Fluoridation: An 80-Year-Old-Blunder

January 25, 2025, was the 80th birthday of fluoridation in the US. Statistics and reports don't support its effectiveness:

Bullet Points (References Below):

  Dental costs soar to $174 billion  

More dental schools created from 42 to 73

Hospital ER dental visits climbed to 144.8 million

60% of 5-year-olds have cavities

Half of 6–9-year-olds have cavities

57% of adolescent have cavities

70% of US children are fluoride overdosed (dental fluorosis)

Oral health disparities persist

Black youth have the most dental fluorosis and tooth decay

34 million school hours and 92 million work hours are lost yearly for emergency dental care

$46 billion in productivity is lost yearly due to untreated oral diseases.

11% of Nat'l Guard & Army Reserve soldiers are unready for deployment due to poor oral health  

Americans have died from the consequences of untreated tooth decay

Filters don’t remove fluoride

Fluoride is Ubiquitous; Fluoridation Unnecessary

Contrary to reports, when fluoridation ceases, tooth decay rates decline or stay the same

68.5 Million Lack Dental Insurance, More May Be Coming

• In 1950 there were 42 dental Schools. Now it's 73.
• 16,555 were enrolled in dental school in 1969-70. Now it's 25,995, the most ever.
• There are 202,304 professionally active US dentists as of 2023, according to the American Dental Association (ADA)
• Dental spending reached an historic high of $136 billion in 2018.  Then went up even more to $174 billion in 2023, according to the ADA.
• In 2017, it is estimated to be  144.8 million  (ED) visits with aggregate ED costs totaling $76.3 billion.” (According to Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project)
• Tragically, 101 people died in hospitals, over a 3 year period, from the consequences of untreated tooth decay, according to the Journal of the American Dental Association. Uninsured patients made about 40.5 percent of all dental condition-related ED visits. 
• 70% of US children and adolescents are fluoride-overdosed and afflicted with dental fluorosis  (white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth) – some of it moderate/severe. Dentists profit from covering up fluoride-damaged teeth as these dentist advertisements attest to 
• tooth decay is epidemic, according to the American Association of Pediatric Dentists
• "By age 5, about 60 percent of U.S. children will have had caries at some point, including the 40 percent of children who have it when they enter kindergarten," according to the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry.
• "Half of all children aged 6–9 years have had cavities in their primary or permanent teeth," According to the CDC's 2024 Oral Health Surveillance Report.
• “Nearly 57% of adolescents, 12-19 years, have had dental caries in their permanent teeth” according to the National Institutes of dental and craniofacial research. 
• Oral health disparities persist, "The Persistence of Oral Health Disparities for African American Children: A Scoping Review,"(International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Heath)
• A 2025 study using US federal data (NHANES) shows urine fluoride levels are highest in Black youth who also “suffer significantly higher prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis" and “are still disproportionately affected by dental caries"
• The  CDC says “34 million school hours and 92 million work hours are lost yearly due to unplanned and emergency dental care, and roughly $46 billion in productivity (2015 US dollars) is lost yearly due to untreated oral diseases.”
• “A 2022 study found that 10.6 percent of National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers were unready for deployment due to their oral health,” according the the North Carolina Medical Journal
• More dentists and dental groups now oppose fluoridation. For example, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology AOMT, the International Academy ofvBiological Dentistry and Medicine, and these dentists who signed a statement opposing fluoridation along with about 4,000 professionals.  More are opposed but fear speaking out
• Many groups either dropped its fluoridation endorsement or are now opposed to it.  
• Study shows, "No filter was able to completely remove fluoride from tap water, contrary to the claims made by three manufacturers."
• Fluoride is ubiquitous in foods, beverages, some medicines, absorbed from dental products, inhaled in air pollution. The US HHS estimated that some individuals consume 6.6 mg/F per day. Fluoridation is unnecessary at least; harmful at worst.
• NYS Dept of Health statistics show there is no correlation between the fluoridation rate of a county and tooth decay rates or to fewer dental-related hospital ER visits for toddlers

Senator Bernie Sanders declared a dental health crisis in America in 2012 and 2024.

In 2000, The US Surgeon General called dental and oral disease a “silent epidemic” 

 

in 2017, "Despite significant financial, training, and program investments, US children’s caries experience and inequities continued to increase over the last 20 years." (American Journal of Public Health)

Three modern studies show fluoridation has little, if any, benefit. (LOTUS, CATFISH and Cochrane)

World Health Organization data shows fluoridation went down equally in fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries.

The truth is that Americans are fluoride-overdosed and "dentist-deficient."

Fluoridation is based on poor science which has been known for decades. For example:

News Release from the 2001 Consensus Development Conference on the Diagnosis and Management of Dental Caries Throughout Life, convened by the National Institutes of Health on March 26-28, 2001 in Bethesda, MD: "the panel was disappointed in the overall quality of the clinical data that it reviewed. According to the panel, far too many studies were small, poorly described, or otherwise methodologically flawed." (over 560 studies evaluated fluoride use).

Harvard Public Health Magazine reported in 2016 that "The [highly respected] Cochrane report also concluded that early scientific investigations on water fluoridation (most were conducted before 1975) were deeply flawed. “We had concerns about the methods used, or the reporting of the results, in … 97 percent of the studies,” the authors noted. 

Likewise, Dr. John Doull, toxicologist and chairman of the 2006 National Research Council's Fluoride Panel which reviewed fluoride toxicological studies told an investigative journalist writing for Scientific American:

     “What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too long, really—and now we need to take a fresh look. In the scientific community, people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began. In the face of ignorance, controversy is rampant.”

Criticism persists today, i.e. Legal Scholar Rita Barnett-Rose; Historian Catherine Carstairs, Phd; Social Scientist Brian Martin PhD; investigative reporters in Scientific American, Chemical & Engineering News, Newsweek and ABC-TV

                                                                         ***

The American Dental Association successfully lobbied to have dental excluded from Medicare. Eighty percent of dentists refuse Medicaid and other gov't insurance preferring instead to treat the water of but not the teeth of low income folks.

The ADA thwarts any infringement on its lucrative monopoly even if Americans must suffer in dental pain. ("The Unexpected Power of Dentists,"  Washington Post 2017)

According to Senator Bernie Sanders "Today in America, nearly 70 million adults and nearly 8 million children have no dental insurance"

Those who are insured often can't afford out-of-pocket dental costs. Dental insurance purchased by individuals  doesn't reimburse the full cost of dental care.

Americans need dental care; not fluoride.

                                                The End

"The global dental high fluoride [higher concentrations compared to regular fluoride toothpaste] products market size was valued at USD 2.92 billion in 2023 and it is predicted to surpass around USD 4.47 billion by 2033 "North America dominated the market with the largest market share of 36% in 2023...due to escalating dental caries rates." https://visionresearchreports.com/dental-high-fluoride-products-market/41454

Meta-analysis of 74 Studies Link Fluoride to Lower IQ & Renews Demands to End Fluoridation

Breaking: New Study Linking Fluoride to Lower IQ in Children Sparks Renewed Calls to End Water Fluoridation

A meta-analysis of 74 epidemiological studies examining the link between children’s IQ and fluoride exposure found that the more fluoride pregnant women and young children are exposed to, the greater the decrease in a child’s IQ. The study, published today in JAMA Pediatrics, was conducted by scientists from the NIH National Toxicology Program.

by Brenda Baletti, PhD, The Defender. This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website 

A meta-analysis of 74 epidemiological studies examining the link between children’s IQ and fluoride exposure found that the more fluoride pregnant women and young children are exposed to, the greater the decrease in a child’s IQ.

The study, published today in JAMA Pediatrics, was conducted by scientists from the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) National Toxicology Program (NTP).

The in-depth statistical meta-analysis is the largest and most rigorous ever conducted on fluoride, according to a commentary accompanying the study, and their findings highlight the need to “reassess systemic fluoride exposure, again.”

The researchers analyzed existing studies globally, assessed their quality and accounted for variables including age, sex, fluoride levels, types of cognitive tests used, methods for measuring fluoride exposure and study locations.

They found a significant inverse relationship between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ scores, which means as the amount of fluoride a pregnant woman or young child was exposed to increased, IQs decreased.

They also found that across high-quality studies, the effect was significant at both higher and lower fluoride levels.

The data were divided into subgroups with fluoride levels of less than 4 milligrams/liter (mg/L), less than 2 mg/L and less than 1.5 mg/L in drinking water and in urinary fluoride — which estimates a person’s total fluoride exposure.

For every 1 mg/L increase in urinary fluoride, the study found a 1.63-point decrease in IQ in children.

The results were more uncertain at lower levels because exposure contrasts were harder to identify, the researchers said.

The U.S. Public Health Service recommends communities add fluoride to their water to reduce the risk of cavities at levels of 0.7 mg/L — a number it lowered from a recommended 0.7-1.2 mg/L in 2015.

In the U.S., about 40-70% of a person’s fluoride intake comes from fluoridated drinking water.

However, fluoride levels in water alone likely underestimate a person’s total fluoride exposure, the study said. Total exposure varies by individual behavior, including how much water, coffee or tea a person drinks, processed food consumption, whether infants drink formula rather than breastmilk, or what kind of fluoridated products like toothpaste or mouthwash someone uses.

The JAMA meta-analysis is part of an investigation the NTP scientists began in 2015 into the link between fluoride exposure and lower IQ in children. The scientists published a monograph in August and today’s meta-analysis, both providing extensive data on fluoride’s neurotoxic effects on the developing brain.

NTP’s publications followed years of opposition by fluoride lobbying groups, including the American Dental Association (ADA) and public health officials, who tried to block its publication and pressure the authors to weaken and delay their findings.

The research underwent an unprecedented amount of peer review relative to all other research done by the NTP, which the former head of the NTP told The Defender was politically driven.

The results of the study “may inform future comprehensive public health risk-benefit assessments of fluoride,” the authors concluded.

The firestorm over water fluoridation

JAMA Pediatrics published the meta-analysis amid a firestorm over water fluoridation.

Public health officials and the dental lobby have for decades insisted that water fluoridation is an unquestionable public good — one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century. Officials have often dismissed as conspiracy theorists citizens and even top scientists who question the practice.

However, scientific understanding of fluoride evolved over the years to reveal fluoride’s toxic effects — including on children’s cognitive development — that were unknown or ignored when public health agencies began recommending communities add it to their water supplies nearly 70 years ago.

Current recommendations for safe water fluoridation consider only the risks of dental fluorosis, a tooth discoloration caused by overexposure to fluoride in childhood that affects about 23% of the U.S. population. No recommendations or restrictions exist on water fluoridation based on its potential neurocognitive effects.

Yet in 2024 alone, in addition to the NTP’s monograph concluding that higher levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water are consistently linked to lower IQ in children, a study published in JAMA Network Open in May found that children born to women exposed during pregnancy to fluoridated drinking water in Los Angeles were more likely to have neurobehavioral problems.

In September 2024, a federal judge ruled that the scientific evidence, including the NTP’s research, shows that water fluoridation at current U.S. levels poses an “unreasonable risk” of reduced IQ in children and ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take regulatory action.

The ruling concluded a historic lawsuit, which dragged on for over seven years, against the agency. The suit was brought by environmental and consumer advocacy organizations and individual parents and children seeking to end fluoridation.

Less than two weeks after the September 2024 ruling, Cochrane published an updated review concluding that adding fluoride to drinking water provides minimal, if any, dental benefits, especially compared with 50 years ago.

Since then, many cities and towns across the U.S. have decided to end water fluoridation. Florida’s surgeon general advised governments to stop fluoridating their water, citing the neuropsychiatric risks — particularly for pregnant women and children.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., president-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said on social media that Trump would push to end water fluoridation on his first day in office.

Kennedy’s comments triggered a wave of articles in the mainstream press defending the practice, albeit with some commenters conceding that conventional wisdom on fluoride needs to be revisited.

HHS houses the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which makes recommendations about water fluoridation levels.

Two commentaries: the experts debate

Dr. Steven M. Levy, professor at the University of Iowa and member of the ADA’s National Fluoridation Advisory Committee, wrote a scathing response to today’s JAMA study, accusing the authors of selectively including research and doing analyses in a way that “raised substantial concerns about the validity and usefulness of the article.”

Levy criticized the authors for not discussing critiques made by reviewers or the changes made to earlier conclusions. Many of those critiques were driven in part by Levy and the ADA committee he serves on, through public and behind-the-scenes pressure revealed in documents plaintiffs obtained via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests during the trial.

Levy cited a meta-analysis by Dr. Jayanth V. Kumar et al. nine times in his four-page response, using it as key evidence to discount the NTP’s findings. That analysis found no association between fluoride and lowered IQ at low fluoridation levels.

Kumar and Levy are colleagues on the ADA advisory committee. The study was co-authored with Dr. Susan Fisher-Owens, who receives funding from Colgate. The study intentionally omitted data that would counter the authors’ conclusions and intentionally sought to undermine the NTP’s report, according to emails obtained through public records requests.

“This commentary was an ADA hit job,” Michael Connett, the plaintiffs’ attorney in the fluoride trial, told The Defender. “I strongly suspect that Kumar was a ghost writer — one of the main authors — and Levy was the signatory, and that should have been disclosed.”

Connett’s FOIA requests uncovered the ADA’s lobbying influence.

By omitting Kumar’s name but citing his meta-analysis multiple times, Connett said, it appears that Levy is citing an independent expert. However, Levy and Kumar have been working together for years to try to undermine the NTP’s work, as court documents showed.

Levy concluded that despite “some evidence” of a “possible association” between IQ and high fluoride levels in water, current public health recommendations about fluoride, “should not be affected by the study findings.”

Dr. Bruce Lanphear, professor of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, Canada; Pamela Den Beston, DDS, Ph.D., professor of Orofacial Sciences at University of California San Francisco; and Christine Till, Ph.D., professor of clinical psychology at York University in Toronto, disagreed with Levy’s commentary.

The three, who have conducted major studies on fluoride’s toxicity, said the JAMA meta-analysis showed the need to reassess current fluoride recommendations.

Since water fluoridation began in the U.S. tooth decay has plummeted, they wrote. However, the same trend has occurred in countries that don’t fluoridate their water, possibly due to the use of fluoride toothpaste or strategies to reduce sugar intake — a strategy the U.S. has not pursued.

Research has since shown that fluoride’s ability to prevent cavities is based on topical application, not mineralization during tooth formation as previously thought.

The CDC and ADA regularly cite data showing fluoridated water reduced cavities by 25%. However, the authors said that data is based on low-quality studies mostly conducted before fluoridated toothpaste became widely available. They pointed to the updated Cochrane review, which found little to no benefit from water fluoridation.

In their own research, Lanphear et al. found levels of urinary fluoride higher than 1.5 mg/L among pregnant women in Canada who drank fluoridated water.

Advocates for water fluoridation argue the practice is necessary to protect low-income children who may not have regular access to dental care. However, they wrote, those children are at higher risk for exposure to other neurotoxicants like lead as well, therefore water fluoridation may pose an even greater risk to them.

Given that NTP’s analysis showed fluoride’s negative effects may be associated with cognitive function, they concluded, “It is time for health organizations and regulatory bodies to reassess the risks and benefits of fluoride, particularly for pregnant women and infants.”

The EPA has until the end of the month to file an appeal contesting the federal judge’s order that the agency make new rules regulating water fluoridation based on the risk it poses to children’s neurodevelopment.

“NTPs findings highlight the need for the EPA to move quickly in taking regulatory action to protect the public from the risk posed by fluoridation,” Connett said.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

This article was originally published by The Defender — to the original piece from The Defender website.