MONROE — The push to eliminate fluoride from the city’s drinking water supply suffered a setback recently, as an ordinance doing just that died narrowly in committee.

The issue failed by a vote of 2 to 2 (3 was needed to pass) at the city’s Judicial and Ordinance Committee meeting on Nov. 11. City administrator Brittney Rindy said the matter is not completely settled — if alders wanted to push the common council to further consider it and hold a public hearing.

“An Alder could request a future Council agenda item to vote on suspending the current rules of repealing an ordinance to place a public hearing on a future Council agenda without (Judicial and Ordinance Committee) recommendation,” she said, via email. “A 2/3 majority vote would be required to pass a suspension of the rules.”

The move follows a packed Common Council meeting last month during which residents and those representing both sides — from in and out of the area — spoke in favor and against the idea of eliminating fluoride from the drinking water. The topic was added to the council agenda at that time due to widespread interest, Mayor Donna Douglas said. 

The issue has also come up nationally, as President-elect Donald Trump’s likely controversial pick to lead the country’s health initiatives, Robert Kennedy Jr., has said he favors removing the chemical from all municipal drinking supplies nationwide, immediately. But given that water fluoridation is a local government decision, it is unclear if Kennedy could compel municipalities to do away with it.

Still, some experts say the Trump administration could, in theory, use the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 to ban water fluoridation. The TSCA essentially gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate chemicals in the U.S. 

Fluoride is naturally found in soil, water, and plants, but the levels are usually too low to prevent cavities. Many communities — including Monroe — add fluoride to their water supply to help prevent cavities. Experts say they can see the positive impact of fluoride when they compare the dental health of children raised with fluoridated water in cities and those, for example, in the country who are drinking well water without the chemical.

At the earlier council meeting, several dentists and dental health professionals in attendance in favor of keeping the chemical in the city water supply, as did some common council members. Still others said to get rid of it — that fluoride poses an unnecessary and perhaps unknown health risk in exchange for any dental health benefit. The city also has accumulated a stack of emails and letters weighing in on both sides of the issue, officials said.

A similar discussion occurred at the Nov. 11 Justice and Ordinance Committee meeting, with passionate arguments on both sides. Ald. Tom Miller questioned whether it was prudent for officials to even vote on what he said was an unsettled issue in terms of the science around how much fluoride is safe in drinking water.

“I feel we don’t have enough information from the public to vote at this time,” said Miller, adding that “most of the people who spoke here before the city council were for adding fluoride.”

Ald. Richard Thoman countered that many of those who spoke at the meeting in favor of fluoride were not from Monroe, and that the industry has a well-honed system of responding to fluoridation questions at the municipal level across the country. The new science, he said, needs to be considered with the age-old maxims about fluoridation.

“I don’t think this is an issue about fluoridation, it’s about choices,” he said. “We’re telling citizens they have no choice on fluoride.”

Ald. Lynne Kleven said the issue merits at least having a public hearing.

“It’s an important issue, and I stand by the three reasons I want it taken out,” she said.

Thoman agreed wholeheartedly, and said it deserves a public hearing with only Monroe residents speaking on the issue.

“Everybody talks about democracy … I’d like to see what the citizens of Monroe had to say instead of a political action group,” he said.

Ald. Mary Jane Grenzow questioned whether the issue was worth the council’s time, given the thin research on getting rid of fluoride versus decades of benefits to kids’ dental health.

“Frankly, we have other things that need our attention at the city council level. I don’t see this as being one of those top issues,” Grenzow said, adding that the council should not hold a public hearing every time someone raises a particular issue. “I’m not feeling a big ground-swell of support (for removing fluoride).”

Ultimately, Grenzow and Miller voted against eliminating fluoride at the committee, while Thoman and Kleven voted in favor of the move.