‘Fluoride is Safe,’ Health Commissioner Says; Board Set to Vote

The Yorktown Town Board is poised this week to amend a local law that would give it the authority to determine if the public water supply should be fluoridated.

Fluoride was added to the water of about 40,000 residents in Yorktown and parts of Somers in August by the Northern Westchester Joint Water Works (NWJWW) for the first time since 2017.

However, last month, Yorktown Supervisor Ed Lachterman ordered the suspension of water fluoridation in the town following a recent federal court ruling that reviewed studies outside the United States.

During a lengthy public hearing on Oct. 15, residents and dental and medical professionals debated the pros and cons of fluoride and the credentials of board members to make a decision on what is a critical health matter.

“The real science is the fluoride is safe,” stressed Westchester County Health Commissioner Dr. Sherlita Amler. “I am not trying to tell you what to do. I’m asking you to read the science. I sincerely hope you will make the most appropriate decision for your population.”

Amler’s husband, Dr. Robert Amler, who is the dean of the School of Health Sciences and Practice and a professor of public health, pediatrics and environmental health science at New York Medical College, maintained that low levels of fluoride in drinking water is safe and effective in preventing tooth decay.

“There is no biological or medical evidence that fluoride affects brain development (in children),” he said. “Taking protective levels of fluoride out of Yorktown’s water is a mistake and is not justified by the evidence.”

On Sept. 24, U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen, overseeing a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit organization Food & Water Watch and other antifluoride groups against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), ruled that the current standard for water fluoridation in the United States presents an “unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.”

The American Dental Association (ADA) reacted to Chen’s decision, stating it remains staunchly in support of community water fluoridation at optimal levels to help prevent tooth decay.

“Tooth decay is not a trivial condition. This is a serious public health situation,” resident Linda Miller told the Town Board last week. “Community water fluoridation can help spare our children from tooth decay and its potentially serious impact on health and well-being. The difference is the dosage.”

Miller also said the proposed amendment to the Town Code was “a drastic change” and “a very bad idea and it should not be passed.”

Resident Holly Davis disagreed, contending “there is no question” that fluoride is a toxin.

“It cannot be declared safe,” she said. “We should have the freedom to choose.”

Resident Howard Gould concurred, saying, “I personally think there are other ways to get fluoride. It should be given by a dentist as a prescription.”

In April 1965, Yorktown officials passed a local law to provide fluoride in its drinking water. In January 2013, the Town Board agreed to pay for the necessary capital improvements at the NWJWW facility to maintain fluoridation after many local dentists and health professionals provided expert advice during an informational meeting.

Councilwoman Susan Siegel said Lachterman failed to follow the state’s public health law by failing to notify the state Department of Health 90 days prior to any discontinuation and failing to consult with any health professionals.

She has submitted a proposed resolution that was expected to be discussed at this week’s board meeting that would immediately reactivate the fluoridation system while the town complies with state law.

“There is not sufficient evidence to pause it. There is no harm right now,” Siegel said. “The bottom line is we haven’t followed the law. There’s no question about that.”

On Sept. 26, Lachterman penned a letter to the state Department of Health explaining the rationale behind his decision, which he defended last week.

“I am a firm believer of the law. There is also a responsibility we have for the safety of our citizens,” Lachterman said. “The unreasonable risk is huge. Do we play Russian roulette? I feel we’re better off being safe.”

Lachterman’s fellow GOP colleagues on the board sided with him.

“We don’t have enough information, so you err on the side of caution,” Councilman Sergio Esposito said. “Why do we have the authority to make a decision on fluoridation? Because we are elected officials. Whether you trust this board or not to do the research, we will do our research.”

“There is a risk. It’s an unknown risk,” said Councilwoman Luciana Haughwout. “Whether we wait three months or we stop because we don’t have enough information, it’s not going to make a difference.”