A Local Fluoride and Board of Health Tale: MAHA Energy in Action in Newburyport, Massachusetts
A discussion regarding fluoride in the public water supply at a local Board of Health meeting. Power struggles, questionable procedures, and raw emotions on display, with bigger battles still to come.
We crowded into the nondescript “computer lab” room of the senior/community center. A palpable nervous buzz could be felt in the air. My friend sitting next to me on the makeshift seating area by the side windows flashes a deep, genuine smile as he spots comrades he hadn’t seen in years enter the room—a group that had been part of an earlier round of regional fluoride activism ten years prior who had helped build the infrastructure of the current struggle. He proceeds to walk over and chat with them before the meeting begins. I scan the room and get my notepad ready.
At the front of the room behind a simple, basic table long enough for five people seated merely a couple of feet from the front row of the energy-filled general audience were the three members of the Newburyport Board of Health, all distinguished “experts” in the medical field and well known locally holding titles and credentials such as Dr., PharmD, MPH, and BCPS, with their degrees, training, and work experience coming from the centers of the Massachusetts medical establishment: Harvard Medical School; Mass General Brigham; etc.
Before the main event fight on that evening’s card, an undercard match was scheduled that proved worthy as a warmup and indicator of the bigger fireworks to come. A Dangerous Dog Hearing was on the agenda, although it took some time for the Board Members—in particular, the Chair—to accept the message coming from the animal control officer that it was in the purview of the Board of Health to rule on the issue. Memories suddenly came flooding back to me of my years serving as an elected city planning board member in the neighboring town and all the typical occurrences at these types of gatherings, with a full range of emotions and fallacies of humanity on display: infighting, confusion, turf wars, lack of decorum, etc. The Chairman did himself and the room no favors by not adequately explaining ground rules for the meeting at the top and not seeming to be fully on top of things. Sure enough, the Chairman essentially lost control in record time, when the man in the front row who’s dog had been attacked—who appeared like he had never been to a public meeting before—immediately and suddenly jumped out of his chair and shouted at an alarming decibel level in the small room. He directed his rage at the other party during their designated time when the attorney of the dog owner in question was attempting to present their case. More confusion and anger followed, with several procedural and filing protocols questioned by Board members, city staff, and both parties in the dispute.
I felt empathy for everyone involved, in particular, the Board members, including the Chairman. It is a difficult task running a public meeting, with the piles of paperwork; the endless list of rules and procedures to try and keep track of on the fly; the often wild emotions of people in the room, both from members of the ruling board and the audience. I vowed I would stay silent and not participate in my role as a strict observer and reporter, which I was able to accomplish. Nevertheless, there were a couple of times that I had to hold myself back from getting caught up in the emotions of the room and shouting out myself.
Still, in the end, after a period of deliberation and with one Board member taking control by basically speaking aloud the debate she was having in her head about the best way to proceed, a resolution was found that seemed to satisfy enough everyone involved.
Next, after a couple of quiet and easy matters to address, it was on to the main event.
This was the third meeting in a row that fluoride was on the agenda and the understanding was that the Board of Health was going to make a ruling on the issue during this evening’s meeting. According to the Director of Public Health, concerned residents pushed for and brought the issue of fluoride to the attention of officials, with the Board of Health beginning the debate in October. The Board would be looking to make a recommendation to either keep the current practice, reduce the level of fluoride, or eliminate it all together.
Up to this point, all public comment had been in favor of taking fluoride out, with no one commenting in favor of keeping it and it was clear everyone in the general audience was eagerly waiting for the news that they had been fighting and hoping for, many for a long time. However, the Chairman dropped a cluster bomb on the crowd right off the bat by flatly stating that the Board heard clearly and directly from the Mayor before the meeting and that the consensus of leadership in town was to hold some sort of a “public forum” in early March before an official decision is made by the Board of Health at their March 20 meeting.
The crowd grumbled and accusations were hurled. A woman in front made clear she was recording the proceedings. The predictable escalation of the fluoride fight in town was on and occurring in real time. The anti-fluoride crowd had been landing blows for months but now was taking some big body blows this evening, with bigger guns soon to enter the fight more directly. Indeed, standing in the back of the room were two City Council members appearing like parental figures scanning over the room and the Mayor’s new Chief of Staff, who repeatedly made the statement—as if the State Ethics Commission was in the audience—that the directive from the Mayor “was actually only a recommendation to the Board to delay the vote.” ***Note: The major local regional newspaper has already reported on this particular meeting and with no one from the paper actually present, wrote their summary article in a way that clearly conveyed the message that the Mayor only made a decision to hold a public forum AFTER the Board on their own decided more debate in town needed to be held. This is a classic case of spinning the narrative and perfect example of how the mainstream media will work with a figure such as a mayor to protect favored leadership. The mainstream article also strongly insinuated the Board of Health was not communicating enough with the community on this issue. In other words, setting the Board of Health up and protecting others.
The reality is the Chairman very clearly stated they were pressured and approached by the Mayor to delay things. The Chairman added that this was the very first time he had ever seen the Mayor approach the Board like this on an issue and that he and the Board in general were going to grant the Mayor’s wishes. According to the Board, the Mayor felt the city was not fully aware of what was going on, despite acknowledging the major local paper had recently done two front page stories on the fact that fluoride was being discussed at the Board of Health and that the Board had been having public discussions for months.
The Board also made clear they, as well as other officials in town, would be seeking more official input from sources such as the American Dental Association and other “expert” groups and individuals, especially at this newly announced public forum that would seemingly be run by the Mayor. As if rubbing salt on the wound, the Chairman then stated once again in a very clear way that he had personally invited a former Board of Health member to provide a pro-fluoride presentation that evening to provide a counter-balance to the 100% anti-fluoride message that had been provided via public comment. Finally, he stated he would not be looking to hear from others other than the presenter. After a strong push back from the general audience, the Board agreed that they would continue to hear public comment from the crowd, but only for two minutes each, while the presenter was given as much time as needed.
Seated near the front to the side of the Board, with a laptop in his lap ready to present was the former “expert” Board of Health member. He predictably spent a great deal of time running though his litany of degrees, experience, and training from all the usual suspects such as Harvard, Columbia, Tufts, etc. and bombarded the audience with several lists of scientific studies through the decades and a history lesson of why fluoride was added to public drinking supplies in the United States. The sense was the favored local Newburyport “expert” was there to educate all us rubes in the audience and set everything straight. His presentation included a study he had worked on comparing groups of people that had fluoridated water sources vs. those with no fluoride in drinking water in the state. He concluded with statistics from his study indicating an increased risk of cavity development.
It was revealed his study had not been peer reviewed or published. No probing questions were asked by the Board members and when the audience—who patiently listened without interruption throughout—attempted to ask questions when he was done, the expert presenter simply folded up his laptop and left the room. It was quite the statement, performance, and message sent.
Amazingly, after the presenter abruptly left, members of the audience asked the Board if they could get a copy of the slide deck that the presenter had just officially presented at a public meeting, to which the Board stated they weren’t sure if they were allowed to do that.
The Chairman made a point that is often used in pro-fluoride circles that even though fluoride is now found in many everyday products, communities need to be concerned about how taking fluoride out of the water supply will impact lower income people, to which one audience member carefully retorted it was highly probable that even those with very low incomes can get their hands on fluoridated toothpaste.
It was time for the crowd to try and regain momentum. Speaker after speaker made passionate pleas, some holding folders overflowing with various papers, notes, and studies of their own.
It was clear to this observer that the source of fluoride is and should be a big part of the discussion. Not all fluoride is the same. There is what is called dental grade fluoride (pharmaceutical grade) whereas fluoride in public water systems can come in the form of an industrial waste product, containing several heavy metals and other impurities. Many audience members pointed out the concerns of the source of fluoride used in public water systems.
The issue of choice and personal freedom to decide if one wants to ingest fluoride was one of the big themes mentioned during the meeting. Other themes included how the United States was in the clear minority, with, for example, the majority of European countries on the issue of water fluoridation.
Public participation matters. In fact, it matters greatly and to a much bigger degree than many people realize, especially at the local community level. I know this well, having served 8 years on my community’s Planning Board. Public pressure and big turnouts from the general public can absolutely impact and sway decisions being made by elected and appointed officials at the local level. The overwhelming majority of people who volunteer their time to serve on critical local boards want to do what is right and make decisions that make sense and are in the best interest of everyone involved, based on the evidence presented. It is a tough and often thankless job serving on Boards such as Planning, Health, Conservation etc., but it is absolutely critical that every community have a collection of people willing to step up and serve their community in this matter. While these roles can be stressful, they can also be very rewarding ways to not only give back to your community and region but also learn a great deal in the trenches about many issues and is also a way to create deep lasting connections and friendships. Our society as a whole needs to be able to find a way to better nurture and support public service in this matter.
All this being said, it is not a surprise to see the way things are unfolding in Newburyport, with establishment powers appearing to begin to seriously circle the wagons and fortify their weight in order to pressure the community and, in particular, pressure the members of the Board of Health to rule in favor of keeping fluoride in the city’s water supply. Still, despite what appeared to be clear signals coming from the Board of Health against the idea of removing fluoride during the January 15, 2025, Newburyport Board of Health meeting, a wider view of things brings greater hope for MAHA-type activists, who are rallying around the fluoride debate as one of many, many issues the reinvigorated personal health and personal freedom movement is currently exploring.
A review of previous meeting Minutes, as well as a full assessment of all the interactions that took place between the Board members and the staunchly anti-fluoride in water audience at last week’s meeting gives me a sense that, at a minimum, two of the Board members seem sympathetic and open minded to both sides of the debate. The three members of the Newburyport Board of Health are human just like all of us and I do not get the sense that any of them consider the fluoride issue a hill they are willing to die on, especially if official public comments and passions from the community at large continue to be overwhelmingly in favor of removing fluoride at the critical upcoming March fluoride forum.
The Board members need to be able to live with their friends, neighbors, and community as a whole and if the general feeling in the community is to, at a very minimum, reduce the level of fluoride in the water, my sense is the Board certainly could be willing to vote in a way that strikes a blow to the staunchly pro-fluoride mentality. In fact, given the way the tide appears to be turning on this issue more broadly, a victory against the status quo and business as usual on the issue of fluoride in Newburyport is certainly possible and could have a hugely impactful ripple effect on other communities across Massachusetts and beyond. Still, it bears mentioning that the Board of Health will need to see an even greater show of force at the March community forum and then the March Board of Health meeting from members of the public who are against fluoride in order to help make the Board members feel comfortable and secure enough in making a decision to remove fluoride, a decision that would surely rankle many in the powerful Massachusetts medical establishment.
Time will tell. It is going to be a fascinating human-interest story over the next two months in Newburyport.