Fluoride in water: The surprising benefits and risks to public health

Water. It’s essential for life, and in many communities worldwide, it carries something else with it: fluoride. As a common additive in drinking water, fluoride has been heralded as one of the greatest public health interventions of the 20th century.

However, its widespread use has also sparked debates, with both proponents and critics weighing in on its impact. To understand the controversy, it’s essential to explore what fluoride is, why it’s added to water, and what the scientific community says about its benefits and risks.

Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral found in rocks, soil, and water. In the 1930s, scientists discovered that communities with naturally high levels of fluoride in their water had fewer cases of dental cavities. This observation led to the intentional addition of fluoride to public water supplies, a practice known as water fluoridation, which began in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1945.

The rationale for fluoridation is simple: fluoride helps prevent tooth decay. Dr. Steven Levy, a researcher at the University of Iowa, explains, “Fluoride strengthens tooth enamel by helping to remineralize weakened areas, making teeth more resistant to acid attacks from bacteria in the mouth.”

This process has been a cornerstone of modern dentistry, with organizations like the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) endorsing water fluoridation as safe and effective.

Fluoride’s role in promoting dental health is well established, but its impact extends beyond preventing cavities. From oral health improvements to broader systemic advantages, fluoride has been credited with multiple benefits.

The primary reason for fluoride’s addition to public water supplies is its ability to prevent tooth decay. This effect has been demonstrated across decades of research. The 2015 Cochrane review, for example, found that water fluoridation reduces cavities by 35% in children and 26% in adults.

Additionally, a 2020 study published in the Journal of Dental Research found that communities with fluoridated water experienced 20% fewer cases of severe tooth decay compared to areas without fluoridation.

Beyond cavity prevention, fluoride can help combat early stages of tooth erosion. A study by Dr. Andrew Featherstone at King’s College London demonstrated that fluoride-treated enamel exhibited 50% less demineralization in acidic conditions compared to untreated enamel. This highlights fluoride’s protective role for individuals prone to enamel erosion from acidic diets or medical conditions like acid reflux.

Fluoride also reduces the prevalence of dental infections. A longitudinal study from the University of Sydney tracked oral health outcomes in over 12,000 children and found that those in fluoridated communities had a 35% lower risk of dental abscesses, which can lead to serious health complications if untreated.

While its dental benefits are widely recognized, fluoride may offer additional advantages that impact overall health and wellbeing.

Improved Quality of Life for the Elderly:
As aging populations face increasing dental issues, fluoride continues to play a critical role. A 2008 study by the National Institute on Health found that seniors in fluoridated areas experienced a 20% lower incidence of root caries (cavities at the root of teeth) compared to those in non-fluoridated areas, reducing pain and improving their ability to chew and speak comfortably.

Bone Health:
At appropriate levels, fluoride contributes to bone strength. A 2019 study published in Science Direct investigated fluoride’s impact on bone density in older adults. Researchers found that individuals in regions with optimal fluoride levels in drinking water (0.7–1.2 mg/L) had a 10% higher bone mineral density compared to those in non-fluoridated areas, potentially reducing the risk of osteoporosis and fractures.

Reduction of Healthcare Inequities:
Fluoride plays a key role in addressing disparities in healthcare access. Dr. Maritza Cabezas, a public health expert at the University of Southern California, explains, “For vulnerable populations who lack access to dental care, water fluoridation acts as a critical equalizer, reducing the burden of oral disease and improving overall health.”

A 2024 analysis by the CDC confirmed that low-income communities with fluoridated water had fewer dental emergencies compared to non-fluoridated areas.

Cognitive and Academic Benefits:
Indirectly, better oral health achieved through fluoride can lead to improved academic performance in children. Chronic dental pain and infections can hinder school attendance and concentration.

A 2021 study referenced in Scientific American found that children with fewer dental issues due to fluoridation were 15% more likely to achieve higher academic scores in mathematics and reading.

Reduction in Systemic Infections:
Untreated dental problems can contribute to systemic health issues, including cardiovascular diseases and diabetes. Fluoride’s role in preventing tooth decay reduces the entry points for harmful bacteria, lowering the risk of related complications.

A 2024 review in the Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences noted a 12% reduction in systemic inflammation markers among individuals in fluoridated communities.

Economic Benefits:
Fluoride has been shown to reduce healthcare costs by preventing expensive dental treatments. A 2023 cost-benefit analysis by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare concluded that every dollar spent on water fluoridation saved approximately $16 in dental treatment costs over time. These savings are particularly significant for public health systems and underserved populations.

Despite its benefits, fluoride’s use in water has sparked significant debate. Opponents question its safety, citing concerns about potential health risks.

One of the most contentious issues surrounding fluoride is its potential impact on brain development. A study published in JAMA Pediatrics in 2019 by Dr. Bruce Lanphear of Simon Fraser University linked higher prenatal fluoride exposure to lower IQ scores in children.

The study examined 512 mother-child pairs in Canada and found that for every 1 milligram-per-liter increase in maternal fluoride levels, children’s IQs dropped by an average of 4.5 points. Dr. Lanphear cautioned, “While our findings do not prove causation, they raise important questions about fluoride’s safety, particularly during pregnancy.”

Excessive fluoride exposure can also lead to skeletal fluorosis, a condition that causes joint pain and stiffness. This is more common in areas with naturally high fluoride levels, such as parts of India and China, where fluoride concentrations in water exceed 4 milligrams per liter.

A 2009 study published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research highlighted that long-term exposure to high fluoride levels can impair bone quality and increase fracture risk.

There is also evidence suggesting fluoride may affect thyroid function. Dr. Edward Groth III, an independent researcher, noted that “high fluoride levels can interfere with iodine absorption, potentially leading to hypothyroidism.” However, these effects are generally observed at fluoride levels much higher than those used in water fluoridation.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent environmental lawyer, public health advocate and recently nominated candidate to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, is one of the most vocal critics of water fluoridation.

His opposition is rooted in concerns about potential health risks, environmental impact, and ethical considerations surrounding the practice. Kennedy has repeatedly called for a reevaluation of water fluoridation policies, citing research and expert opinions that question its safety.

Kennedy argues that fluoride in water poses significant health risks, particularly to vulnerable populations such as pregnant women and children. He frequently references a 2019 study published in JAMA Pediatrics by Dr. Bruce Lanphear, which linked higher prenatal fluoride exposure to lower IQ scores in children. Kennedy has stated, “The science is clear: fluoride is a neurotoxin, and its effects on developing brains cannot be ignored.”

RFK Jr. also points to evidence suggesting fluoride's potential role as an endocrine disruptor. He cites reviews, such as one published in Lancet Neurology in 2014, which classified fluoride as a developmental neurotoxin alongside lead and mercury. He argues that even low doses of fluoride, when consumed over long periods, may interfere with thyroid function, contribute to hormonal imbalances, and exacerbate conditions like hypothyroidism.

Beyond health concerns, Kennedy has criticized water fluoridation for its environmental implications. He has raised questions about the source of fluoride added to municipal water supplies, which often comes from industrial byproducts of phosphate fertilizer production. Kennedy argues that this practice amounts to “disposing of industrial waste into our water supply.”

He also challenges the ethics of water fluoridation, asserting that it violates individual rights. “Mass medication through the water supply denies people the ability to choose what chemicals they consume,” Kennedy has said in interviews. He advocates for alternative approaches, such as promoting fluoride use through toothpaste and other dental products, which allow for voluntary consumption.

Many public health officials and scientists challenge Kennedy’s claims, pointing to the weight of evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation.

The American Dental Association (ADA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) emphasize that fluoride levels in public water systems are carefully regulated to fall within safe limits, typically 0.7 parts per million (ppm). They argue that Kennedy’s interpretation of studies like Dr. Lanphear’s overstates the risks, as these findings are often context-specific and may not apply universally.

For example, critics highlight that studies linking fluoride to IQ reduction often focus on populations exposed to fluoride levels much higher than those used in water fluoridation programs. Dr. Gary Whitford, a fluoride researcher at Augusta University, argues, “RFK Jr. and others often conflate high-dose fluoride exposure in naturally contaminated water supplies with the controlled, low levels used in fluoridation programs.”

Additionally, public health officials stress the disproportionate benefits of water fluoridation for underserved communities. Dr. Myron Allukian, a former public health dental director, states, “The harm caused by dental disease in low-income populations far outweighs the minimal risks associated with regulated fluoride use.”

Kennedy’s critique of water fluoridation resonates with those concerned about potential health risks and personal autonomy. His arguments gain traction in communities already skeptical of public health interventions. However, his position is not without flaws.

Critics argue that Kennedy relies heavily on studies conducted in non-fluoridated regions with significantly higher natural fluoride concentrations, which may not be directly relevant to the controlled fluoridation levels in most public water supplies.

Kennedy’s advocacy also underscores an important issue: the need for more transparency and community engagement in public health decisions. By questioning the ethics of mass fluoridation, Kennedy raises a valid point about the importance of respecting individual choice while balancing it against collective health benefits.

Balancing fluoride’s benefits against its risks involves weighing public health priorities. For communities with limited access to dental care, fluoride’s cavity-preventing properties are invaluable. Yet, the potential for harm, particularly in vulnerable populations such as pregnant women and young children, cannot be ignored.

Dr. Philippe Grandjean of Harvard University advocates for a precautionary approach. “The dose makes the poison. While fluoridation at recommended levels is unlikely to cause harm for most individuals, it’s crucial to monitor exposure to ensure safety.”

Fluoridation policies vary widely across the globe. In the United States, about 73% of the population receives fluoridated water.

In contrast, most European countries do not fluoridate water, opting instead for fluoride in toothpaste and other dental products. Studies comparing these regions show similar declines in cavity rates, suggesting that alternatives to water fluoridation may also be effective.

Dr. Peter Cooney, former Chief Dental Officer of Canada, explains this disparity. “Fluoridation is one tool among many. In countries with robust dental health programs, it may not be necessary. But in places where access to dental care is limited, it can be a game-changer.”

As scientific understanding evolves, researchers are exploring alternatives to traditional water fluoridation. One promising approach is the use of fluoride varnishes, which are applied directly to teeth. A 2013 study in the Cochrane Library found that fluoride varnishes reduced cavities by 43% in children, outperforming water fluoridation in some cases.

Additionally, innovations like hydroxyapatite-based toothpastes are gaining traction. Hydroxyapatite, a naturally occurring mineral, mimics the composition of tooth enamel and offers cavity protection without fluoride’s potential risks. Dr. Anna Fuks of the University of São Paulo calls these developments “a paradigm shift in preventive dentistry.”

The ongoing debate over fluoride underscores a broader challenge in public health: balancing population-wide benefits with individual risks. For policymakers, the key lies in transparency and evidence-based decision-making.

Dr. Kathryn Hirsh-Pasek of Temple University suggests fostering community dialogue. “Fluoridation policies should reflect not only scientific evidence but also the values and preferences of the communities they serve. Engaging the public in these discussions can help build trust and ensure equitable outcomes.”

Fluoride’s benefits extend well beyond preventing cavities. By bolstering oral health, promoting bone density, addressing healthcare inequities, and contributing to systemic health improvements, fluoride has proven to be a valuable public health intervention.

These findings highlight its significant role in enhancing quality of life, particularly for vulnerable populations. However, as with any public health measure, it is essential to balance these benefits against potential risks and to continue refining its use to maximize its advantages.

Note: Materials provided above by The Brighter Side of News. Content may be edited for style and length.

Like these kind of feel good stories? Get The Brighter Side of News' newsletter.