Since 1983, Rutland has been putting fluoride in the municipal water supply.It’s one of 42 communities in the Green Mountain State with a fluoridated water system. This Town Meeting Day, a vote to change the city charter to stop using fluoride will be on the ballot on March 5.Nearly 600 people from Vermont’s third-largest city have signed a referendum to appeal fluoridation in the city’s water supply. “We think it’s a strong case,” said Jack Crowther, a Rutland resident passionate about the issue. “It’s medicating the water supply. And I think that idea is enough to convince a lot of people that we shouldn’t be doing that. You should have informed consent if you’re taking a medicine.”Crowther has lived in Rutland for 56 years and is spearheading the movement to stop fluoridation in the city. To get around using fluoridated municipal water, he uses a $400 filtration system with reverse osmosis to eliminate the fluoride from the water. “My basic in a nutshell argument is, is that fluoride is unethical, unsafe and ineffective,” Crowther said. The Vermont Department of Health would like to move in the opposite direction. Officials said that fluoride in water is good for public health. The department hopes to increase the number of communities fluoridating water by 2030. “Fluoridation is hailed as one of the most important public health achievements of the 20th century because it for a relatively small investment, provides decay prevention benefits to all members of the community, regardless of age, race or income level,” said Robin Miller, VT Dept. of Health Oral Health Director.Tooth decay is the most common chronic disease for both adults and children, according to the CDC.“The CDC estimates that community water fluoridation prevents 25% of dental decay in adults and children in communities,” Miller said. “The CDC estimates that for every $1 spent on community water fluoridation, $20 is saved in terms of dental treatment costs.”This is not the first time the issue has come up in Rutland. In 2016, another attempt to stop fluoridation failed. This time around, if it passes, the charter change would have to be approved by the state legislature.
Since 1983, Rutland has been putting fluoride in the municipal water supply.
It’s one of 42 communities in the Green Mountain State with a fluoridated water system. This Town Meeting Day, a vote to change the city charter to stop using fluoride will be on the ballot on March 5.
Advertisement
Nearly 600 people from Vermont’s third-largest city have signed a referendum to appeal fluoridation in the city’s water supply.
“We think it’s a strong case,” said Jack Crowther, a Rutland resident passionate about the issue. “It’s medicating the water supply. And I think that idea is enough to convince a lot of people that we shouldn’t be doing that. You should have informed consent if you’re taking a medicine.”
Crowther has lived in Rutland for 56 years and is spearheading the movement to stop fluoridation in the city.
To get around using fluoridated municipal water, he uses a $400 filtration system with reverse osmosis to eliminate the fluoride from the water.
“My basic in a nutshell argument is, is that fluoride is unethical, unsafe and ineffective,” Crowther said.
The Vermont Department of Health would like to move in the opposite direction. Officials said that fluoride in water is good for public health. The department hopes to increase the number of communities fluoridating water by 2030.
“Fluoridation is hailed as one of the most important public health achievements of the 20th century because it for a relatively small investment, provides decay prevention benefits to all members of the community, regardless of age, race or income level,” said Robin Miller, VT Dept. of Health Oral Health Director.
Tooth decay is the most common chronic disease for both adults and children, according to the CDC.
“The CDC estimates that community water fluoridation prevents 25% of dental decay in adults and children in communities,” Miller said. “The CDC estimates that for every $1 spent on community water fluoridation, $20 is saved in terms of dental treatment costs.”
This is not the first time the issue has come up in Rutland. In 2016, another attempt to stop fluoridation failed. This time around, if it passes, the charter change would have to be approved by the state legislature.
