The debate about the benefits and risks of fluoride is ongoing, as RFK Jr. — incoming President Trump’s pick for HHS secretary — pushes to remove it from the US water supply.
“Fluoride is an industrial waste associated with arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, IQ loss, neurodevelopmental disorders and thyroid disease,” RFK wrote in a post on X in November.
A new study published in JAMA Pediatrics on Jan. 6 found another correlation between fluoride exposure and children’s IQs.
Study co-author Kyla Taylor, PhD, who is based in North Carolina, noted that fluoridated water has been used “for decades” to reduce dental cavities and improve oral health.
“However, there is concern that pregnant women and children are getting fluoride from many sources, including drinking water, water-added foods and beverages, teas, toothpaste, floss and mouthwash, and that their total fluoride exposure is too high and may affect fetal, infant and child neurodevelopment,” she told Fox News Digital.
The new research, led by scientists at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, analyzed 74 epidemiological studies on children’s IQ and fluoride exposure.
The studies measured fluoride in drinking water and urine across 10 countries, including Canada, China, Denmark, India, Iran, Mexico, Pakistan, New Zealand, Spain and Taiwan. (None were conducted in the US)
The meta-analysis found a “statistically significant association” between higher fluoride exposure and lower children’s IQ scores, according to Taylor.
“[It showed] that the more fluoride a child is exposed to, the more likely that child’s IQ will be lower than if they were not exposed,” she said.
These results were consistent with six previous meta-analyses, all of which reported the same “statistically significant inverse associations” between fluoride exposure and children’s IQs, Taylor emphasized.
The research found that for every 1mg/L increase in urinary fluoride, there was a 1.63-point decrease in IQ.
The World Health Organization has established 1.5mg/L as the “upper safe limit” of fluoride in drinking water.
Meanwhile, the US Public Health Service recommends a fluoride concentration of 0.7 mg/L in drinking water.
“There was not enough data to determine if 0.7 mg/L of fluoride exposure in drinking water affected children’s IQs,” Taylor noted.
Higher levels of the chemical can be found in wells and community water serving nearly three million people in the US, the researcher noted.
She encouraged pregnant women and parents of small children to be mindful of their total fluoride intake.
“If their water is fluoridated, they may wish to replace tap water with low-fluoride bottled water, like purified water, and limit exposure from other sources, such as dental products or black tea,” she said.
“Parents can use low-fluoride bottled water to mix with powdered infant formula and limit use of fluoridated toothpaste by young children.”
While the research did not intend to address broader public health implications of water fluoridation in the US, Taylor suggested that the findings could help inform future research into the impact of fluoride on children’s health.
In response to this study and other previous research, Dr. Ellie Phillips, DDS, an oral health educator based in Austin, Texas, told Fox News Digital that she does not support water fluoridation.
“I join those who vehemently oppose public water fluoridation, and I question why our water supplies are still fluoridated in the 21st century,” she wrote in an email.
“There are non-fluoridated cities and countries where the public enjoy high levels of oral health, which in some cases appear better than those that are fluoridated.”
Phillips called the fluoride debate “confusing” even among dentists, as the American Dental Association advocates for fluoride use for cavity prevention through water fluoridation, toothpaste and mouthwash — “sometimes in high concentrations.”
“[But] biologic (holistic) dentists generally encourage their patients to fear fluoride and avoid its use entirely, even if their teeth are ravaged by tooth decay,” she said.
Phillips encouraged the public to consider varying fluoride compounds, the effect of different concentrations and the “extreme difference” between applying fluoride topically and ingesting it.
“Topical fluoride is beneficial, while systemic consumption poses risks,” she cautioned.
“Individuals must take charge of their own oral health using natural and informed strategies.”
The study received funding from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Intramural Research Program.
