- cross-posted to:
- theguardian_us@rss.ponder.cat
- cross-posted to:
- theguardian_us@rss.ponder.cat
Summary
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he will direct the CDC to stop recommending fluoridated drinking water and form a taskforce to review health concerns.
His announcement follows Utah’s statewide ban on fluoride, the first in the U.S., despite warnings from dental and health organizations.
Kennedy praised Utah’s move and labeled fluoride a “dangerous neurotoxin.” The EPA, under Administrator Lee Zeldin, is reviewing new data on fluoride’s health risks.
Critics argue the effort is politically driven and will harm low-income communities by increasing cavity rates.
Lol, this is hilarious because I’ve actually seem this study linked before so I can just copy and paste my rebuttal from the last time a super dumb person shared it with me:
Reliance on Observational Data: The study critiques water fluoridation policies but relies heavily on observational epidemiological data rather than detaled physiological analyses. Observational studies lack sensitivity to detect nuanced harm or benefit[1].
Selective Evidence: The study does not adequately consider newer, well-designed studies that challenge its conclusions, particularly regarding fluoride’s impact on IQ and other health effects[2].
Ethical and Safety Margin Concerns: While it questions the ethical implications and safety margins of fluoride ingestion, it does not propose clear alternatives or frnmeworks for assessing acceptable exposure levels[1].
Bias: The study’s conclusions reflect a bias against water fluoridation rather than a balanced review of evidence, as it emphasizes harms without sufficiently weighing benefits like dental caries prevention[1][3].
Limited Scope: The study does not address findings from broader reviews, such as those by Public Health Ontario or Health Canada, which suggest that optimally fluoridated water primarily causes mild dental fluorosis without significant adverse health effects[3][4].
These limitations suggest you should pull your head out of your ass.
Citations: [1] Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of … https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3956646/ [2] Fluoride analysis triggers renewed debate over what levels … - NPR https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/01/09/nx-s1-5252874/fluoride-drinking-water-iq-analysis-safe [3] [PDF] Evidence Review for Adverse Health Effects of Drinking Optimally … https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/e/2018/evidence-review-health-affects-fluoridated-water.pdf?la=en [4] Expert panel meeting on the health effects of fluoride in drinking water https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/environmental-workplace-health/reports-publications/water-quality/expert-panel-meeting-effects-fluoride-drinking-summary.html [5] Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/water-fluoridation-and-cancer-risk.html [6] Water fluoridation: a critical review of the physiological effects of … https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24719570/ [7] [PDF] Community Water Fluoridation Programs: A Health Technology … https://caphd.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/ht0022-cwf-environmental-report.pdf [8] [PDF] Water fluoridation : an analyses of the health benefits and risks https://www.inspq.qc.ca/sites/default/files/publications/705-waterfluoration.pdf
I get where you’re coming from, but here’s the issue—just because fluoride reduces cavities doesn’t automatically mean it’s safe to ingest over long periods. The same institutions praising its dental benefits are also historically slow to acknowledge health risks (think lead, asbestos, DDT, etc.).
The criticism isn’t just ‘old studies vs. new ones.’ It’s about the fact that most of the large-scale safety studies on fluoride aren’t actually designed to detect subtle or long-term harm—especially to the brain or endocrine system. Recent, peer-reviewed research (like the studies on lowered IQ in high-fluoride areas) suggests we might be underestimating the risks.
And let’s not pretend there’s no conflict of interest. Fluoride used in water systems comes from fertilizer industry byproducts. There’s a real economic incentive to spin waste into something profitable—especially if you can sell it under the label of public health.
So yeah, maybe the fluoride levels are ‘optimal,’ maybe not. But mass-medicating the population through the water supply, especially when people can’t opt out and infants are exposed from birth, is something worth re-evaluating. Being skeptical of that doesn’t mean someone’s anti-science.
Historical failures are usualy valid cautionary tales, but that doesn’t mean they automatically apply. Unlike lead or asbestos, fluoride has been studied extensively for decades. Drawing parallels without evidence is oversimplifying the issue.
Plus, we banned all those things when we learned they were harmful, even though they were big money savers. Why would we be resistant to banning flouride if the evidence showed it was harmful? Is our fight against cavities more important to us than better gasoline milage?
Those studies focus on areas with high-fluoride levels (often above 2 mg/L), which exceed the levels used in water fluoridation programs in most countries (typically 0.7 mg/L). Extrapolating findings from high-fluoride regions to areas with controlled fluoridation ignores dose-response relationships and misrepresents the risks.
This doesn’t inherently mean it’s unsafe or that its use is driven purely by profit motives. Regulatory agencies evaluate fluoride safety based on scientific evidence, not its source. Your argument is conflating the origin of fluoride with its safety.
You’re right that we shouldn’t automatically apply historical cautionary tales to fluoride—but they’re still worth considering, especially when the stakes involve public health and long-term exposure. Yes, fluoride has been studied for decades, but so were lead additives, asbestos, and trans fats. Benjamin Franklin wrote about the dangers of lead in the 1700s, and yet we still had leaded gasoline into the 1990s. Awareness doesn’t always equal policy change—especially when economic convenience is involved.
As for the idea that we’d just ban fluoride if it were harmful: I wish it were that simple. We still allow artificial dyes, brominated vegetable oils, and other additives in U.S. food that have been banned in Europe due to health concerns. Regulatory inertia and industry pressure are very real forces. Just because something is allowed doesn’t make it safe—it might just mean it’s profitable or “not harmful enough” to overcome lobbying resistance.
On the IQ studies—you’re right that most of them involve higher fluoride levels than what’s found in U.S. tap water. But that’s not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Those studies raise real questions about fluoride’s neurological impact, especially during fetal and early childhood development. When the potential risk is subtle cognitive harm over years, it deserves extra scrutiny—not dismissal based on dosage assumptions. The U.S. National Toxicology Program’s 2023 draft report even acknowledged potential neurodevelopmental risks, suggesting caution may be warranted even at lower levels.
Lastly, the source of fluoride does matter when it comes to public trust. If it’s being sourced from fertilizer waste, people have a right to ask questions—not just about the compound itself, but about what else might come with it (heavy metals, contaminants, etc.). Saying “it’s safe because regulators say so” doesn’t build confidence when those same regulators have approved other chemicals later found to be harmful.
And honestly, the most compelling argument I’ve heard isn’t even about fluoride’s benefits or risks—it’s about bodily autonomy. Mass medication through public water removes individual choice, and that crosses a serious ethical line. Even if the risk is low and the benefit is real, the government shouldn’t force medical decisions on entire populations without consent. That’s the core issue for a lot of people.