Login
Attempts by the town of Somerset, Massachusetts, to end fluoridation of its public drinking water stalled in the state legislature — despite a town vote and Senate approval to seek an exemption from a state law that does not provide communities with a clear way to end the practice.
Unless the House acts, the bill could expire when the two-year legislative session ends on Jan. 5, 2027.
In May 2025, residents of Somerset, in southeastern Massachusetts, voted at a town meeting to stop adding fluoride to the municipal water supply. Somerset has been fluoridating its water since 1968.
However, Massachusetts law doesn’t allow localities to simply stop fluoridating their water. Instead, Somerset must petition the state legislature for permission to prohibit fluoridation of its municipal water supply, and it must obtain a “Home Rule” exemption from state law to enact its own town ordinance.
Democratic Sen. Michael Rodrigues and Republican Rep. Justin Thurber introduced the necessary legislation, Senate Bill 2627 (S.2627), to authorize Somerset to enact a local ordinance prohibiting fluoridation of its community water supply.
The bill would not itself end fluoridation — but it would give town officials the legal authority to do so.
The bill passed the Massachusetts Senate on April 30 and advanced through its second reading in the House on May 18. But it’s stuck in the House Committee on Bills in the Third Reading, where a three-member panel reviews the text to ensure it has proper legal form.
Unless lawmakers act before the state legislative session ends, the bill will expire.
Karen Favazza Spencer, a Massachusetts fluoridation opponent who has advocated for changes to state law, called the delay “an obstruction of local democracy.”
State law allows communities to reject fluoridation, but it’s not easy
Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 111, Section 8C, local boards of health can order that fluoride be added to community water supplies.
If residents want to challenge that order, they must start a petition and collect signatures from at least 10% of registered voters within 90 days of the order’s publication. This triggers a referendum on whether the water supply should be fluoridated.
If a majority votes against fluoridation, the community can’t be ordered to fluoridate its water for at least two years. After that, the board of health again has the opportunity to impose fluoridation, and the process starts over.
For example, in 2011, the town of Amesbury stopped adding fluoride to its water because of concerns about the quality of the sodium fluoride being added to the water — large chunks of it were clumping together and clogging water treatment plants.
When the problems were resolved, the board of health ordered that fluoridation be resumed, but the town voted against it.
However, the statute does not establish an equivalent referendum process for communities seeking to discontinue fluoridation after the initial 90-day period has passed.
Attorneys have advised communities that they can get around the issue by proposing a Home Rule exemption. That’s what Somerset did — but now the proposed legislation is languishing in the House.
Spencer said this has rendered the Home Rule exemption process “a sham.” She said:
“The state has created a legal trap where a community can vote to prevent fluoridation within 90 days of initiation, but is barred from voting to end it without state permission.
“When the Town of Somerset navigated this difficult loophole by filing a Home Rule Petition — the very process designed for such local exceptions — the legislature refused to grant the exemption.
“This renders the Home Rule process a sham, offering municipalities a path that the state has no intention of letting any walk.”
Other Massachusetts fluoridation bills languishing in ‘study’
Somerset’s legislation is one of several measures introduced during the 2025-2026 legislative session that address fluoridation.
One proposal, S.1630, introduced by Republican Sen. Bruce Tarr, would provide municipalities with a mechanism to opt out of fluoridation.
That legislation was referred to a study order in December 2025. Technically, that means the bill will be studied when the legislature is in recess. However, according to the Massachusetts Bar Association, a study order typically is used as a “quiet way to kill a bill.”
Another proposal — S.1518/House Bill 2549 — would add a warning to the Consumer Confidence Report on water quality stating that fluoride in water poses a neurotoxic risk to pregnant women and small children and may worsen health conditions in people with diabetes or kidney, thyroid, or inflammatory conditions at levels of 0.3 parts per million or higher.
A third bill, S.1517, would ban water fluoridation in Massachusetts completely.
Those bills were also sent to study.
This article was funded by critical thinkers like you.
The Defender is 100% reader-supported. No corporate sponsors. No paywalls. Our writers and editors rely on you to fund stories like this that mainstream media won’t write.
More than 80 communities have ended fluoridation
Water fluoridation has recently been at the center of a heated national debate.
The growing body of research on fluoride’s toxic effects gained national attention in September 2024, when U.S. District Judge Edward Chen ruled against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a lawsuit filed by Fluoride Action Network, Mothers Against Fluoridation and Food & Water Watch.
Chen ruled that water fluoridation at the 0.7 milligrams per liter level currently recommended by U.S. public health agencies poses an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health. Chen said the EPA must regulate fluoride under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
A federal appeals court vacated Chen’s decision. However, the appeals court didn’t challenge the substance of the lower court’s findings — that fluoride is toxic to children and ought to be regulated.
Instead, the agency argued to a three-judge panel that Chen overstepped standard judicial process when he put the original trial on hold in 2020 to wait for new scientific evidence. The new evidence was later considered during the second phase of the trial.
After the trial concluded, the body of scientific evidence showing fluoride’s adverse impacts on children’s health at current levels in the U.S. has continued to grow.
Since the 2024 fluoride ruling, more than 80 other communities, including two states — Utah and Florida — and several counties have ended fluoridation based on the growing body of evidence made public in the trial that fluoride poses a serious risk to children’s health.
Related articles in The Defender
- Breaking: Federal Court Strikes Down Landmark Fluoride Ruling on Technicality — ‘Not the Science’
- EPA Promises ‘Gold Standard’ Review of Fluoride, as Agency Appeals Decision in Landmark Lawsuit
- That Fluoride Added to Your Town Water to ‘Prevent Cavities?’ The EPA Says It’s Hazardous Waste
- Small Michigan County Takes Center Stage in National Debate Over Fluoride
- ‘People Should Make Their Own Healthcare Decisions’: Pasco, Washington, Becomes Latest City to End Water Fluoridation
