On May 7 Gov. Spencer Cox signed House Bill 81 into law, making Utah the first state to ban water fluoridation. This piece of legislation received mixed opinions, with evidence from both perspectives producing scientifically valid arguments.
The breadth of scientific evidence points towards the benefits of water fluoridation. However, ultimately, the decision to ban water fluoridation was framed not as a purely scientific matter, but as a matter of personal choice.
I submit that the Utah government must extend that logic to other chemicals introduced into local water supplies.
Pesticides are known to travel through Utah water systems, leading to population exposure. Many of these pesticides are known contaminants that produce adverse human health outcomes, and many are known to stay in these water bodies long-term. If Gov. Cox and the Utah state legislative body are serious about maintaining personal choice in what Utahns ingest in their water supply, Utah should ban any pesticides with scientific evidence of harm. The failure to do so would be regulatory inconsistency.
Economic objections arise in defense of pesticides; however, many pesticides used in Utah are already banned, or in the process of being banned, in other states with large agricultural sectors (e.g., chlorpyrifos, paraquat, and PFAS-containing pesticides).
Additionally, Utah farms are provided government subsidies and tax exemptions. While the government should continue providing subsidies, this brings up another argument used in the anti-fluoridation campaign.
If Utahns shouldn’t pay for fluoridation, they shouldn’t pay to subsidize the use of harmful pesticides. If we, as a state, are going to lead as champions of personal choice in what our communities are unavoidably ingesting, we should catch up and ban all these pesticides and more. Failing to do so is not only a glaring hypocrisy but also neglectful of Utahns’ health.
Kian Robison, Salt Lake City