Washburn, North Dakota\u2019s town commissioners voted Monday night to stop fluoridating the town\u2019s water supply. But in the months leading up to what the commissioners thought would be a small-town, local debate, the commissioners uncovered a federally funded, coordinated lobbying scheme by state actors and a national fluoride lobby group to crush efforts by small towns like theirs to stop fluoridating their water supplies.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n When Washburn, North Dakota\u2019s town commissioners decided in January to take up the issue of whether or not to continue fluoridating the water supply for the town\u2019s\u00a01,300 residents<\/a>, they anticipated researching the risks versus benefits and putting the matter to a vote.<\/p>\n What they didn\u2019t anticipate \u2014 but soon encountered \u2014 was evidence of a coordinated effort by state actors and a national fluoride lobby group, using federal money, to crush local efforts by small towns like Washburn to\u00a0stop fluoridating their water supplies<\/a>.<\/p>\n On Monday night, town commissioners voted 4-1 to stop adding fluoride to Washburn\u2019s water supply \u2014 making Washburn the latest in a growing list of communities across the country to end the practice in light of\u00a0mounting scientific evidence<\/a>\u00a0that the chemical\u00a0harms children<\/a>\u2019s\u00a0health<\/a>\u00a0and provides\u00a0little or no dental benefit<\/a>.<\/p>\n At the meeting, Commissioner Keith Hapip shared what he said was evidence of astroturfing by Dr. Johnny Johnson, president of the American Fluoridation Society; Jim Kershaw, Bismarck, North Dakota\u2019s water plant superintendent and others.<\/p>\n \u201cAstroturfing is when a group with money and power pretends to be regular folks supporting something, but it\u2019s really a planned push from the top,\u201d Hapip said. \u201cReal grassroots come from the community naturally. And here, the oral health program used\u00a0CDC<\/a>\u00a0[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] cash to manufacture support for fluoridation in Washburn.\u201d<\/p>\n Johnson phoned into the meeting to advocate for water fluoridation. In response, the commission also hosted a presentation by Michael Connett \u2014 the attorney who represented the plaintiffs who won a\u00a0landmark ruling in a lawsuit<\/a>\u00a0against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the agency\u2019s failure to appropriately regulate fluoride use in water supplies.<\/p>\n Dr. Griffin Cole, conference chairman of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, who has expertise on fluoride\u2019s toxic effects, also made a presentation.<\/p>\n Interviews by\u00a0The Defender<\/a>\u00a0with grassroots actors across the country revealed that for years, Johnson, one of the country\u2019s foremost advocates of water fluoridation, has been intervening in grassroots efforts to end fluoridation in their communities.<\/p>\n He and colleagues \u2014 in this case, Kershaw \u2014 travel physically or virtually to meetings in towns\u00a0across the country<\/a>.<\/p>\n Johnson himself, along with the American Dental Association (ADA), openly celebrates this work\u00a0lobbying local governments<\/a>. The ADA frequently\u00a0reports on Johnson\u2019s appearances<\/a>\u00a0and his \u201csuccess\u201d blocking community efforts to end fluoridation on its website.<\/p>\n As recently as last week, Johnson reportedly\u00a0bussed in dentists<\/a>\u00a0to a meeting in Seminole County, Florida.<\/p>\n North Dakota officials misused CDC funding to lobby in Washburn<\/strong><\/p>\n On Jan. 13, Hapip brought the issue of fluoridation to the commission. He kicked off the discussion by asking some basic questions: \u201cIs there an ethical question to medicating people without explicit consent? And, does fluoride work systemically or topically?\u201d<\/p>\n Kershaw, a staunch\u00a0water fluoridation advocate<\/a>, traveled the 35 miles from Bismarck, a much larger city, to present information about water fluoridation.<\/p>\n Kershaw so adamantly pushed fluoride that one of the commissioners asked him if he was there representing \u201cbig fluoride\u201d or some other interest.\u00a0Kershaw said<\/a>\u00a0he was there on his own money and his own time because he simply had learned a lot and was \u201cexcited about sharing it with other people.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI do this on my own time, and to help colleagues like this,\u201d he said. \u201cI do this on my own. I do this out of my own expense for gas money and stuff.\u201d<\/p>\n Hapip said he was surprised by the response. \u201cThere were people writing us letters from\u00a0out-of-state regional dentist associations<\/a>, people traveling from Bismarck to come to our meeting. It was like, there\u2019s something going on here,\u201d he said. And the letters were all strikingly similar. \u201cThey seemed very copy and paste.\u201d<\/p>\n Hapip found the disproportionate response to the small-town question and Kershaw\u2019s comments to be so strange that he submitted a public records request for communications between Kershaw and the top officials at the North Dakota Oral Health Program (OHP), including Director Cheri Kiefer and OHP Public Health Hygienist Vanessa Bopp, about Washburn.<\/p>\n In a Jan. 6 email from Kiefer, Kershaw \u2014 who is not an OHP employee \u2014 wrote that the agency would fund Kershaw\u2019s trip to Washburn. A Jan. 21 email confirmed the reimbursement.<\/p>\n The communications Hapip obtained also included an email from Kiefer wishing Kershaw success. \u201cYou\u2019re going to be amazing Jim!! Flatten them like a pancake,\u201d Keifer wrote.<\/p>\n When Hapip read the emails, he was outraged. \u201cOHP Director Kiefer urged Kershaw to crush us hours before the meeting. This isn\u2019t technical assistance or education \u2014 it\u2019s a funded intent to dominate,\u201d he told The Defender.<\/p>\n Hapip said the funding for OHS comes from a $380,800\u00a0annual grant from the CDC<\/a>\u00a0and a $400,000 annual grant from the\u00a0Health Resources & Services Administration<\/a>\u00a0(HRSA)<\/p>\n Both grants explicitly prohibit the use of funds for publicity or propaganda purposes or for lobbying or influencing legislation at any level, such as that being proposed in Washburn.<\/p>\n \u201cThese emails suggest that they\u2019re violating their grant funding,\u201d Hapip told The Defender. \u201cThey are directly reaching out to public health officials to come speak at our meetings. They\u2019re providing dentists with letters \u2014 I\u2019m not even kidding \u2014 giving them a full template.\u201d<\/p>\n The template was first shared with Hapip by a city counselor,\u00a0Rebecca Osowski<\/a>, in Grand Forks, which is also considering ending fluoridation. Hapip and Osowski noticed they were receiving multiple letters that were strikingly similar. The records request showed the\u00a0letter template<\/a>, along with\u00a0emails from OHP staff<\/a>\u00a0approving the template.<\/p>\n The letters from the template constituted \u201c90% of the pushback\u201d the council received, Hapip reported at Monday night\u2019s meeting.<\/p>\n Hapip said the dentists who sent in the letters from the templates didn\u2019t include their contact information. He looked them up and reached out to them, asking them to comment on multiple recent major studies linking fluoride to neurotoxicity in children.<\/p>\n Record request responses show that at least two of the dentists forwarded Hapip\u2019s letter to Kershaw, who told them not to respond.<\/p>\n Hapip was outraged. \u201cTheir grant is to provide education. So that was an education opportunity. They are denying the education opportunities and only doing the activism. It\u2019s ridiculous.\u201d<\/p>\n After Hapip\u2019s records request, Kershaw began using his personal email rather than his professional one for communications.<\/p>\n Hapip has filed a\u00a0formal complaint<\/a>\u00a0with the North Dakota Department of Health and Human Services.<\/p>\n Johnson and Kershaw use abusive and degrading language to mock and demean opponents of fluoridation<\/strong><\/p>\n After Kershaw\u2019s appearance at Washburn\u2019s meeting,\u00a0Hapip reached out<\/a>\u00a0to ask him about several points he made at the meeting. Hapip provided evidence that Kershaw\u2019s statements were false and asked him to respond.<\/p>\n For example, Hapip said he called poison control to ask if there was a safety concern if children swallowed toothpaste and was told that if a child consumes more than two ounces of toothpaste, there would be a serious medical concern, requiring treatment with calcium.<\/p>\n This contradicted information Kershaw had provided \u2014 via Johnson \u2014 that poison control says a child would have to swallow an entire tube of toothpaste to get sick, and that the foaming agent in toothpaste would compel them to vomit first.<\/p>\n Poison control told Hapip that no agent in toothpaste would induce a child to throw up on their own.<\/p>\n Records show that Kersaw consulted with Johnson on his response, calling Hapip a \u201cdink<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n Johnson responded, calling Hapip a series of expletives and asked Kershaw if he could respond to him directly. Kershaw replied, \u201cDon\u2019t reply to him now, I have a plan.\u201d<\/p>\n Commenting on the email, Hapip said he was shocked. \u201cIt\u2019s a kind of rough start to a relationship, I guess you could say.\u201d<\/p>\n At Monday\u2019s meeting, Hapip confronted Johnson about his comments. Johnson said he was simply \u201cblowing off steam\u201d and that he gets \u201ca bit disturbed\u201d because he is constantly having his integrity and professionalism called into question.<\/p>\n Johnson also complained that public records requests seeking information about fluoride communications are made to \u201cstop people from being able to have their free speech about helping public health folks.\u201d<\/p>\n Johnson was referring to the many Freedom of Information Act requests that have revealed, among other things, collusion among the ADA and other lobbying groups and top public health officials to\u00a0prevent scientific evidence of fluoride\u2019s dangers<\/a>\u00a0from reaching the public.<\/p>\n Cole, who listened to the meeting, told The Defender it was clear that Johnson was tipped off in advance that Hapip planned to confront him. He said Johnson\u2019s response was disingenuous.<\/p>\n \u201cHe acted like such a victim,\u201d Cole said. \u201cHe has no idea what people like me and other people who have been doing research on fluoride\u2019s toxic effects for years have gone through.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201dFor years and years, people were being just\u00a0denigrated<\/a>\u00a0and their\u00a0careers ruined<\/a>\u00a0because they were simply telling the truth. They were doing the science, and saying here are the results. For that, they were blacklisted.\u201d<\/p>\n Cole said that unlike Johnson, researchers concerned with fluoride\u2019s negative effects don\u2019t badmouth those who promote fluoridation; they simply present the facts.<\/p>\n Cole and Connett\u2019s presentations followed. They presented data from\u00a0research published<\/a>\u00a0by government agencies and in\u00a0top journals<\/a>\u00a0showing that\u00a0fluoride exposure<\/a>\u00a0is linked to\u00a0lowered IQ in children<\/a>\u00a0and other negative neurocognitive effects \u2014 even at\u00a0fluoridation levels currently recommended<\/a>\u00a0by the\u00a0public health<\/a>\u00a0agencies, as well as recent research showing that\u00a0water fluoridation has little benefit<\/a>\u00a0for dental health.<\/p>\n A few public comments were made supporting both sides of the debate. Then, the commission voted.<\/p>\n After the vote, the commission asked the water plant operator what would be necessary to implement the decision to stop fluoridating Washburn\u2019s water supply. He said the fluoridation could be stopped as soon as five minutes after the meeting concluded.<\/p>\n Grand Forks is the next battlefield<\/strong><\/p>\n Grand Forks, the third largest city in North Dakota, is set to discuss water fluoridation next week. The issue first came up earlier in the year as part of a broader discussion about the city\u2019s annual bids for treatment chemicals at water and wastewater treatment plants, according to the\u00a0Grand Forks Herald<\/a>.<\/p>\n In January, the council voted 4-3 to maintain fluoridation after Osowski made a motion to remove it, but they are revisiting that decision.<\/p>\n Johnson and Kershaw are preparing their commentaries, according to\u00a0emails released to Hapip<\/a>\u00a0through records requests. They continue their use of profanity to characterize public officials opposed to their position, referring to Osowski in the email below.<\/p>\n Emails show<\/a>\u00a0that since January, Bopp and Kiefer have been working behind the scenes to mobilize dentists, dental associations and others to intervene to influence the legislation in Washburn and Grand Forks.<\/p>\n At least one other town in North Dakota, McVille, voted to remove fluoride from its water in 2023. However, after Johnson, Kershaw, OPH employees Bopp and Kiefer, and dentists from the\u00a0ADA pressured the town<\/a>\u00a0of 417 inhabitants \u2014 Johnson flew in for their meeting \u2014 the town reversed the decision.<\/p>\n \n\t<\/div>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/naturalblaze.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/north-dakota-end-water-fluoridation-feature-1024x534-1.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n