Protect Our TEETH Act Mandates 90-Day Scientific Review Before EPA Can Change Fluoride Safety Levels

The “Protect Our Treatment for Enamel, Erosion, and Tooth Health Act,” or the Protect Our TEETH Act, is all about adding a new procedural speed bump when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tries to set or change the maximum safe level for fluoride in drinking water. Basically, if the EPA wants to update the rules on fluoride—which affects every municipal water system in the country—they have to hit pause and get a second opinion first. This bill is less about the actual fluoride level and more about how the government decides what that level should be.

The New Scientific Review Requirement

Under Section 2 of this Act, before the EPA Administrator can even propose a new fluoride rule, they must contract the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct a “rapid response evidence review.” Think of the National Academies as the ultimate scientific referees. The EPA has to give these referees between 90 and 180 days to complete their review, which is a tight turnaround for complex science. The EPA also has to hand over all the data they used to justify the proposed rule change, ensuring the review is based on the same facts.

What This Means for Rule-Making Speed

This new step is designed to increase transparency and make sure any regulatory changes are backed by top-tier, independent science. For the average person, this sounds great—who doesn't want more science in their policy? However, it introduces a mandatory delay of at least three to six months into the rule-making process. If the EPA determines, based on new health data, that the current fluoride level is unsafe and needs immediate adjustment, this mandatory review could slow down the implementation of necessary safety changes. This is a classic trade-off: more scientific rigor versus faster regulatory action.

Public Visibility and EPA's Next Steps

Once the National Academies finish their review, the EPA Administrator is required to “consider” the findings before finalizing the rule. Crucially, the entire final report from the Academies must be published publicly alongside the EPA’s proposed rule. This means the public will get a clear, independent assessment of the scientific evidence right when the rule is introduced, which is a major win for transparency. If the EPA decides to ignore the Academies' findings, they will have to do so in the full light of public scrutiny. The bill notes that the EPA must use its existing budget to pay for this review, so no new taxpayer money is specifically allocated for this procedural change. Ultimately, this Act makes changing the national fluoride standard a much slower, but significantly more documented, process.