Halvorson, Young resume effort to stop fluoridating Longview drinking water

Dentists, doctors gathering support to retain long-used, cavity-fighting chemical

An earlier version of this column erroneously went out marked for paid subscribers only, causing some of you to get a promotional message suggesting you will have to pay after a seven-day promotional period. You also got cut off the story after a few paragraphs. My policy is to continue to make the column free, although I of course welcome paid subscribers. I am reposting the story here so that everyone can view the entire column.

Two Longview councilmen are renewing their effort to discontinue treating city drinking water with cavity-fighting fluoride, a naturally occurring chemical that thousands of cities across the nation use and which has widespread support from dentists and doctors.

The City Council is scheduled to take up a resolution on Tuesday to set a public hearing on Dec. 12th to consider halting use of fluoride.

Tuesday’s meeting starts at 6 p.m., and this matter is slotted for consideration toward the end of a long and complex agenda that includes utility rate hikes and deciding on a process for hiring a permanent city manager.

The resolution would direct city staff to notify the state Department of Health that the city is considering discontinuing use of fluoride. (State law requires 90-day notice to discontinue fluoridation.) A separate council vote would be required to actually ban adding it to city water.

Local dentists are planning to show up in force to voice opposition to the effort and to defend fluoride’s safety and effectiveness, which have come under challenge in some circles. (See below.)

A long-awaited report released Thursday likely will boost public interest in this issue. The National Toxicology Program, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, concluded that drinking water containing more than 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter is consistently associated with lower IQs in kids. That concentration is double the federal drinking water limit — 0.7 milligrams per liter. The report is based on a review of studies conducted in Canada, China, India, Iran, Pakistan, and Mexico.

The city of Longview has been adding fluoride to drinking water since the mid 1960s. City water goes to 45,000 people in Longview and Beacon Hill. Hundreds of millions of Americans drink fluoridated water.

Fluoride has been used in U.S. municipal drinking water for about 75 years. Fluoridation has been hailed as one of the most important health achievements of the 20th century.

The Longview fluoride resolution is sponsored by council members Erik Halvorson and Keith Young. Halvorson initially tried to bring the matter before the council last winter, but he withdrew it during tumult over the council’s termination of City Manager Kris Swanson.

“For too long, there hasn't been enough scrutiny or willingness to revisit established practices, leaving us with policies that may no longer align with the needs of our community,” Halvorson said by email in response to my questions. “Council member Young and I believe it's time to take a fresh look at where we can make improvements, including re-evaluating our water fluoridation policy.”

Halvorson added that discontinuing fluoride use would save the city money, though he acknowledged that the savings would be scant.

“Public sentiment on this issue has shifted, and it's important to recognize that.”

— Longview Councilman Erik Halvorson

“Previous councils overlooked opportunities to save, leading to unnecessary spending. While $13,000 annually for fluoridation might not seem like a lot on its own, every dollar counts, especially when we’re facing other significant expenses like the upgrades needed at the Mint Farm Treatment Plant. Repurposing the existing fluoride tank could save us nearly $200,000 immediately“ by eliminating the need for another chlorine storage tank, Halvorson wrote.

Response to his earlier initiative, Halvorson said, resulted in “massive input from the community in favor of removing fluoride from the water supply. Public sentiment on this issue has shifted, and it's important to recognize that. This resolution is about seeing if there's an appetite among the current council to consider changes that reflect these evolving views. It's not a done deal — far from it.”

Nevertheless, Halvorson clearly favors removal. His Facebook page features a post called “Dump Fluoride Longview. " It includes a form letter for petitioners to sign asserting that fluoride “has come under increasing scrutiny due to potential long-term health risks associated with its consumption. Numerous studies have raised concerns about the adverse effects of fluoride on various aspects of health, particularly in vulnerable populations such as children, pregnant women, and those with kidney disorders.”

Dump Fluoride also includes a link to a document called 50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation written by the Fluoride Action Network. It challenges the ethics and effectiveness of fluorination, asserts possible links to bone and brain problems and decries the lack of monitoring of health effects.

Longview dentist Hazar Jaber of Happy Kids Dental and Longview pediatrician Erin Harnish are circulating a letter among the medical community urging the council to stop any effort to discontinue use of fluoride. It is still in the signature-gathering stage.

“We are aware of the misinformation surrounding water fluoridation. Making decisions based on credible science and evidence-based practices is crucial, all of which robustly support fluoridated water's safety and health benefits,” according to the letter.

“Decades of scientific research support this practice, which is endorsed by the majority of medical and dental professionals both nationally and within our community. The global consensus among health organizations affirms that water fluoridation is safe and effective,” the letter says.

“In Longview,” the letter continues, “a staggering 72% of our children are considered at high risk for dental diseases. These children are significantly more susceptible to conditions that can lead to serious health complications and affect their daily lives, including their ability to perform well in school.”

Young adults with missing or decayed teeth have difficulty finding a job. Seniors who experience pain in their mouths cannot eat healthy foods, Jaber and Harnish report.

Fluoridating Longview water costs about 38 cents per person per a year, according to city figures. Total fluoridation costs to the city ranged from about $14,000 in 2018 to $16,700 in 2023.

”The cost-effectiveness of water fluoridation cannot be overstated,” the Jaber/Harnish letter states. “Multiple studies show that people living in communities without access to fluoridated water require significantly more fillings, expensive root canals, and extractions.”

Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by about 25%, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Community water fluoridation has been shown to save money both for families and for the US health care system,” it says.

Fluoride is naturally occurring, but in high concentrations it can increase the risk of skeletal fluorosis, which weakens bones and causes pain and tenderness in major joints, according to Bloomberg News.

This is the second time in a decade that the fluoride issue has arisen locally. In December 2014, 73% of Kalama voters rejected Mayor Pete Poulsen’s attempt to stop fluoridating the city’s award-winning water.

“We're simply putting this issue on the table to see if it warrants further discussion,” Halvorson told me. “And to be clear, this isn't about prioritizing this issue over more pressing matters; it's about being responsive to our community, open to revisiting policies when necessary, and mindful of our budget.”

However, one could argue now that the city of Longview does not need to add another complex and conflict-ridden issue to its already full plate of business.

The council still is dealing with the staffing and financial aftershocks of the Swanson firing. It is grappling with millions in unfunded needs for the city water and sewer systems and is scheduled to consider rate hikes on Tuesday as well. The city faces a widening gap between revenues and expenses and has a council majority rreluctant want to raise taxes. And it only now is getting around to start searching for a permanent city manager.

Justifying this fluoride effort as a money-saving measure stretches credulity. The amount is so small, and eliminating fluoridation will cost citizens more in out-of-pocket dental care than fluoridation does now. It’s disingenuous too, given that firing Swanson will end up costing the city far more than fluoride elimination will save, and the council majority was warned about those costs.

“I am biased in favor of fluoridation. I have grown up with it all my life, and I have great teeth.”

— Longview Councilwoman Ruth Kendall

Halvorson and Young certainly have authority to bring this matter up for discussion. But for now it has the feel of a rush job, despite Halvorson’s denials. A decision on this matter should be deliberated thoroughly and honestly based on health impacts alone. And the local medical community — where the real expertise lies — should be given a dollop of deference on it.

Councilwoman Ruth Kendall, a fluoridation supporter, said she’s concerned about heaping more work on the city’s already overburdened staff. And she noted that December — when the Young/Halvorson resolution calls for a public hearing — is a particularly busy time.

“We have a lot going on now, “ she said, but Halvorson wanted to proceed.

“I am biased in favor of fluoridation. I have grown up with it all my life and I have great teeth, ” said Kendall, a retired Weyerhaeuser Co. chemical engineer. “My real concern is that that nobody on our council has the medical knowledge or experience to make this decision.”

There are, indeed, a lot of claims and counterclaims for the council to get its mind around here. Consider for a moment how this issue is playing out in federal court.

In 2016, a group of non-profits and individuals petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to end fluoridation due to concerns that it impairs children’s brain development. The EPA rejected the petition, but a 2017 lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco — Food & Water Watch Inc. v. EPA —  challenged that decision. EPA rejects the plaintiff’s claim as scientifically indefensible.

A seven-day trial in June 2020 and a 14-day trial in February 2024 have taken place. But Judge Edward M. Chen has not yet issued a ruling.

As a non-scientist, Chen is in the strange and perhaps dubious position of having to review and either confirm or reject an agency’s scientific analysis.

Yet the complexity and import of this case should be a bit humbling for everyone who considers this issue. Discontinuing fluoride, which has a long and documented history of beneficial use, is nothing the city should rush into.