Breaking Through the Fluoride Noise

Fluoride has been making more news than ever lately, and there are two big reasons why.

The first came back in September, when a US District Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must take action to address the “unreasonable risk” posed by water fluoridation. The scientific evidence showed that early fluoride exposure can harm children’s developing brains.

This landmark decision was the first of its kind, invoking the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Passed way back in 1976, it authorizes the EPA to regulate chemicals that could pose risks to human health or to the environment.

Not long after the ruling, Cochrane published an update to their scientific review of the effectiveness of fluoridation – and found that it’s no longer as effective as it once appeared to be. The authors noted that while it might “lead to slightly less tooth decay in children’s baby teeth,” there was little evidence that it helped adult teeth at all.

This came on the heels of a British study which similarly found that the benefits of drinking fluoride were slight. Participants who lived in “optimally fluoridated” communities had only 2% lower DFMT scores and needed only 3% fewer invasive dental procedures than those who lived elsewhere. (“DFMT” stands for decayed, filled, and missing teeth, and is a standard way of evaluating the prevalence of decay.)

Not long after, yet another study showed that kids who were exposed to fluoride during the first five years of life were more likely to struggle with self-sufficiency. They were less likely to finish high school or join the military. They had worse health and were slightly less able to support themselves financially. They were slightly more likely to wind up in jail.

Granted, the differences were small, but they were significant enough to offset the benefits of other programs meant to help lower income children. The author thus concluded that

The net effect of fluoride is negative; even at levels previously thought to be safe, the tooth-strengthening effect of fluoride provides less benefit than fluoride’s corresponding negative impact on other determinants of health and economic self-sufficiency.

But although these kinds of stories didn’t seem to stir much interest, one thing did: the rise of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who promised that a Trump administration would advise against fluoridation “on day one.” Suddenly, chatter about fluoride was everywhere – chatter for, against, and in-between.

Although the day one advice didn’t happen and although the EPA appealed the District Court ruling at the last minute, fluoride continues to be a topic of interest and of concern – both concern about its risks and concern about what might happen if we were to finally remove fluoride from public water supplies.

As a biological dental practice, we’ve welcomed the conversation that’s arisen around fluoride. Our practice has been fluoride-free from the outset and will remain that way. We know there are better, safer, and more effective ways to prevent decay – ways that respect and support whole body health.

A few months before Judge Chen’s ruling, Dr. T sat down with fellow biological dentist Dr. Griffin Cole to talk facts about fluoride and separate truth from fiction for her bimonthly podcast Your Mouth Matters. Dr. Cole is a past president of the International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology and a longtime fluoride educator.

If you’ve been confused by all the messaging about water fluoridation or want a refresher so that you can talk more confidently with friends and family about the issue, you should give it a listen. Think of it as Fluoride 101…