It’s been 60 years since Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove satirized fears about water fluoridation. But an insistent minority within the scientific community that has questioned its safety is getting renewed attention, raising concerns about whether fluoridation has outlived its purpose.
Earlier this year, fluoridation had its day in court—and lost, to fluoridation skeptics. A judge found that at current suggested levels, fluoride in drinking water “poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children” and ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to “engage with a regulatory response.” The ruling was based in part on a long-awaited review by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), which found an association between high levels of fluoride exposure and cognitive neurodevelopment.
Meanwhile, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whom President-elect Donald Trump on Thursday nominated to head the Department of Health and Human Services, has claimed fluoride is “an industrial waste associated with arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, IQ loss, neurodevelopmental disorders, and thyroid disease,” and has promised to advise the new administration to halt water fluoridation. How did we get here?
Twenty-five years ago, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) named fluoridation of drinking water one of the 10 great U.S. public health achievements of the last century, along with motor vehicle safety and vaccination. But even among scientists, some people have always looked skeptically at the addition of fluoride to drinking water, said Dr. Margherita Fontana, a professor at the University of Michigan School of Dentistry and director of its Global Initiatives Program in Oral and Craniofacial Health. She agrees with the scientific consensus supporting fluoridation. But, she told The Dispatch, the possible harms of fluoride “has been a very, very hot topic for a very long time. We want to make sure that we’re doing it safely.”
Please note that we at The Dispatch hold ourselves, our work, and our commenters to a higher standard than other places on the internet. We welcome comments that foster genuine debate or discussion—including comments critical of us or our work—but responses that include ad hominem attacks on fellow Dispatch members or are intended to stoke fear and anger may be moderated.
With your membership, you only have the ability to comment on The Morning Dispatch articles. Consider upgrading to join the conversation everywhere.