The following Op-Ed from Beverly DeCer makes the case that water fluoridation is an outdated public health practice that no longer aligns with modern science, ethics, or informed consent — and that Pennsylvania has an opportunity to lead the nation by ending it through bipartisan legislation.

I began working on water fluoridation issues in Philadelphia around 2012, not long after discovering that my daughter’s chronic health problems were caused by a fluoride allergy. Like many parents desperate for answers, I turned to research — and what I found changed my life.

What began as a personal search for the truth grew into a decade-long investigation into one of the most entrenched public health practices in America: the mass medication of the population through fluoridated drinking water. I learned that fluoridation — introduced in the 1940s — has always been more political than scientific. It was designed to silence legal responsibility for industrial fluoride damage to countrysides and workers, and use an industrial byproduct as a dental treatment. Fluoride has been defended ever since through decades of propaganda, half-truths, intimidation and silence.

I became a familiar face at Philadelphia City Hall. Once, a staffer for then-Councilwoman Helen Gym recognized me at an event, pointed to her pregnant belly, and said with a smile, “My baby is not getting any fluoride!” Yet, Gym herself refused to meet with me. This reluctance to challenge the status quo is widespread among policymakers and bureaucrats, even as the evidence against fluoridation continues to mount.

Today, however, we are closer than ever to ending water fluoridation in Pennsylvania. Two bills — Senate Bill 849 and House Bill 1660— would finally prohibit this outdated, unscientific and unethical practice. Both are currently in committee, and while partisan politics has slowed progress, momentum is building.

When I first began this work, nearly all fluoridation opponents were Democrats; Republicans were almost nowhere to be found. Now, the issue has reversed polarity — but hope has emerged from an unexpected corner. Representative Roni Green (District 190), a Philadelphia Democrat, has courageously crossed the partisan divide to co-sponsor HB 1660. Her leadership is rare in today’s political climate and demonstrates that protecting public health should transcend party lines.

At the heart of this debate is choice — the right to informed consent. In an age when bodily autonomy and personal decision-making are central to public discourse, adding a chemical to the public water supply without consent is indefensible. Fluoridation violates the fundamental medical ethic of “informed choice.” People deserve the right to decide what substances enter their bodies, especially when those substances carry known risks, and policy makers continue to argue on where to place toxic dose.

The science has shifted dramatically since fluoridation began. In 2024, after a seven-year court battle, U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen ruled that current fluoride exposure levels pose an “unreasonable risk” to human health due to neurotoxicity. The case, brought by Food and Water Watch v. Environmental Protection Agency, featured extensive expert testimony and hundreds of peer-reviewed studies.

Instead of addressing the evidence, the EPA, under Administrator Zeldin, appealed the ruling on narrow procedural grounds — avoiding the science entirely. This appeal could delay federal action for years, leaving millions of Americans, including children and pregnant women, unprotected.

It’s worth noting that even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) admitted during this case that it has no safety data on fluoride ingestion. None. And, we now understand, as we finally did with lead, that there may be no safe level of exposure.

Meanwhile, fluoridation advocates continue to claim that fluoride is “naturally occurring.” This is a misleading half-truth. The fluoride compound added to our drinking water is not the naturally occurring calcium fluoride (CaF₂) found in soil and rock. It is hydrofluorosilicic acid (H₂SiF₆) — an industrial waste product captured from the smokestacks of phosphate fertilizer plants. Chemical analyses show that this substance contains contaminants like arsenic, and some batches are too toxic to be accepted into certain landfills. Yet this same chemical is added to the water that millions of Pennsylvanians drink daily.

Even more disturbing, there are no animal studies examining the effects of ingesting hydrofluorosilicic acid at levels comparable to human exposure. In other words, this chemical was never properly tested for the use it’s been given for over 70 years.

Supporters often emphasize that fluoride is a “mineral,” as though that label automatically makes it safe. Arsenic is also a mineral — one slightly more toxic than fluoride. Would we consider adding trace amounts of arsenic to public water under the guise of “dental health”? Of course not. Yet fluoride’s reputation as a benign supplement persists largely because of decades of industry-funded messaging that equated dissent with ignorance.

Fluoride is a protoplasmic poison, meaning it disrupts cellular metabolism by interfering with enzyme function and altering cell membrane permeability. This means that every cell in the human body is affected when exposed to fluoride. The consequences can vary — from neurological effects to thyroid disruption — but the principle remains the same: a toxin does not become safe simply because it’s diluted.

Ending water fluoridation isn’t a partisan issue — it’s a moral one. It’s about scientific integrity, ethical responsibility, and the right of every Pennsylvanian to clean, safe water. As Judge Chen’s ruling makes clear, current fluoride exposure presents an unreasonable risk. Continuing this practice in the face of such evidence defies both reason and conscience.

Pennsylvania can make history by leading the nation away from this outdated experiment. It’s time for legislators, local leaders, and citizens alike to stand together — for health, for science, and for choice.