Water fluoridation has long been a controversial topic in public health. While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) considers it one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century, concerns about its safety and necessity continue to arise. Recently, Utah made headlines by becoming the first U.S. state to ban fluoride in public drinking water. This decision has sparked debates among health professionals, policymakers, and the general public regarding its potential impact on community dental health and preventive care strategies.
In this blog, we explore the implications of Utah’s ban on water fluoridation, the science behind fluoride’s role in oral health, and what this policy shift means for dental care in the state and beyond.
Water fluoridation is the process of adding controlled amounts of fluoride to public water supplies to prevent tooth decay. The practice, which began in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1945, has been widely adopted across the United States. The American Dental Association (ADA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) support fluoridation as a safe and effective way to reduce cavities in children and adults.
Fluoride strengthens tooth enamel, making it more resistant to acid attacks from bacteria and sugars. It also helps to remineralize early-stage cavities, preventing them from progressing. For decades, studies have shown that communities with fluoridated water experience significantly lower rates of tooth decay than those without.
In early 2025, Utah’s state legislature passed a bill banning fluoride in public drinking water, citing concerns over individual choice, potential health risks, and environmental impact. Lawmakers in favor of the ban argued that people should have the right to choose whether they consume fluoride, rather than it being administered through public water supplies.
Historically, communities that have removed fluoride from their water supply have seen a rise in cavities. For example, in Calgary, Canada, tooth decay rates increased significantly after fluoride was removed in 2011. If Utah follows this trend, residents—especially children—may experience higher rates of dental caries.
Preventing cavities through water fluoridation is cost-effective. Without it, families may face increased expenses for dental treatments such as fillings, crowns, and extractions. This burden could be especially significant for low-income populations with limited access to dental care.
In the absence of fluoridated water, Utah residents will need to rely on other sources of fluoride, such as toothpaste, mouth rinses, and professional fluoride treatments. However, compliance and accessibility issues may make these alternatives less effective than water fluoridation.
Fluoridation has been particularly beneficial for underserved communities with limited access to dental care. Removing fluoride from public water could exacerbate oral health disparities, disproportionately affecting lower-income and rural populations.
With Utah’s decision to eliminate fluoride from drinking water, residents must adopt alternative strategies to maintain strong oral health. Here are some key recommendations:
Utah’s ban may have ripple effects on fluoridation policies across the United States. Other states may consider similar legislative measures, sparking a broader debate about individual choice versus public health benefits. Internationally, fluoridation policies vary, with some countries opting for salt fluoridation or fluoride tablets instead of water fluoridation.
While the debate continues, it is essential for policymakers to balance scientific evidence with public concerns to ensure the best outcomes for community health.
Utah’s decision to ban fluoride in public drinking water marks a significant shift in public health policy, with potential long-term consequences for dental health. While fluoride has been proven to reduce tooth decay, concerns over personal choice and potential health risks have led to growing opposition.
To mitigate the effects of this policy change, residents must adopt alternative fluoride sources and preventive dental care strategies. Public health officials, dentists, and policymakers must work together to ensure that Utah’s communities continue to receive the oral health benefits that fluoridation has provided for decades.
As the national conversation on water fluoridation evolves, the key question remains: How can we best protect public health while respecting individual choice? The answer lies in education, accessibility, and informed decision-making.
.svg){kind=icon}
.svg){kind=icon}
