Home

The Law

Under the General Laws of Massachusetts (Chapter 111: Section 8C), fluoridation can be ordered by the local Board of Health if the Commissioner of Public Health makes a determination that the fluoride level in water is sub-optimal. The Board of Health is required to post only one legal notice in the local paper, after which it must wait 90 days before fluoridation is implemented.

During that 90 day period, any individual in the town or city involved can circulate a petition to have the issue placed on the ballot. Ten per cent of registered voters' signatures is necessary to bring this measure to the ballot box.

Read the text law

here!

If your community shares a water source with others, we recommend that you read Chapter 111: Section 8C carefully, with legal assistance if possible. This section of the law is worded vaguely and is apparently open to several legal interpretations.

Fairness Issues

Under the Massachusetts fluoridation law, if fluoridation is not contested in the allowed time frame or if it is approved at election time, there is no provision for the question of water fluoridation to be voted on in a later binding referendum. Basically, when a population votes it in, there is very little chance of ever getting an opportunity to vote it out. This aspect of the law is unfair since, after fluoridation is rejected, it can be ordered again, two years after the last vote. Theoretically, the Board of Health could order fluoridation as often as it wished, minding the two-year limitation. There is a clear pro-fluoride bias to the law - it can't be voted out but can be ordered again and again after voters have rejected it.

If two or more cities share the water supply, under the current law they are considered a "water district". The Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) was such a district in 1978 when fluoridation was foist upon the 33 cities and towns using the Quabbin Reservoir for their water supply, without a public vote. In fact, the majority of people in MA drinking fluoridated water today never had an opportunity to vote on this very personal issue.

Discontinuance of Fluoridation

Chapter 111: Section 8C contains no mechanism to rescind fluoridation once it has been implemented. A publication of the Massachusetts Association of Health Boards titled "Guidebook for Massachusetts Boards of Health" provides us with one answer on how to halt water fluoridation. In Chapter 32 of the Guidebook titled "Fluoridation and Oral Health", on page 32-3, following a description of the procedures to start fluoridation, is the following sentence:

Find out about the MAHB "Guidebook for Massachusetts

Boards of Health"

here!

"The board of health has the authority to order the discontinuance of fluoridation at any time if it believes the discontinuance to be in the best interests of the citizens of the community."

We do not know of any community that has used this option, but it is available. Another potential way out for fluoridated communities involves going to the state legislature with a home rule petition to allow a new binding vote on the issue. In 1979, New Bedford was successful using this approach. They got a second binding vote which overruled an earlier vote. The new vote came down against fluoridation. This revote of the issue even survived a courtroom attack by the Massachusetts Dental Society and others in 1981.

Natick tried the home rule approach after several years had passed between a vote which narrowly approved fluoridation, and the implementation of that vote, when state funds became available. It was argued that much new information had become available in the intervening years. A new non-binding referendum was sanctioned by the Board of Selectmen in a town election and a majority of voters opposed fluoridation. Selectmen then appointed a committee of scientists to look at the issue. That committee came down unanimously against fluoridation in their report, now known as The Natick Report. Through it all the Natick Board of Health and other fluoridation promoters did everything they could to prevent the will of the people from being heard or heeded. In the end, they won and the citizens of Natick lost.

Proposed Changes to the Law

Legislation (House No. 3328) has been introduced to empower Massachusetts citizens to gather signatures and force a new binding vote on fluoridation subject to the same two year limitation which currently applies to health boards on the other side of the issue. This reform is sorely needed to move toward leveling the playing field on the fluoridation issue. Please ask your state representatives to cosponsor and/or support House No. 3328.

In the past, a proposal to make a vote by citizens happen automatically whenever a health board orders fluoridation, has been introduced. We hope to see that much needed reform before the state legislature again.

Anyone who has been through the process can tell you that gathering sufficient signatures within such a short amount of time is extremely difficult. It should not be that difficult for citizens to have a say in what chemicals are added to water supplies for the purpose of affecting people.