Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee - Senate

OK, if y'all can take your seats in the audience, please. Thank you. I call this um public health. Meaning to order this morning. Good morning. Um, Just a couple of, just a couple of uh Points today, we have a lot of folks with us visiting. We're happy to have you here. If you want to sign up to speak on any of these bills, there is a sign up sheet, um, and so we, we have your names here listed, um, we want to get through and hear from everybody who has come here to participate in today's meeting. So we look forward to having you and thank you for coming through the rain. Um, all right, with that, we are going to go a little bit out of order. We just have 3 bills on the a. today, um, the other bills will, um, we'll hear next week, um, and then as members, uh, come to me when they want to schedule their bills, we'll get that scheduled as well. So with that, I'm gonna recognize Senator Wallace to present Senate Bill 180. Uh, if you'll just state your names for the record. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dave Wallace district 19 and I have with me And Sheila Williams from Baptist Health. Thank you. Chad Whitehead, St. Bernard's Total Life Healthcare. this is a bill that Senator Sullivan, um, is running. He's, uh, talked with DHS to his knowledge there is, uh, there's no opposition to this bill. Um, I'm gonna let our experts briefly talk about it and then I'll come back. Thank you. Please proceed. OK. Our bill is to request that the PACE program, which is a national, uh, federal and state-funded program be exempt from requirements of the home health licensure. Um, we are already required under our PAE license to provide services in the home, um, and we already have uh License requirements in place that would govern us. So we would ask that we be, would be exempt from the home health licensure. Great, thank you. Are there any questions? Senator Ludding. Oh, OK. Uh, thank you. Jay Hill is also here, uh, with Department of Human Services and they've reviewed the bill and they're they're good with the bill as well, uh, from my understanding. Uh, any other questions from members of the committee? Right. Um, what's the pleasure of the committee and second, all those in favor say aye and opposed, I have it. Congratulations, you've passed your bill. Thank you. All right, Senator Love. Madam Chair, I also have two guests if I can ask them to join me. Please come to the table and state your names for the record. Uh, you have an amendment, is that correct? OK, let's go ahead and pass out the amendment. OK, Madam Chair, yeah, I would like to take up the amendment because the amendment is going to take the place of the bill actually. OK And if you'll just state your names for the records. Go ahead. Will turn on your mind. Danisha Smith. Lynnell Logan. Thank you for being here. Um, since the amendment is the bill, do I have a motion do you? OK, motion to adopt the amendment. Second, all those in favor say aye. OK, opposed as habit and then it is adopted, you may present Senate Bill 17 as amended. Thank you, Madam Chair. About a year ago, Ms. Logan approached me and I, I will tell you this, um. I'm, I'm almost ashamed to say that when she approached me, I kind of I almost wanted to dismiss her because it seemed like what she was telling me was just so like out of the ordinary and so extreme I was like. I couldn't believe it. And so what Ms. Logan told me was that um her grandson which was stillborn, was was supposed to be cremated. They sent him to cremation and lo and behold. That someone sold his body. And I was like, and she said, you know, she said, Senator Love, she says there's no law in Arkansas against this. And I was thinking, I was like, OK, Miss Logan, I, I just could not believe it, but I said, you know what, I, I told her I said, Ms. Logan. Here's what I'll do for you. I will check with BLR to make sure that we we we have a law about this. I actually got a call from BLR an hour later after I asked them to research this in Arkansas does not have a law against the sale of dead remains. So what we would like to do is actually pass a law to actually make this a criminal act. I wanna first of all thank Ms. Smith and Ms. Logan for being here. And secondly, I want to thank the, the status of the state prosecutors Association for working with me on this. I think we got this all right. I think we got it on the books and I would basically want to go through what we're going to do. We're going to add a, we're going to add a part in the um the code for Um, I mean, I can't, I should have brought my glasses. We're gonna first of all I'm gonna affectionately call this bill the Lux law because Lux was the baby, the the unborn child for Miss Smith. We're gonna add a section in the code that says that uh the sale of a corpse or any of a court, any part of a corpse after the corpse has been authorized for the final disposition. Through cremation or burial is a law. It would be a class C uh C felony that will have a penalty of up to 33, no less than 3 years, up to 10 years and a financial penalty of $10,000. That's what we would like to do to actually prevent such a grotesque crime is uh Actually not fulfilling what the family was like at the final disposition of a body. And with that I'll, I'll open up for questions if there's any questions. Thank you, Senator Love. I'd love to hear from your guests, if that's OK. I'd like to hear your stories. Yes, thank you for having me here today. Um. We had a beautiful service for my son at our local church where we were presented with ashes, um, about a year later, the FBI showed up on our porch and let us know, well, they didn't tell us there, they told us that we needed to come to their headquarters when me and my mother arrived at their headquarters, they basically confirmed that Lux was my son and basically told me that they had reason to believe that he was trafficked. He was not sold just one time, he was sold twice. All of this took place over Facebook market and uh the last man that had my child did not want to release him back to me. This was a part of an underground, um, trafficking ring that hit a lot of different states if you have seen anything about that recently, my son was a part of that, um, we want this law on the books so that no one has to kind of worry about this if it does happen, there are consequences because the defense lawyer In my son's case, basically said if Arkansas cared, they would have been had a law on this. Um, they said that he was a secondary um victim that he wasn't a primary victim, um, and we're speaking out because we were the only, uh, family that was able to get closure on this. Um, a lot of these parts were just that, they're just parts of people, um, people will never know if their family member was involved or if they really did get their cremations, um. My mother says that this is no different from sex trafficking or drug trafficking, if you would just get a slap on the wrist for this and you get 12 months, um, you not only can you continue this business while you're in prison, but it's kind of just like a vacation stay. It's not anything to kind of deter them from doing this, so we want Lux's law. past so that they're kind of deterred from doing this, we know we can't stop everything, but not having anything on the books for this. It was very, they had to work very hard in strategically to even charge this woman that was involved with this case because there were no laws in place for actions like this. Thank you for having us. Um, my daughter and I struggled with processing this, you know, um. We had the memorial service and like my daughter said, over a year later, the FBI comes and tells us that the jewelry pieces and the urns, earned that we had did not have my grandson in them, and they couldn't tell us what was in them. And we didn't want anyone to know. We couldn't even talk about it for 2 years because it was an ongoing investigation. So if you can imagine the amount of Trauma and inner turmoil that we had to suffer with until they were able to retrieve his body and, um, get him back and and ensure that he was actually cremated. It was a lot and I We were gonna be silent. We weren't going to identify ourselves, but when they told us that we were the only family. That they could. Identify Um, it broke me because I held on to those jewelry pieces and earn hoping that we'd be able to bless another family to get their family member back. And so my daughter and I made the decision that we couldn't be silent. We needed to We needed to be the voice. For those family members that will never know. That we'll never know and so that's what we're determined to do. That's why we're here today and I thank you for this time. Um, I will just say, you are so brave and you are so courageous. And your voice matters and there are going to be so many people that hopefully won't have to go through the suffering, the pain that y'all went through because you spoke out and you use your voice for good, and that's exactly one of the most beautiful displays of what we're here to do. is to change the law to prevent anything from ever happening again like this. I am, I am blown away by your story. I cannot believe it happened. I am so sorry for the pain that you went through. I think it's beyond disgusting. And I, I wish it were more than a class C felony, to be honest with you. Because of what you went through and what you just described. Thank you so much for being here and being able to tell your story, and I'm so sorry for your loss. Senator Hill. You recognized. Motion pass at the proper time. Thank you, Sarah Secon. but Senator Payton, you're recognized for a question. Thank you. And again, I, I'd like to echo what Senator Irvin said. This shouldn't happen and so sorry for your loss and for the fact that it happened. I, I just have one question. About the bill. And that is when it says authorized for final disposition. What is that? I mean, how do Can you explain the process or whatever or what, what, what exactly that means. I can't explain, but I did also have the prosecuting attorneys to to come, so I mean anything technical, but basically the final disposition is like, basically this is what you should do with the body. They're they're gonna, you know, remit it to cremation or remitted to burial. So basically we're talking about the, the family's decision, the family's communicated to a funeral director. It's not something more complicated than that. OK, that's just it. But let's check, check with the prosecutor. Well Just come forward and state your name for the record. Thank you. Madam Chair, members of the committee, I'm Laurie Campuris. I'm the deputy prosecutor coordinator, um, Senator Love came to us with this bill and asked that we help him, um, and our thoughts were to put it in the current statute of abuse of a corpse since it didn't clearly cover the situation that's been explained here this morning. So I do think that your explanation of authorized for final disposition is is what Senator Love just explained, um, it would cover, You know, as I think what their story they mentioned they thought he had been cremated and they had his remains, so anything like that, it would cover just to make sure we're not talking about something where a local coroner has to sign paperwork or I mean it's basically I think it just means the family's instructions and they've authorized to whoever's handling the body that they either be, you know, buried or um cremated. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Are there any additional questions before? We vote. Pray. See the motion by Senator Hill, seconded by, as amended. second by everybody for Flippo. All those in favor say aye and opposed, I have it, congratulations, you've passed your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you for being here and sharing your story. OK. Senator Pino. Senate Bill 2. Uh, we do have a handout that we'll go ahead. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. I've got Representative Duffield, Doctor Smith, and Doctor Clark here that will be presenting with me. And OK, if y'all just state your names for the record. And we've we've passed out your handout. Dr. Chester Clark. Thank you. State Representative Matt Duffield, District 53, Russellville. Thank you. Dr. Bill Smith. OK, thank you. Are these the same? They're different, OK. All right, I Fine. Another one. OK. Generally we try to get these beforehand so we can just approve them, but that's, you're fine. I'll go ahead and then. those too. All right, we'll get these all handed out and then you can proceed I'll go ahead and get started while they're handing them out. That's fine. OK, go ahead. So Senate, Senate Bill 2, removes the existing mandate floorate water supplies in Arkansas, um. This is a bill that just strikes existing language. There's no new language in the bill. Um I look at this as a local control bill, um, this does not prohibit fluoridation of water supplies. It just removes the mandate, so it would leave it up to the uh municipalities or the water districts to decide if they want to keep, uh, fluoridating their water. Currently, there are several water districts in the state that are not fluoridating their water, and they are being fined on a regular basis, but their people do not want the fluoride in their water, so. the district is listening to the people. You will, you will hear testimony today from the people, why they don't want fluoride in their water, and you will hear from special interest groups, well, it's a good idea to put it in the water. Uh, as a, as a representative of the, of the people, I think we need to listen to our constituents and what, what they want, um, they can still go to the dentist to get fluoride, um, If they choose to, they can be in toothpaste, um, there's other sources of fluoride, um, you got a couple of doctors here that will go into some of the studies, uh, on decreased IQ in children, um, that have received fluoride, um, there's a lot of studies out there by Harvard and other sources on this, uh, how it could be damaging our children, and we have to evaluate whether those risks outweigh the rewards or not, and that's up to y'all. So You're gonna have a lot of testimony in that, but I would like you to think about one thing when you're hearing testimony today. Should the people be deciding at a local level whether their water supply is being fluoridated and also Fluoride is a is a toxic chemical. And it's a, it's a regulated drug by the FDA. Every other drug has a dosage on it. You can't regulate how much Of a dose you're getting on this because different people drink different amounts of water. Northern states drink less water than southern states, especially in the summertime. So I know, I probably drink 5 or 6 glasses as soon as I get out of bed in the morning. Um, if I was drinking fluoridated water, I would get a much higher dose than most people. Fluorine is in the, the halogen category on the periodic table with chlorine, bromine, and iodine. The Flooring is probably the most reactive. It's an electron thief. It'll steal electrons from anything and bind anything. You think about chlorine, the toxicity of it, you put it in your swimming pool to kill algae and bacteria. Um, it's one of the most reactive. chemicals in the periodic table. Um, so it's, it's known as a neurotoxin, a carcinogen, and there's been studies on animals on this. So, uh, I would just like you to think about whether we should be mandating a drug. To be put in our water supply when we can't regulate the dosage. And if Duffield's got anything to say. Yeah, sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I guess I'll go back a little bit to my personal journey when I decided to stop uh consuming fluoride and, and where I came to that determination. So that was about 14 years ago. I was 27 years old and so my background is, is broadcast journalism. That's what I had a degree in, and I've always enjoyed practicing independent journalism, so the topic of, of fluoride came up. Is it a poison? Why are they putting it in our water, in our water supply. What's the pros and what's the cons came about. So I came to my determination. To do my best to stop consuming fluoride, so I sit here today and I've used fluoride-free toothpaste for the past 14 years and at that time, I've not had a single cavity since then and I get a few compliments on my teeth being white every now and then, so, but just on occasion. So that's where I came to that conclusion and, and so if you look at the pros and the cons, and you'll hear a lot of testimony today from a dentist, from a doctor that came here from my district, you're going to hear the, the cons that come with this. So I won't waste your time on that today. My district has been very supportive of this, including tri-county water. Once this bill was filed, I heard from those folks and they said, Representative Duff. we had a board meeting and we're totally behind removing fluoride from the drinking water. We believe that it is indeed a poison. I'd also like to mention that this is not a blind MAGA-based bill. This is something that myself and Senator Penzo determined a long while ago, this was, this was not brought to you guys just as a blind mag of bill because of something that RFK has stated on national television. This is something we feel passionate about and we believe that it will help society. OK, um, let's see, do you want to, I know we have a lot of people signed up to speak for and against. Are y'all on this list? I'm just making you are both on this list. I just want to keep track of that. Um Doctor Smith. OK. OK, thank you. OK, uh, go ahead. Honorable state senators, it is a privilege for me to be here and share some of my thoughts and experiences relating to fluoridation of public water systems. First, let me tell you a little bit about myself. I grew up in northwest Arkansas. I'm sorry, I'm so sorry. Before we go there, let me go ahead and go to questions first. I'm so sorry, of the sponsors. I just want to keep this systematic since we have a bunch of people signed up for and against. Senator Love, you have a question of the sponsors. Thank you. I just, I just want to ask you because you said blind Magabi what what what does that mean? Thank you, Senator, for your question. No, I just, when we went through this, some of the members of the media came to us and one question they had essentially was, are we just Go to file this bill just as a, as a, I called it a blind Magabi. What I meant by that is, is this has been a talking point of, of some members of the Trump administration and RFK and where we just simply doing this without doing any research of our own, or we just doing this as a rubber stamp Republican bill, and the answer was no. OK, all right. I was like, what's a blind maga be? Yes sir, new term because we were working on this before we were working on this before RFK came out and was talking about removing At the federal level removing fluoride from water supplies in US, I was just thinking I was like, am I missing something? Alright, thank you. OK, members, do you have other questions from members of the committee for the sponsors bill sponsors before we go to testimony for and against. None? OK. So, uh, what we'll do is do 14 and then 1 against, like we're norm. OK, so I'm sorry for interrupting you, but I just wanted to get Senator Love's question in. So you are Doctor Carter or Doctor Smith Clark, C L A R K. Clark, Clark, got you. OK, thank you, sir. So I grew up in Northwest Arkansas. I attended colleges in Texas and Nebraska and earned a doctor of dental surgery degree as well as a master of Public Health degree in 1976, almost a century ago at Lomalea University. I started a scratch practice in Amity in 1977, still working 4 days a week. I have a wife of 56 years. We've raised 4 children, now have 7 grands and 1 great grand. I served 18 years as alderman for the city of Amity, and that was followed by 16 years as the mayor. I am an instrument-rated pilot with several other hobbies and interests, but my first exposure to water fluoridation was while studying for my master's degree in public health. I read the published scientific papers that came from Dr. Harold Hodge's office in the 1950s showing the amazing benefits of water fluoridation in Newburgh, New York versus nearby Kingston, New York for some who may not remember the the, um, What was the project um. Manhattan Project was an effort of the United States to develop the atomic bomb, and Harold Hodges was Dr. Harold Hodges was the toxicology chief for that project, and there's a lot of stories that could be told about him, but it would be good to review the reason why they wanted to make fluoride appear safe and helpful. It was because fluoride was Being used in many of the industrial processes that Americans were coming to enjoy and need. One was, of course, the reduction of uranium for the for the war effort. The other was the production of aluminum. We needed a lot of airplanes and the fluoride compounds were being used and unfortunately these many of these industries were belching large doses of fluoride into the air before the EPA was even formed. And people around these companies were factories were were and animals were dying and all kinds of strange diseases and health problems and before the war ended, there were 200 lawsuits against these major companies, so the motivation was to protect these these major industries that that we needed for so many things. If a simple health measure like adding something to the municipal water had such unbelievable benefits as saving children's teeth, then that would suddenly make make fluoride seem safe and effective, but um That really wasn't the case. One of the studies they did was dealing with decayed, missing, and filled teeth, and in order to do that study they looked at 6-year molars of children approximately 6 years of age and counted the numbers of decayed missing and filled, and they found in areas in West Texas where there's natural fluoride in the water. Of course it's calcium fluoride, not a toxic. form of the fluoride they found that there was a much lower level of decayed missing, and filled in these children's teeth, and so they said, oh wow, that's, that's proof right there. And but what they didn't realize is that fluoride in systemically actually delays the eruption of those six-year mowers, and so that is the reason why there was much lower level of decayed, missing, and filled in those. teeth, but as I read these studies and later on Dr. Hodges set up 5 different studies in different states. One was Michigan. One was New York. Newburgh and nearby is the city of Kingston. Newburgh was fluoridated. Kingston was not, and the data from Newburgh was just amazing. In fact, I was so impressed as I naively read this thinking it was true that Why isn't fluoride considered an essential nutrient and so my first few many years of practicing, I was using fluoride and selling it and dispensing it, giving it away. People couldn't afford it, and I thought it was as beneficial as vitamin C. So I began my practice essentially as a fluoride evangelist promoting it, and it wasn't until the early 2000s after President Clinton declassified many documents. from the 1940s and the 1950s that I learned the truth that those studies from Dr. Hodge's office were all falsified. While I was taking a graduate course in entitled How to Lie with Statistics. I was so gullible and naive to believe that published scientific articles must be reliable. It is now obvious that those that data was intentionally altered to show the health of the children at Newburgh, which was fluoridated, was better than that of Kingston, which was not fluoridated, though in fact the opposite was the reality. Another research study showed dental defects in the children of Kingston. This was sometime later, was 41% while that of fluoridated Newburgh was 63%. So in actuality, the dental status of the children in the floridated city was much worse than in the unfluoridated city. In the um one other thing I thought I would mention is the fact that fluoride, like, like Senator Penzo mentioned is part of the in the periodic table is in the same family as iodine. Physicians know that iodine is a necessary ingredient. There's been books written on how important it is. Every tissue and organ of our body needs iodine, but if there's fluoride circulating around in the body, then the T3 and T4 cells will pick up iodine and replace or we'll pick up the fluoride and replace the iodine, which makes those those cells totally inactivated. So that is, that is one of the serious consequences, and there are many others we could talk about how it affects the bone, how it affects the brain. In fact, there's pages and pages of references in these books here that show the connection with fluoride in relationship to bone health as well as brain health. First, I'd like to say, well, in the interest of time, I want to leave you with some questions and observations from a brief overview of municipal water fluoridation. First, while many books have been written reviewing the history and science of fluoride and municipal medication of the masses like these I have here, the case against fluoride and the fluoride perception and there's other books as well. I have yet to see one book that's written showing the safety of fluoride. It seems like if it's such a great thing, there should be some books written about it. Second, I referred to Dr. Paul Conne's summary statements from his book The Case Against Fluoride. Fluoridation is a very bad medical practice. Fluoridation defies medical ethics. Fluoride defies common sense. None of the agencies of the US Department of Health and Human Services or any other US federal agency accepts responsibility for the safety of fluoridation. The FDA has never approved fluoride for ingestion. Fluoride has never been subjected to rigorous, randomized clinical trials. Fluoridation's benefits have been wildly exaggerated. Bottle-fed babies are at risk. US children are being overexposed to fluoride. There is no margin of safety. Fluoridation continues because its promoters have power and prestige. Fluoridation started at a time when scientists and government officials held a very optimistic view about the safety of chemicals used in many products. There is some evidence that fluoridation was started for reasons of political and corporate financial expediency. Fluoridation was a huge gamble from the very beginning. Absence of study does not mean absence of harm. Any slight benefit from fluoridation must be judged against the risk of harm. Bones are not protected from lifelong exposure. The precautionary principle should be applied. Endorsements don't constitute scientific inquiry. Fluoridation is experimentation on humans without their informed consent. There are better ways to fight tooth decay. And finally, it's interesting to observe how many organizations, including the American Dental Association and individuals have stated publicly and strongly their opposition to adding fluoride to municipal waters. If you look at some of the ADA journals from the 1930s. There are strong articles against the use of fluoride. Then mysteriously these organizations or individuals. Change their position became promoters of it. To my knowledge, no study has tried to correlate the changes to their corresponding bank accounts. However, and to their credit, there are many dentists and doctors who did their own homework and changed their minds, and I will leave you with the statements from many of these experts in the handout that I shared with you. Thank you for letting me be here today. Thank you. Senator Wallace, you're recognized for a question. Sure, thank you for your testimony. have any other states approved the bill that you're talking about. Any other states come out against fluoride. Um, just saw some links recently. There are at least 3 states that are considering it right now, but I don't know what the status of those measures are. Thank you. I would like to add though that not all states mandate flo uh to fewer mandate than don't mandate. Senator Hill, you're recognized for a question. Senator Pinel kind of touched on it just then. You said it was fewer that mandate it. than it is, that does not mean that y'all have any numbers or statistics on that. I think one of the handouts had the, one of the handouts had. how many states actually do mandate. OK. We just got those a while ago and I have not. had the opportunity because I've been listening instead of reading. Thank you for this 1 OK. It's on the back 12 mandatory, OK. Did you want to go through the handouts? I mean what. Go ahead, Senator I've got a I want, I want to ask the doctor a question, Doctor Clark. Doctor Clark, you went through Very good analysis and history of everything that uh That you faced And your, your life and your experience professionally. Now, You said there were no other books written in favor of fluoride, which I have some testimony after a while that's going to The refute some of that, how can you come up with your analysis and we're going to hear something here in a minute that's gonna be right opposite from you. How am I supposed to be able to determine which one is correct and which one is not. Well, I think the The answers in the science, and if you read enough of the science, you'll soon see what science was biased, and if you look and see what who the sponsor of the science was that also helps to indicate. Feel free to call names. We're here to listen. Well, I know one chapter of Christopher Bryson's book Flori Deception occurred right here in Arkansas. Some of you may remember back in the 1980s when there was a case against Alcoa. Because of, I think, 18 individuals that were hired to empty these train cars with spelt. Aluminum byproduct, I forget what it was called, but they were sitting there with shovels to clean it out. These train train cars without any masks or any protection. Every one of them developed serious life threatening lung diseases and that was litigated down to the point where um It looked like they were going to win the case and suddenly they attorney Called a meeting of the class action individuals and said he would no longer be able to represent them and walked away and nobody, they couldn't find anybody to represent them after that, so that to me indicates a little, a little bias. Any other questions? For members of the committee. All right, thank you for your testimony. We're going to go now to, uh, Doctor Terry Fiddler, speaking opposed against the bill. Uh, we'll get back to, we'll do for and against. Doctor Fiddler. If you'll just state your name for the record and who you're associated with, you may proceed. Um, Dr. Terry Fiddler. I'm uh the executive director of the Arkansas Mission of Mercy. I'm the past uh trustee of the American Dental Association. I had, uh, In this past 4 years I've been in Chicago and DC. I'm now back in Arkansas full time. I was practicing dentist in Arkansas in Conway for 43 years. Uh, and I'm currently uh uh serving at the will of the Arkansas State Dental Association on various categories coming before the Senate and the House. Right. Uh, As I make my statements. Yes, they will, uh. The in complete opposite of what to Doctor Clark has offered, and I'm sure that I'll have others that will be opposed to what I'm about to say. I deal with a situation in Arkansas of seeing underserved individuals for 18 years, I've been the executive director of this mission of mercy. I can listen to one study, you can listen to another study. The Forsyth Institution of Boston Boston, Massachusetts is considered one of the top dental, craniofacial research centers in the world. Historically, that is not an argument with Doctor Clark. There would be, you know, whatever it is, it is. However, today currently, this institute Looks at all research modes and methods. That are current in the world. Obviously Science Has improved immensely on how they can see things and understand things. Now, I would not argue at all that some people Uh can be lucky enough to have the genetics to not have any cavities without taking fluoride. Obviously I'm not one, and I would imagine hardly anyone around here is. But these studies today Have not shown That there is a negative effect. Uh fluoride own maturation of a child. If the water fluoridation, if the community water fluoridation is practiced in the level in which it was to be practiced. There there is a sit amount of how much you should have in your fluoride system. Now, as uh uh was said earlier that you drink a lot of water. It has a lot of benefits, but It doesn't necessarily mean that you have an over amount of fluoride in your system. The amount of fluoride that a person takes in. Uh, you're going to uh Take it in, you're going to urinate and get rid of it. The amount of fluoride that you have in your system, uh, I don't know that we've ever taken an individual in Arkansas and taking a study to see how much fluoride you have in your system. I can match a study. That says that was taken and it was determined by a judge. Just recently, That fluoride was so close to maybe something's wrong that we need to study this and so he ruled against a particular petition. Now let me say, In taking all of these studies. The times, the studies that show that something possibly could be. Affecting the quote IQ of a child. is a much larger level than the community water fluoridation accounts for. I will say that fluoride at this point in time, is a Benefi. In fact, it was noted as one of the top 10. Health benefit discoveries. That's ever occurred is fluoride. It was found By accident. On what it was doing. It continues to show promise to continue to help those who are underserved, who can't buy that toothpaste, who cannot buy that, uh, fluoride drops who cannot do a lot of things because of their place in life. But they can get free water. And so they can have that water. When I was in practice and saw all age groups as I'm sure Doctor Clark has, uh, and by the way, I've started practice quite a bit earlier than you, so. Uh, but Children can have fluoride drops. Uh, and little children and we had a lot of people in Arkansas were so rural, they do not have fluoride because they have well water and they can determine if they have that amount of fluoride that they need. If not, they can have supplements. But The studies that were taken as of right now, as of 2024. It showed no Absolute is at the bell telling me to stop Yeah, the, uh, no absolute, there was nothing there that determined that it harmed. The IQ of a child. The study that will be brought up and may be brought up today from the National Toxicity Center. showed that There was possible harm by taking fluoride. However, that was a study. That was twice. Turned down by peer review. It was also turned down by those who are If you will, methodologists on how you term the bias of a particular study. And so there is a point in time that I cannot Determine that if a person uses fluoride that they are harmed. That's not my job. I do know that fluoride. Helps the general public. As far as having benefits of not having cavities. I do know that that study after study after study for 75 years. has shown that There is absolutely no place that I can see. Well, let me back up. It says that Europe does not fluoridate. I that you to look at that study. And make sure That that's what that says because I can show you as of November 11th. I'm sorry, yes, November 23rd of 2024. That that is not a true statement. And that is just been done, and the reason it was talked about because if you will, uh, when you talked about having what was going to happen with President Trump's future uh perhaps Secretary of Health. So that discussion took place in Europe in that point in time, and that is not a true statement. And I can give you, show you that. I can go on and talk about my study versus another study, but in reality, I see those children that I see at the mission of mercy. And how bad they are. And it's not only because of the lack of fluoride granted, but it's also the lack of many other things, uh, health care, uh, genetics, so many things. But if we have a chance to help the mass population of Arkansas to reduce the amount of decay that takes place in the state of Arkansas. That is through our water systems and I welcome any questions. Thank you. How much money or how much do you, uh Does mission of mercy give free dental care? I'm sorry, but do you have the numbers of how much uh dental care is done through mission of mercy in the 18 years and 3 years we did not have it because of COVID. In the 18 years we have seen 27,000 patients. We have given $17.6 million of free dentistry away. Thank you. Other questions from members of the committee, Senator Penzo, you recognize her question. Be better. I think we've got too many on. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, do, do you, do you consider the World Health Organization credible? I'm sorry. Do you consider the World Health Organization credible in some cases. In other cases, I don't. OK. Um, they did a, you mentioned Floridated countries and you asked me as an individual. OK. OK. OK. So they did a, a study and, and charted um countries that Florida and don't floridate, OK? So at the time of, if things have changed in Europe, uh, they, at the time of this, they were comparingluated to non-fluoridated. countries and they, they made a statement that there was no discernible difference in tooth decay between countries at Floridate and don't fluoridate. Do you think, do you think that study is flawed the World Health Organization possibly, yes, sir, I do. OK. Um, well, There's a I don't. Personally, and I, and I disagree with the World Health Organization on a lot of things myself, but um that was a study they'd done, Harvard's done studies, um, you, you mentioned that one specifically, I believe that it may not be credible. Do you, do you know where we get our fluoride today? Where we get our flow? I do, I do not. OK. OK. I do not. Uh, uh, again, you're asking me questions. That um obviously More than likely would not know because that's not in my field on where things are like that product. Let me back up and say on the, you're talking about the Harvard study. The Harvard is Forsyth Institute. That's the one that I mentioned first. They are the institute that determines these things and I, if you ask me a specific question to a specific problem, then I can give you a specific answer, but I cannot give you the generics there and so we could go back and forth and uh Senator Penzo, I, I understand on local control, I know, I would not argue with you on that at all, you know, they always say all politics is local. Some of these things become politics rather than science. And so, uh, that's, that's where I'm going based on now. So you mentioned that. There's a specific amount per liter that's in water. That's correct. But, but you agree that some people will drink more water than others and get more fluoride and um you've seen the back of toothpaste. Uh, fluoride toothpaste where it says contact poison control swallow too much of it. Absolutely. So it is feasible that somebody could drink too much water and get toxic levels that would cause issues or fluorosis of the teeth. I mean, there's cases of in this country where I don't know the answer to that question. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Ludding. You're recognize for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you. And since we are talking about water consumption, I imagine Senator Pinzo and I might be slightly above average. I certainly don't start my day with 6 to 8 glasses, but I do try to drink about a gallon every day, maybe more when I'm exercising, but I also know that you can drink too much water and become overhydrated. Your sodium levels can drop too low, but in respect to drinking too much water to where the amount of fluoride could affect you. I imagine you'd be at far greater risk of starting to suffer some of those overhydration effects long before you would ever suffer like you'd consume enough fluoride to be dangerous. Can you address that at all? Well, again, what is too much for him, may not be too much for you. And so I, I, I can't, you know, I can't drinking too much water, uh, has shown that there you can drink too much water that yes, you can. Hurt your body. OK, we always say you can't drink too much water. Yes, you can. Uh, but, uh, to say what would affect Senator Penzo versus what would affect Senator Lenny. I, I don't know that answer. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Hill. You're recognized for the question. In today's world, I never thought we'd really see, you know, bottled water sale. Yeah, they mayo and stuff like that. With more people drinking bottled water and there's no fluoride in that if I'm correct on that. Is that correct? That is exactly right. So are people getting enough Fluoride then From drinking tap water since they're drinking so much bottled water. Oh well, I mean, those studies have shown that people that drink tap water, I'm sorry, drink bottled water, do not get the amount of fluoride that they need in their system daily. I mean, I mean, it's just that simple. I mean, When you say you have uh again uh our representative over here, uh, uh, Matt Duffield. He says, you know, it was a self-determination that I'm not going to have, I'm not going to do fluoride in my body. I've not ever had any problems. Thank you, mom and dad. OK, I can't argue genes, you know, but as a general rule, I, I will take A statement, if you will, from Senator Desmay when he, uh, testified on the breakfast, uh, and I will make it in that same thing, sitting around the table. Everybody doesn't go hungry for breakfast because some people have more finances than other people. OK. Everyone does not have the opportunity because of finances to get the fluoride supplements. That they need. Fluoride water, fluoridated water. Is there for the drinking. And so yes, the answer to your original question, you do not get that amount of the 0.7 mg per liter. Oh, that's in community water fluoridation through your bottle of water. OK, thank you. Thank you. Is there any studies known that you're aware of versus bottled water and have there been any studies done between bottled water and the fluoride versus Uh, well, again, if you like a Perrier, if I'm not, I'm just, I'm being facetious here, but some of those springs that come, they have naturally occurring fluoride water in them, and they can be, they can tell you if they have fluoride in them, but, uh, Pellegrino, uh, that's a, that's a water. It doesn't necessarily have fluoride in it. You can have one community that can have, if you own Um I think you mentioned New York, but uh in uh Colorado, you can have one community that has fluorosis because the spring has too much water in it, then you have another community 5 miles down the road that doesn't have fluorosis because their spring doesn't have the fluoride in it, so it just differs from whatever your sources are. Thank you, sir. Actually, that, that is correct because there are a couple of um bottled waters that are directly from springs in the state of Arkansas. I know Guyser Springs is one of them, uh, labeled, uh, labels, um, and, and depending on their water source, they may have actually the correct amount of water in the water already existing naturally. So I know that that's the case in Stone County with um several of the springs that are coming out of Stone County. They have the natural perfect levels of fluoride already existing in the water, and some of those, some of those springs are utilized for bottled water companies. Thank you. if I may, my, my course I well, I, it's there are other questions, I'm so, I'm glad to answer those. Are there any other questions? All right, see you then, thank you so much for your testimony. Can I have one more. If There are states. That are considering Florida removing fluoride from their state mandates. Uh, you have to remember. In the 75 years that these studies have really been occurring since 1950. There are no states that have removed. They're fluoride. There must be something there, some benefit. To helping those people. I mean, the best thing that could ever happen to me, and I know that Dr. Clark and perhaps Doctor Smith will say, but uh if I moved to a community that's not ever had fluoride and doesn't have, I'm probably going to have a very good practice. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. All right. Um, we'll go to now uh speaking against. If you'll just state your name for the record. Are you, did you say for or against, I'm sorry, 4, so sorry, and you just state your name again. I'm so sorry. Dr. Bill Smith. OK, gotcha. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you for allowing me the chance to speak to the committee. I realize that this is a contentious topic. I understand that you all have a difficult decision to make. As John H. Patterson once said, only fools and dead men don't change their mind. Fools won't and dead men can't. I asked that each of you listen to my testimony with an open mind. Don't allow your internal biases to prevent you from thinking critically about this topic. So I understand the science behind fluoride and the reason for putting it into the water supply and the reason for putting a toothpaste and mouthwash. The enamel on the teeth is made of hydroxy appetite. Now when you have acid, high levels of acid in the mouth, what happens is the enamel starts to break down. You develop cavities, dental caries. Now fluoride, if you put it on the teeth when you have weakness in the enamel, what ends up happening is that it forms a compound called fluoro appetite, and that floral appetite helps to strengthen the enamel. Now I don't disagree with that at all, but what I am considering and thinking about or what are the side effects of not just locally applying fluoride to the teeth, but systemically applying fluoride to the teeth, which is why it happens when you put fluoride into the water supply. So there's been a lot of new data, new studies that have come out. Uh, one of them that started this whole debate was a study in Mexico where they studied a lot of mother-child pairs, and they looked at levels of fluoride in the urine and in the water supply of these mother child pairs, and what they found was that they had worse cognitive performance at age 4 and lower IQs from ages 6 through 12, but the fluoride was from fluoridated salt or water sources where fluoride was present Naturally, so that was the reason that, you know, not agree with that study. Then a study came out of Canada, and this is where a lot of this contention and debate has started to come in. It was the first prospective study using individual exposure data dealing directly with community water fluoridation, receiving quote unquote optimally fluoridated water. Now that the municipal water fluoride levels exceeded 1.5 parts per million in the vast majority, over 90% were the US target of 0.7. Despite drinking optimally 4 day water, the study of more than 500 mother-child pairs found that higher fluoride exposure during pregnancy once again appeared to translate into lower child intelligence measured at ages 3 through 4. Now the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist recommends pregnant women drinking at least 8 glasses of water per day. Based on the Canadian study following the advice with water at US target fluoridation levels might result in as much as a 5 point decrease in IQ. The Canadian said it was published. The American Medical Association's pediatric journal, the longest running pediatrics journal in the country, and the editor in chief defended his decision to publish a study as a testament to the fact that GAMA pediatrics is committed to disseminating the best science regardless of how contentious the results may be. And we applaud him for that. He wasn't afraid to do the right thing. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies and Health issued a rapid response report concluding that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that fluoride exposure at optimum levels affects neurological development, but that's not what the Canadian study was saying. The researchers just suggested the possible need to reduce fluoride intake during pregnancy as the accompanying editorial concluded based on the new data, a dispassionate and tempered discussion of fluorides. Potential neurotoxicity is warranted. So what was the response from US regulators? And this is where things get interesting. Well, within a month of the Canadian studies's release, the National Toxicology Program, which is a part of the US Department of Health and Human Services that evaluate substances for potentially harmful health, human effects, release a draft evaluation fluoride exposure and neurodevelopmental and cognitive health effects and concluded that based on a systematic review of the evidence, the NTP concludes that fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans. This is the the government organization that we rely on for our toxicology. So we've gone from dismissing people who question the safety of fluoride as conspiracy theorists to the official US national toxicology Program saying we should presume it's hazardous. Now this was just a draft report to ensure the integrity of the report, the NTP national academics, probably our most prestigious scientific institution to review it. The review raised a bunch of concerns which was portrayed in dental literature as discrediting the IQ research, but that's not what the National Academy said. They expressly said that their misgivings don't mean that the NTP, in conclusion that fluoride should be presumed to be a to be neurotoxic is incorrect. They just wanted some further analysis. So in 2020 they redrafted their draft NTP did. And once again after the redraft, they came to the same conclusion, presuming it's a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard based on the extent, consistency, and robustness of the IQ data. The National Academy then re-reviewed their redrafted draft, concluding it's much improved by RGMTP to further improve the clarity of the document, and so on January 6th we received the final draft. was published in JAMA Pediatrics, our most prestigious medical journal in the United States for pediatrics. The meta-analysis, here are the results is very important. The mes has found a statistically significant association between higher fluoride exposure and lower children's IQ scores, showing that the more Florid a child is exposed to, the more likely that child's IQ will be lower than if they were not exposed to fluoride. The meta-analysis found that for every 1 mg per liter increase in urinary fluoride. There's a decrease of 1.63 IQ points in children. The determination was based on 74 studies in 10 different countries, not just here in the United States, and they measured fluid in the drinking water and the urine. So how did the medical community respond to the conclusions of the recent systematic review that concluded that fluoride is to be presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans based on studies showing lower IQ scores among kids with higher fluoride exposure. Well, the health authorities have continued to conclude that fluoride is unequivocally safe despite the new studies in recent years linking fluoride exposure to pregnancy with with adverse effects on fetal brain development. The tendency to ignore new evidence that does not conform to widespread beliefs may be impeding our response to early warnings about Florida as a potential developmental neurotoxin, but some people are just so fixed in their view on fluoridation that they won't reassess. The stance no matter what the latest research might show. Ironically, it was the anti-fluoridationists who were accused of anti-scientific attitudes, but now it's the proforidationists, one of the most common profluoridation arguments I ran across as the suggestion that fluoride can't be hurting IQs because over the last half century of fluoridation, IQ scores have been going up rather than down. Here's the jaw dropping irony, a substantial part of the rise may have been due to the removal of another neurotoxic element called lead. It's worth remembering that the science surrounding the neurodevelopmental hazard of low level lead exposure was also bitterly contested using the same kinds of arguments we see today in the fluoridation debate. A few short years before letting Glass was effectively banned in the United States, a meta-analysis similar to the one that the NTP had on child IQ only found 24 human studies all cross-sectional with a typical associated loss in intelligence of about 4 IQ points. The current data suggests A similar IQ loss from fluoride from an even stronger body of evidence, 74 studies, not 24 studies, and this was in 10 countries. A spokesperson for the American Dental Association responded to the data by pointing out that some cities that have ended water fluoridation saw an increase in cavity. Which is kind of crazy to consider that the response to the data suggesting permanent brain damage was to say that ignoring this would cause cavities. The more recently on September 24th, 2024, the court ruled on behalf of the Florida Action Network and the plaintiffs, a US federal court has now deemed fluoridation an unreasonable risk to the health of children, and the EPA will be forced to regulate it as such. This is an excerpt from that ruling if you have haven't heard. The issue before the court is whether the plaintiffs have established by a preponderance of the evidence that fluoridation of drinking water at levels typical in the United States poses an unreasonable risk of injury to health of the public within the meaning of the amended toxic substances Control Act for the reasons set forth below the court so finds, specifically, the court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 mg per liter, the level presently considered. optimal in the United States poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children. The court finds that there's an unreasonable risk of such injury, a risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage with the regulatory response. One thing the EPA cannot do, cannot do, however, in the face of the court's finding is to ignore that risk. The EPA has been required to address these concerns, but just a few weeks ago, the EPA appealed this decision, so it's kicked the can down the road. I'm not suggesting that tooth decay isn't a serious health issue, but there are ways to get the cavity preventing benefits of fluoride without the risks. Since the primary benefits arise from topical contact with our enamel, but the primary risks arise from systemic absorption. We can follow your Europe's example and safely reap their rewards using fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash in Europe, 98% of the population drink unfluoridated water. Several countries, including France, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, S Sweden banned fluoridation decades ago in favor of fluoride toothpaste has more than 10 years ago, and this is the committee, the committee official committee on health risks of the European Union concluded that topical application of fluoride is the most effective in preventing tooth decay and that there appears to be no obvious advantage in favor of fluoridating the water supply. Now I've given each of you a handout for safety data sheet on sodium fluoride and if you would please turn to page 3 there. I've highlighted a few things I want to point out. So, the safety data sheet on fluoride and that highlighted section says that laboratory experiments have resulted in mutagenic effects, chronic exposure to fluoride compounds may cause systemic toxicity. Animal studies have reported the development of tumors. There have been no human studies with fluoride and cancer by our government, but Thanks to independent researchers, there are studies, one in particular I have here is fluoride in the central nervous system, and its potential influence on the development and invasiveness of brain tumors. They have mechanisms of what happens whenever the fluoride gets into the bloodstream and the children who are most at risk are those who have not completely formed the blood-brain barrier. So when fluoride is able to easily pass from the bloodstream into the brain. It really affects the brain and causes lots of damage. My concern is that we put a regulated drug into the water supply, and we haven't given, given the people a choice to accept or refuse administration of this drug with each one of these drugs, you have to explain the risks or benefits associated with the drugs so people can make an informed decision about this. All we talk about are the benefits of fluoride and what it does with cavities, but we don't want to talk about the systemic effects of fluoride on the brain, on the joints, on the thyroid, on the kidneys. Are people not allowed to know this information. Am I going to be shut down for sharing this information. I'm not being paid by some dental association. I'm a father of 8 children. I want what's best for my children and I care about the other children in our community that might suffer because we are putting a toxic substance into the water supply. One moment. I, I appreciate your testimony, but I, I don't appreciate references to other people that have testified and making assumptions about who they are and whether they're being paid or not. So if you could just keep your testimony to the bill itself, I would really appreciate it. Thank you. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that he was being paid. So in conclusion, I'm pleading with you to consider the facts and the scientific data set before you. There's a proven association between neurotoxicity and systemic fluoride administration. Any potential neurotoxic substance in our water supply should not be a partisan issue. The issue has already been decided in federal court, voting on no on SB 2 completely disregards the national toxicology programs and the federal court's findings that systemic fluid exposure. leads to permanent neurologic damage in the most vulnerable members of our society. It's your responsibility as members of the health committee to improve the health of our state. This morning we have the opportunity to make a lasting impact that could affect many generations to come. Please don't find yourselves on the wrong side of history. Thank you, thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee? Senator Love, you're recognized for a question. I do have one. I'm, I'm seeing that you all continue to mention your countries, European countries. And now and and and you were. Talking about how if we did not have fluoridated water they could people, children could get treatments. How many of those countries have universal health care. That you mentioned I'm not sure of the numbers on all those countries in Europe. OK, because I mean that would. That would probably be A significant part of your argument. I mean, if, if you have a universal, just say if we had universal dental care in Arkansas, right? a universal dental care in Arkansas and people could get those topical treatments as you would as you would stated. Then it possibly maybe, you know, I'm not gonna say it wouldn't be a need for fluoride, but we would have universal so they could receive it, but if we do not have universal. Then the fluoridation in the water. It would be necessary, would you not agree? I know, I disagree, and here's why a hold on let me finish. Now you just said that the fluoridation or the topical treatment on the teeth. It is necessary is that not what you're saying? Yes, but I was not referring to a dentists applying a topical treatment. We have topical treatments that are available readily accessible is actually easier to get a topical treatment than to get a treatment that has no fluoride, I think everyone in here probably has fluoridated toothpaste, fluoridated mouthwash. We can't control, you know, fluoride that we get from drinks that we buy over the counter. There are many, many sources of fluoride besides our municipal water supply and just brushing with fluoridated toothpaste and using fluoridated mouthwash, we'd have a greater impact than systemically putting it into the water supply. OK, all right. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Payton. You're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and My question was along the same lines, you pretty much answered it. Uh, I grew up on the farm, no city water. My teeth were terrible, uh, when I became a father, uh, we still lived on the farm. I took my kids to the dentist and he said, since you're not on city water, you need to do a topical treatment and he gave us the name of a bottle of mouthwash and uh he told us, you don't have the kids rinse their mouth out and spit it out. I read the bottle. It said do not swallow and uh So I wanted to ask you with all your studies and with what you'd commented about the benefits of the topical treatment. Is it safe? To do the mouthwash rinse and spit it out. Yeah, from my research, it is safe as long as you don't ingest it. OK, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Any other questions from members of the committee? All right, thank you so much for your testament, and you, you're a dentist, correct? No, I'm a chiropractor. Oh, OK, you're a chiropractor and I'm a well educated chiropractor, OK, and where do you live again? I practice in Fayetteville. Fayetteville. OK, thank you. Appreciate that. Um, any other, OK, uh, we will now go to The next people I'd like to make a motion to limit public comments to 2 minutes per side for speaker. OK. Is there a second? Second Is there a second to do that? I'll make a 2nd. All those in favor say aye and opposed. I have it. OK, so that's uh so folks that are signed up to speak, well, you'll have 2 minutes to, to make your statement. Um, I would just again encourage you to speak to the bill, um, and, um, if you're for or against the bill, um, and we will keep a timer here and that way we'll get to everybody that has traveled here today and has signed up to speak, um, before, so that we don't adjourn with leaving somebody off the, uh, list. Madam Chair, could you tell me how many people we have on the list to speak. Uh, let's see, I have 1234567899. OK, is that just for one side or total? That's total. That's 9 total. OK. Are you ready? OK, so we spoke for the bill. Now we will go to against the bill. Uh, which is, where are we? OK, OK, um, Natalie Burr against Arkansas Academy of Pediatrics. If you'll just, uh, state your name and who you're associated with, you'll be recognized and we'll give you 2 minutes. Thank you for being here. Hi, I'm Natalie Burr, um, here with the Arkansas chapter of the Academy of Pediatrics. Thanks. If you'll just speak right into that mic so we can hear you, that would be great. Thank you, thank you, Madam Chair, um, and thank you to Senator Penzo for your commitment to the well-being of the children of Arkansas. I appreciate you letting me speak today. Um, as I said, I'm a member of the Arkansas chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. It's a local nonprofit organization that represents about 500 pediatricians across our state that care for the children. of Arkansas. I'm also our state's oral health champion, uh, for that chapter. So I serve in this volunteer role of oral health champion because I've seen firsthand, um, the really detrimental effects of poor oral care and dental care and the detrimental effects those have on children's overall health, um, dental disease in children continues to be the most common chronic disease of childhood. Problems with dental disease can arise in infancy, and they affect many areas. Children's health, uh, negative effects on nutrition, speech, self-esteem, um, even the ability to focus and learn in school. So pediatricians for those reasons and for some additional ones opposed the repeal of community water fluoridation requirements. Fluoridated water prevents tooth decay. Research proves that fluoridation reduces to decay by about 25%. We saw a fall of 68% in, sorry, um, decrease in 68% of decayed filled or missing teeth among 12 year olds when we did start to do more community water fluoridation. There There are no credible studies that show negative impacts of fluoride on overall health or development at this time. Um, and this is why pediatricians do recommend, you know, parental supervision while brushing teeth because too much fluoride, as we know, can cause things like fluorosis. Um, finally and most importantly for me, community water fluoridation really reaches these families that don't have the ability to have dental care, um, in our state. Thank you. Thank you so much. much for your testimony. Are there any questions? All right, see you then. Thank you so much for being here. OK, uh, now we will go to, um, Andy Anderson. Speaking for the bill. Mm If you'll just identify yourself for the record and who you're with. OK, I'm Andy Anderson. I'm chairman of the Ozark Mountain Regional Public Water Authority of the state of Arkansas. We're located on the Arkansas Missouri border. We get water out of Bull Shos Lake. We treat it in a 4.5 million gallon a day processing plant and distributed it through 120 miles of transmission mains to cities. Towns and rural Water Associations in North Arkansas, primarily Newton, Cercy County, parts of Boone, parts of Marion. Uh I started this journey in 2006 And, and we've got to quit meeting this way every other year, guys, you know, every other year we come down and we talk about this. So we've got to get this thing put to bed. I have multiple presentations I could make. But I want to address a couple of things. First, Uh, the good doctor, the dentist. Say The CDC says water fluoridation is one of the top 10. Things since sliced bread. There's a little more to that statement. It's when topically applied. That's right dental varnish or toothpaste, topical application, not through ingestion. OK. He also talked about the Forsyth Institute. Dr. Phyllis Mullina worked for the Forsyth Institute back in the early 90s. She was tasked with the study of fluoride. She produced a report. That showed that fluoride caused neuro neuro. neurological damages to the lab animals. This went counter to what their preconceived notion was. And they told her they did not want the report published. She wanted it published. She published it anyway. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. That's 2 minutes. Yeah, question Senator Payton. Thank you, Madam Chair. So being involved with the water system that you mentioned, if, if the mandate is repealed, how would the water system determine whether or not they're going to put fluoride in. Would that be your decision or would there be a board decision or would you poll your customers? How would that work? We already decided that. We built this plant and we were building it in 2011 when this bill came about. So we did not add it. To our system because it was already well over budget. We had a meeting with all of the entities involved and there's 18 cities, towns, Water Association. We had a meeting. Arkansas Department of Health was there. This was in 2015, the Arkansas Department of Health was going to convince us that we needed to do it. All 18 entities said no, we don't want it. This project was built, a lot of the reason the project was built was because we had a mutual problem. We had problems with quantity, and we had problems with the quality of water. Several of the systems had fluoride in the water. They were under court order or not a court order, administrative order from the health department to get rid of the fluoride. So we banded together. They joined our system to get fluoride-free water and free of other contaminants and plenty of water. OK, and then in 2011, It came about. They signed contracts in 2009 with us to buy water from us. So then in 2011, the bill came along in 2015, we had this meeting. They said they don't want it. And they said it to the point of several of them, if you put fluoride in our water, we're not going to pay you. OK. So the board Board of directors said we're not going to do it. Arkansas Department of Health is finding us $500 a week. Since we appealed that. To the courts Long story there, but anyway, the bottom line is just stick to the court to Arkansas ruled against us. So The state they're issuing those fines now of $500 a week for refusing to put it in. The board says we're not going to do it. It's cheaper to pay the fine than to put it in. This is a very it's an expensive process. We did a study. It would cost 14 cents per 1000 gallons for us to put fluoride in the water. Now you hear people talk about the cost of the fluoride, the chemical itself, it's not that much. You add that there's reduced life of your equipment, you reduce your excessive testing, your hazmat material required. For Putting it in the water. And it added up and it was 14 cents per 1000 gallons. I found a study out on the internet from some time back that said the cost was 64 cents per meter. OK. The average usage in the United States average water usage is 4000 gallons a month. 4000, that's what, 56 cents. OK. Anyway. That's where the bottom line is. But I need to talk about something to ourselves. I'm sorry, I, I just wanna make note, I, I appreciate the the answers and the questions. However, you're going to be eating into other people's times that are here to testify. I'm not sure how anybody on the committee feels about that, but I just feel like everybody should have the opportunity to speak on this bill, so if we could just we got derailed. This is a simple bill. OK. It's a very simple bill. It's not fluoride is good or bad. Thank you, Senator Payton. Did you have follow-up questions? I think he answered my question. I did have a couple of follow-ups, but in You know, to save time, I'll, I'll hold those maybe ask somebody else. Thank you. OK, OK, well, you all got my email. What I was going to testify if I didn't make it down because of the weather. Thank you for being here. Safe travels home. OK, we will go to um opposed Mr. Billy Tarpley, Arkansas Dental Association. You're recognized convenient for you. I'd be happy to defer to Doctor Vicky Carter. All right. Dr. Carter, thank you. We'll go to Doctor Carter. Nicky Carter. Thank you. Please proceed. Good morning. I'm Doctor Nicky Carter and a dentist. My history includes having been in private practice in Arkansas for 25 years. I initiated the first general practice residency in general dentistry for IMS leading to accreditations and was a director there for 5.5 years. Why let you this, I obtained a master's in public health with a specialty track in health policy and management. I'm currently employed at Delta Dental of Arkansas as dental director. From a public health standpoint, water fluoridation is the best strategy to distribute fluoride equally among population health into entire communities. The challenge our state already owns. is being ranked last in the nation in oral health. Removing fluoride from water would have a negative impact for Arkansans' oral health. In fact, removing it from our water systems will burden those with lower incomes and pre-existing dental conditions. It forces them to do without this valuable resource. These same people have fewer prevention options and already have to deal with socioeconomic barriers that make it difficult to maintain a healthy diet or access dental care. The CDC's recommended level is 0.7 millimeters of fluoride per liter per water. While we're concerned, the about the study that the National Toxicicality program had, it summarized a review of studies conducted in Canada, China, India, Iran, Pakistan, and Mexico, places not included in the US and it compared levels of fluoride that were 1.5 mg higher. Thank you. I'm sorry, um, Senator Penza had a question for you. I noticed uh Delta Dental has hired lobbyists to oppose this bill. Does Delta dental uh derive any revenue from fluoridation and Arkansas, whether it's uh any, any vertical integration, any parent company, any, anything like that? Absolutely not. OK. Delta Dental's mission is to improve the oral health of our, all Arkansans. OK, thank you. Do you have the amount of money that's been donated by Delta Dental for yes, I do. Thank you. um, over $8 million has Delta Dental of Arkansas given for the start-up cost for fluoridation for the act of 197 back in the day. Thank you. Are there any other questions from the members of the committee, Senator Payton you recognize? Thank you, Madam Chair, and, and I appreciate the fact that you and evidently your organization believe that it's very beneficial. Um, I have, I have a sore knee that I've been fighting with for years and, and putting absorbing Junior all over it in the mornings really helps. But that's different than drinking it. So is fluoride, to your knowledge, beneficial to anything other than teeth? Um, it has their studies that improve bone. But the key is drinking it at the safe level. There's so many essential nutrients and everything taken down the absorbing junior too, but thanks. Thank you. Any other questions from members of the committee, Senator Hill? We spent a lot of time talking about what it does for our teeth and did you say Arkansas ranks last. Yes sir. That makes me wonder if it's really working that good then if we still ranked last, and we've been doing this what, since 2011? Somewhere in that time frame. I'd hate to think where we would be if we can't go any lower than last. I'm sorry, we do need to go up and I, and I think we would um it would not be a good thing for the state, but my opinion, of course, my, my next question for you though is, uh, What's the effects of the fluoride on our stomachs. Is there any effect On that was drinking the water and stuff to my knowledge. I'm not a GI doctor, but I didn't know if you heard of any studies or anything else, I can't really speak to that. Thank you. Any other questions from members of the committee? All right, thank you, CNN. Thank you so much for your testimony. OK, uh, Chris Harris. Everybody else that I've signed have signed up is for the bill. And I have, let's see. 12345, including you. Thank you. Please state your name for the record, and if you're with anybody, Yes, Madam Chairman, I'm Chris Harris. I'm with Arkansas Rural Water Association. We're a technical assistance and training provider for rural and city and wholesale water and wastewater utilities all across the state of Arkansas. We're governed by 16-member board of which that's what they're made up of, of city utilities, rural utilities, and wholesales. And they voted unanimously in favor of this bill. The reason being is they don't believe that mandating water systems on something that does not directly improve. The water quality is something that they don't like the idea of. As simple as that. They don't want to, they've dealt with a lot of mandates that are coming down for water utilities. But ones that Don't improve the water quality. is the ones they really have trouble with. And they've kind of voted to speak for this bill on that subject anyway. And that's all I have. OK, thank you so much. Senator Payton. Thank you and most of my district is very rural, um, most of these rural district, water districts that you represent, how many Employees, and I'm talking about the manager and people under him, what would be the average number of people in those rural districts that actually Work on the system and maintain the system. That varies from uh utility to utility, um, most smaller utilities, there's one-man show. Well, that's what I've experienced. It's a one man show. Obviously, uh, in concentrated form, this is a hazardous material. They have to have hazmat equipment in order to handle it, um. What is your confidence that that uh That those one man shows. Can safely and accurately maintain the diluted level. In the system Um I can't speak to everyone, but I can tell you that a lot of these smaller utilities, they wear a lot of hats. Now they've done a very good job, I think, of complying with that level. But to say that there are, they're 100% of the time or even 3 hours a day and those water treatment plants, that's simply not true probably for most of them. Well, that's why I asked your confidence level because I know my confidence level is not very high. I was just wondering if you had one. Thanks. Confident in our operators, but not the time they're given to properly watch over things like that. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick question, but many of your rural water associations are dependent on one larger system where that is actually occurring, not at the rural Water Association where they are transmitting the water. We do have a lot of rural Arkansas, so I'm pretty familiar with our rural water associations and how they operate in your area. Yes, we do have uh several consecutive systems. There are a couple of big wholesales that do that, um, but that's not the majority by no means. Well, I mean, I'm just speaking, I know all of the rural water associations. Receive their water from one source, which is within the city and so there's only one, well, in my area, in my county at least, but, um, so I just wanted to make sure we're clarified that that's not overall the case. It's, it's not, it's not every rural water association that is actually doing anything except for making sure that the water is, is getting out to all the rural areas, but they're getting their water source from a larger Uh, a larger. Uh, facility, water facility. Most of the time that's not the case. We have 680 water utilities in Arkansas, yeah, OK, well, I'm, I'm just speaking of, of course, Stone County, but I guess I would like to see probably, you know, eventually maybe a map of that, but that's OK, we'll move on. One last question, Senator Payton. Thank you, Madam Chair. Are you familiar with the training? Can you answer a question about Maintaining the homogenization, I guess of of whether or not the fluoride once added. Maintains its dilution or if it can become concentrated in hills and, and valleys of the system are you, are you trained in that? Do you have any reference to that? I can tell you it does not leave the water, so even during times when you have water loss that water's traveling through the ground, it's still an immeasurable amount. coming out of the ground after it leaves the pipes. Well, maybe somebody else coming up could speak to that, but Um, I was told, I don't know how accurate it was. That as as you go through a system, And you have stagnant areas that it can become more concentrated. And if that's the case, what Senator Irvin was talking about it being added at a central location just To me that increases the distance of travel and the and the opportunity for it to become concentrated in stagnant areas. No, I think it stays pretty close to the same level throughout the whole distribution system. OK, thank you. Yeah, it is highly regulated with computers and I, I have, unfortunately had to be there when we've had a little bit of a crisis in my county and um it is a very, very, uh, sophisticated system of, of regulating the water. um, utilizing, you know, computers and everything. I was very impressed actually, so, um, thank you for your testimony. Um, OK, um, speaking, um, for the bill next, we have Shari Beavers. You'll just state your name for the record. We'll give you 2 minutes and off you go. Good morning. Um, my name is Sharice Beavers, and I'm just um A wife, a mother of 5, and a grandmother of 4, Uh, I feel like I'm a poster child for why this needs to be done. First of all, I was, um, as a young child, I had terrible teeth. My mother did all of the fluoride treatments. I had all of the, the, you know, all the dental visits, all of that, and I still had horrible teeth. I, as, um, Older in life, I started doing some research and felt like, um, it was not a good option for me. It had never benefited me before, so I stopped it and guess what? Still, uh, there's no change in my teeth. So obviously, something else is at play there. Um, I, um, in 2015 was diagnosed with hypothyroidism and um I'm here today to ask y'all to consider uh repealing this bill for that fact. I don't know how many people that y'all know, um, that have thyroid issues, but mine is a growing number. I could, I, I mean, I, I have several friends, family, casual people, you can be in a grocery store. store and somebody will say, you know, yeah, I take some kind of drug. Well, I don't, I don't take drugs. I do it with my diet and uh my husband and I bought a filtered water system when we figured out that that fluoridated water would cause me more problems. I have two teenage daughters here today that I do that for them as well. And as we listened to testimony about cognitive issues. And younger children. I am a grandmother that passionately wants to protect those as well. Thank you so much. Appreciate your testimony. OK, Sandra Young. Yes, my name is Sandra Young. I'm a retired physician from Pope County, um, I'm going to have trouble uh saying much, but, uh, fluoride causes arthritis and so it can cause joint pain. It, it destroys the cartilage. So you can get um uh disc disease, uh, with that. It causes gastritis. I wanted to talk a little bit about the biochemistry of it. It's the uh fluorine is the most active atom there is in the, in the chart. It combines with just about everything except for the inert elements. It, uh, once it combines, it becomes a, a completely different uh animal, um, fluorine can, uh, one thing it can do is it can break hydrogen bonds, hydrogen bonds are a weak bond. They're not like you're usually age2O type bond, there'll be, it's a flooring atom. Between two oxygens or between 2 nitrogens or between a nitrogen and an oxygen. They are used to help uh shape proteins into a uh enzymes into a 3D shape. The 3D shape the way the, uh, everything works is based on the 3D shape. If they don't have that, the spiral that you see on your DNA, that's held together with uh uh hydrogen bonds if those are broken, then that levels, so some of the DNA problems that you hear about is from that. Uh, I do want to mention Dean Burke, who was head of the National Cancer Institute, uh, for 35 years, uh, towards the end of his service there. He had done a little study and and showed that once a community is fluoridated within 5 years, uh within 5 years, there's a 20% increase in cancers. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Cynthia I explain though the babies why, why they're, we had 2 minutes, um, per testimony had 15. That's that was before the motion that was made. Thank you for being here. Cynthia Callahan, you're speaking for the bill. Cynthia Callahan, um, Pope County resident retired physics and chemistry teacher. I just want to make observations, didn't know I was going to even be here till last night. Um, we've heard 50, 75 years of fluoridation and maybe 25% um improvement in tooth decay, etc. We have heard that, yes, topical fluoridation, um, is a good thing ingestion is a bad thing. There's mountains of evidence. That fluorine is a neurotoxin and causes all kinds of problems in every system of your body. If this is news to you, there's decades of research, um, so this is not new news. It's out there. Um, we've heard that, you know, here that in Arkansas poor oral health with fluoridated water, so how do you make sense out of that? I'm here because this you're, what we're asking you to do is to remove the mandate. That's it. You don't have to be judge and jury on the benefits of fluoride or not, but all I've heard for years now is the only health benefit for fluoride is it prevents cavities, mountains of evidence, lower IQ, neurotoxicity, thyroidism, arthritis, the cascade of chronic illnesses, you can fix a cavity. You can't fix the IQ. You can't fix the brain damage. You can't fix all these other things and so I'm just kind of been all here that we're weighing a cavity. Against all of these potential horrible lifelong issues. All you're asked to do is to remove the mandate. Thank you so much for your testimony. Um, OK, Joey Marrone, I believe, is that correct? Is that you're for the bill, correct? OK, I didn't, it didn't have it here. You'll recognize if you'll just state your name. My name is Joey Marrone. I'm from, uh, Crawford County. My pedigree is a lot less sophisticated. I'm a father, dad, and a small businessman, and uh Avid listener to Rush Limbaugh for his whole career and um so my perspective is logic. Uh, I'm real simplistic and uh so I'd like to challenge us on a couple of points. One is, uh, the news flash that uh nationally mined fluoride is is spent. We now get it from an international source, China. So that resonates poorly with me. Um. The other The other challenge I would have to the good doctor is that he mentioned that we would urinate out the toxicity of fluoride, I would, I would say that we could all take uh methamphetamines and cocaine, and in 3 days have it urinated out and pass a drug test. So the effects of a FDA regulated toxin. does not get urinated out, um. Generally speaking, I would also like to challenge you if you were to take a drink of water. How much of it is spent coating your teeth. As opposed to being ingested by your body. So if topical fluoride has its benefits, I would suggest that our local water source should not be it. And then I would end on the purpose of your existence at this table. You are all elected senators from the good state of Arkansas, and you are the voices of the people. And in today's mandate of the new administration and, and the president's threat to send so many more things back to the states as opposed to being overseen by federal government, you should all be empowered and excited about being able to speak more clearly for your people. But that being said, this bill has the potential, or this um removal of a mandate which that word stinks to high heaven, has the potential to be given. back to the people that voted for you. And so I would, I would ask that you would let that resonate. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. All right, that's the last thank you again for traveling, safe travels back through the weather, um, will recognize as Senator Pinzo to close for his bill. Are there additional questions from the members of the committee, seeing none. Any additional questions for the sponsors of the bill before I recognize them for closing from the members of the committee. All right, see none, please proceed with your closing. I'll make, I'll make this as quick as possible. The, the, as it was mentioned, a lot of this. Flora they were putting in the water supply comes from China Uh, we don't, you know, it used to be the solution to pollution is dilution. How do we get rid of waste from agricultural fertilizer, aluminum manufacturing, uh, that's a good way to dilute waste and make a profit off selling it is to fluoridate the water, but with that being said, um, there was uh some mention of us being 50th place in the country, and we're one of the only one of the, there's a small percentage that mandate fluoride. And yet we're 50th. Why are all these states that don't mandate or prohibit like Hawaii does. It was mentioned no state prohibits Hawaii. There's a few other states, uh, most states leave it up to the municipalities to decide local level. And we're gonna say that fluorides saving children's teeth. Yet. The states that aren't flo fluoridating their water supply have are ahead of us. That doesn't make any sense. The fluoride obviously isn't working, arguably it could be making the teeth more brittle. There could be more fluorosis taking place, um, I'm a big fan of, you know, not everybody in this room agrees, but Topical application of fluoride. Um, I know I went and switched with it at the dentist when I was a child. Um, mom had fluoridated toothpaste. We were always don't swallow it, don't swallow it, it's poisonous. Yet we mandate, and I, I want you all to think about that mandate a drug be put in our water supply. We're not supposed to be for mandates. I mean, if you want to work out something to where we make fluoride available to children. I'm actually working on some dental bills for, for kids to improve dental health in our children. I don't think fluoridating the water supply is the answer. Obviously, we're 50th place, so it's not doing its job. Um, There's a skull and crossbones on these packages. It's poison I mean, the people that put it in our water supply have to wear hazmat suits. It is a very dangerous chemical we're putting on our water supply. This stuff, when it's added to water, will eat glass. You can put hydrochloric acid in a glass container. Acid doesn't normally eat glass. This, this will This will dissolve. Amorphous courts. That's what glass is. One of the hardest, the only thing harder than quartz is a diamond, and it, it will eat right through a glass jar. This is, this is very toxic chemicals. It will, it, it, it gets stored in your bones, your teeth, it affects every organ in your body. You don't, you don't take an oral antibiotic for an infected cut on your finger. You put antibiotics on the cut. So topical application is the solution if we want to use fluoride, um. Do you have anything you'd like to see? Yeah, just a couple things to add that I don't think have been addressed here today, and a lot has certainly been addressed. The US is currently one of 25 countries in the world out of 195 that Floate their water supply. So our urge you to uh give this bill a good vote. I'd love to see it go to the Senate floor for more discussion. Thank you. Thank you. Motion to pass, is there a second? All those in favor say aye. OK. Discussion Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, if you would indulge me for just a minute. This, this has been something easy for me because I decided how I'd vote on this. Many years ago, at least 13 years ago. But the reason is I mentioned I grew up on the farm. Back in the 80s, that we put in a rural water system, uh, in Wilburn, we're 3.5 miles east of Wilbur, where the farm is. My dad, I was a teenager at the time, he said he wanted city water. He wanted to hook up, and they said, well, you're a little too high in elevation, we can't guarantee you'll have the right pressure. But we'll bring it out there as long as you understand you may not have good pressure. And uh so he was at the end of the line on this royal system and his, the line ended there across the road from his front yard and uh he was the last meter on that line. We had a patch across the road there. It's about 4 or 5 acres that only had water for the animals. 9 months out of the year, so we had always grazed and used that patch, but didn't have water over there for the animals. Well when they put the line in, they put a big bleed off. Pipe and a valve so that they could bleed the end of the system. And Dad said, hey, if I Put a water tub over there and y'all give me that tea wrench to open that valve and bleed the system, I could have a couple of horses in there in, in the summertime when there's no natural water. The Wilburn water system got water from an artesian well. And it was always deemed one of the cleanest water sources of any system in the state. The only thing they added to it was fluoride and chlorine. I watched it destroy a horse. In that pasture. Destroyed the nervous system. I didn't have any idea. What hurt the horse, but I knew, and my dad knew that it was in that water. And we quit putting any animals over there and using that water. And then I found out years later during the debate of whether or not to make this a mandate, that it was likely the fluoride, and then I found cases in Colorado where fluoride was accused of destroying some horses. Members, I have personal experience. And I remain convinced to this day that the fluoride in that system destroyed that horse, and I don't want to drink it. Thank you. Thank you. Any other discussion before we vote? All right, seeing none, all those in favor say aye and opposed knows habits. Please call the roll. Requires 5 yes votes. San flip on yes. Sarah Hill, yes. Center. No. Senator Penza. Yes Senator Payton, yes. Senator Love. No Senator Wallis? No. No. Thank you for, yes, 4 nays, the bill fails. Thank you. All right, is there any other, uh, Business to come before the committee. All right, thank you everybody who came to testify. CNN were adjourned.