in an intricate position regarding public health policy and partisan alignment.

Numerous public health experts have weighed in against the removal of fluoride from drinking water, warning that such action would jeopardize oral health and cavity prevention efforts. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has repeatedly emphasized that fluoridation represents one of the “10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.” Yet, recent trends show an increasing skepticism about fluoride, particularly enhanced by the erosion of trust in governmental health initiatives following the COVID-19 pandemic. Opponents of fluoridation argue that the practice infringes on individual bodily autonomy and express concerns over potential adverse cognitive effects of fluoride exposure on children.

Highlighting these concerns, opponents reference a recent review published by the National Institutes of Health. This review analyzed 74 studies and indicated a potential correlation between high levels of fluoride exposure—particularly during childhood or prenatal stages—and lower IQ scores in children. However, it is crucial to note that the fluoride levels examined in these studies far exceeded current CDC recommendations, and other research has failed to establish a definitive link.

Following the mayor’s veto, she finds herself at odds with influential figures such as Mr. Kennedy and various Republican officials, including Governor Ron DeSantis and Florida’s surgeon general, Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo. Governor DeSantis recently posed a contentious question regarding the practice, stating, “Do we want forced medication or do we want people to be able to choose medication?” He argued that introducing fluoride into the water system removes individual choice regarding health interventions.

Prior to the mayor’s announcement, Dr. Ladapo had urged Miami-Dade residents to advocate for the fluoride ban, questioning the ethical implications of adding drugs to public drinking water. Fluoride first became a standard in American drinking water in 1945, with significant evidence linking it to improvements in oral health over the following decades.

In response to the increasing debate and scrutiny surrounding fluoride, Dr. Brett Kessler, president of the American Dental Association, expressed concern over the potential effects of misinformation spread by public officials. He stated, “The growing distrust of credible, time-tested, evidence-based science is disheartening,” highlighting the importance of peer-reviewed research in guiding public health policies.

Compounding the issue, Lee Zeldin, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, recently announced plans to “expeditiously review new scientific information on potential health risks of fluoride in drinking water.” This review is yet another indication of how fluoride has become a contentious topic in American politics and public health.

During a public comment session at a recent Miami-Dade commission meeting, most speakers voiced opposition to fluoridation. In response, Mayor Levine Cava organized a round-table discussion with healthcare professionals to emphasize the benefits of fluoride. As the debate continues to unfold, nearly twenty additional cities and counties in Florida have voted to eliminate fluoride from their water systems since the November elections. However, Miami-Dade County, with its substantial population of approximately 2.7 million residents, remains the focal point of this evolving discussion.

In a broader context, the political landscape in Miami-Dade has shifted notably, reflecting a transformation in Florida from a battleground state to one that increasingly supports Republican candidates. In the recent past, Donald Trump became the first Republican presidential candidate in over three decades to secure victory in Miami-Dade County.

The proposed measure would require Miami-Dade County to cease the addition of fluoride to its water supply within a 30-day timeframe if enacted. As this issue progresses, the conversations surrounding fluoride will likely continue to reflect the local and national complexities of public health, individual choice, and political influence.