In the latest leg of a long-running debate, a House committee killed a bill that would have prevented public water fluoridation in New Hampshire.

After hearing an hour of testimony about the health benefits and health concerns associated with keeping fluoride in public water supplies, the House Resources, Recreation and Development Committee decided the issue came down to state government overriding local governments.

“This is a matter of local control,” said Rep. Nicholas Bridle, R-Hampton. On Wednesday, his motion to deem the bill ‘Inexpedient to Legislate’ passed in the committee by a 14-1 vote.

State law has methods by which communities can decide to add flouride to or remove it from their drinking water supplies. Currently, fluoride is added to water in Concord, Manchester and a dozen other communities at the rate of 0.7 parts per million.

The dental community supports water fluoridation because it greatly reduces tooth decay.

Meanwhile, opponents say it fluoridation represents a government intrusion into private health decisions that can lead to excess fluoride intake, which is related to a number of health problems.

This is at least the fourth time that an anti-fluoridation bill has been proposed in the state legislature, part of a pattern of opposition that has existed in many parts of the country since the process became widespread a half-century ago.

Opposition to fluoride in public water supplies received a boost last September when a federal judge in California said the EPA needs to examine whether fluoride should be regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act given concerns that it presents an “unreasonable risk of injury” to the developing brains of children. Further, a large-scale meta-study said the benefits of fluoridation in preventing cavities are less pronounced now than they were in the past because so many people use fluoridated toothpaste.

The U..S. Senate approval of Robert Kennedy Jr., a longtime skeptic of fluoridation, as head of the federal Department of Health and Human Services seems likely to further undermine support.

The bill to outlaw water fluoridation was sponsored by Rep. Peter Schmidt, D-Dover, who told the group that he has been concerned about fluoride since reading an article about it in Reader’s Digest magazine 60 years ago. He was supported by several speakers, including Stuart Cooper of the Fluoride Action Network, a group that has long opposed fluoridation.

“Fluoridation is already coming to an end,” he predicted, citing Kennedy and actions in other states. “The question is whether you’re going to subject New Hampshire citizens to three more years of it.”

Several dentists and Michael Auerbach, director of the New Hampshire Dental Society, reiterated their support for fluoridation because of oral health benefits.

“A lot of you have dental work in your mouth,” dentist Laurie Rosado told the committee. “It’s just a fact of human nature of when you grew up and you didn’t have the fluoride the kids have in the water today… I see the proof of that every day in my practice.”