Oct 07, 2020
Op-ed: It is time to protect kids’ developing brains from fluoride
Mounting evidence suggests fluoride may be hampering brain development and reducing kids' IQ. The US needs to rethink this exposure for pregnant women and children.
The debate on the fluoridation of drinking water—one of the most polarized, long-running, and
high-decibel controversies in public health—has been reignited as new studies find that fluoride is
toxic to the developing brain.
Last week, the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) released a systematic review of all
published studies evaluating the potential neurotoxicity of fluoride; the benefits of fluoride with
respect to reducing tooth decay were not addressed. A committee of the National Academy of
Science, Medicine, and Engineering will review it this fall. This comprehensive report scrutinized
hundreds of human and animal studies on the impact of fluoride on brain and cognitive function.
Most, but not all, of the high-quality studies evaluated fluoride concentrations that were about
twice the level added to drinking water or higher. However, when considering all the evidence,
their conclusion was "fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive developmental hazard to humans."
The NTP's conclusion was strengthened by a synthesis of high-quality studies showing that
children who were exposed to higher amounts of fluoride during early brain development scored
about 3 to 7 points lower on their IQ tests.
Their conclusion is consequential; about 75 percent of Americans on community water systems
have fluoride in their tap water. Water is the main source of fluoride for people who live in
communities with water fluoridation.
When do we know enough to revise long-held beliefs? We are reminded of the discovery of
neurotoxic effects of lead that led to the successful banning of lead in gasoline and paint. Despite
early warnings of lead toxicity, regulatory actions to reduce childhood lead exposures were not
taken until decades of research had elapsed and millions more children were poisoned.
We know that the developing brain is exquisitely sensitive to minute concentrations of lead and
other toxic chemicals. Moreover, toxic chemicals' irreversible effects on children's rapidly
growing brains emphasize the need for prevention.
Failing to act on accumulated evidence raises deep and unsettling questions.
Why are beliefs about the safety of fluoride so intransigent in the face of consistent evidence to
the contrary?
Costs outweigh benefits
Fluoride offers no benefits to the fetus and infant and – as shown in the video below – new
evidence suggests that fluoride is toxic to the developing brain at levels routinely found in the
general population.
The benefits of fluoride in the prevention of tooth decay are predominately topical, occurring only
after teeth appear in the child's mouth. Fortunately, pregnant women can use fluoridated toothpaste
and, if they want to do more to prevent cavities, they can limit their consumption of sugar, a
leading cause of tooth decay.
The loss of a single IQ point for an individual child is imperceptible, but the societal cost of
millions of children losing 5 IQ points, or more is enormous. A decrement of even one IQ point
translates to a 2 percent reduction in lifetime economic productivity (roughly $20,000), not to
mention the additional educational costs required for children with lower IQs.
Many health and dental organizations in North America recommend community water
fluoridation. Given the weight of evidence that fluoride is toxic to the developing brain, it is time
for health organizations and regulatory bodies to review their recommendations and regulations to
ensure they protect pregnant women and their children.
We can act now by recommending that pregnant women and infants reduce their fluoride intake.
Specialized water filtration systems can be used to remove fluoride from tap water for pregnant
women and infants fed formula. Pregnant women can also avoid black tea, which hyper-
accumulates fluoride. The good news for all women is that there is little fluoride in breast milk.
Bottled water typically contains lower amounts of fluoride than fluoridated tap water.
Some health advocates are going a step further. In 2016, a group of citizens petitioned the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to stop adding fluoride to drinking water because it is
toxic. The EPA rejected the petition. In response, the citizen's group took an unprecedented step
and sued the EPA in federal court. EPA lawyers argued half-heartedly that the science was
insufficient and said the Agency does not have the resources to regulate fluoride under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA).
In August, Judge Edward Chen of the Ninth Circuit deferred his ruling on whether fluoridation
poses an unreasonable risk until the NTP released their report.
New evidence questions existing policies about the safety of fluoride for babies' developing
brains. Given that safe alternatives are available and that there is no benefit of fluoride to babies'
teeth before they erupt or appear, it is time to protect those who are most vulnerable.
Bruce Lanphear, MD, is a physician and professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver,
Canada.
Christine Till, PhD, is an associate professor of Psychology at York University in Toronto,
Canada.
Linda Birnbaum, PhD, is Scientist Emeritus and Former Director, National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of
Health.
Their views do not necessarily represent those of Environmental Health News, The Daily Climate
or publisher, Environmental Health Sciences.
Banner photo credit: World Bank
