Excellent article in Scientific American here: https://bfsweb.us17.list-manage.com/track/click?u=a4a58a44b91d80d5c7b075877&id=f74b062a9a&e=2b94ec0dc1
The Scientific American article, “What the Evidence Says About Fluoride in Drinking Water” by Saima S. Iqbal, explores the ongoing debate surrounding water fluoridation, its proven public health benefits, and the rise of misinformation about its safety. Here’s a synopsis:
Key Points:
1.Public Health and Fluoridation
– Fluoride has been added to U.S. drinking water since the 1940s, significantly reducing tooth decay by strengthening enamel and repairing early damage. Initially, cavity rates dropped by 50–70% in children and 20–40% in adults.
– Despite reduced impact due to widespread use of fluoridated products, studies estimate that water fluoridation still prevents about 25% of cavities, particularly benefiting underserved populations.
- Safety of Fluoride
– Chronic overexposure in children can cause dental fluorosis, typically mild and cosmetic. Severe cases are rare in the U.S.
– At extreme concentrations, fluoride can cause skeletal fluorosis, but public water supplies are regulated to prevent this.
– Claims of fluoride affecting IQ stem from small, flawed studies. Robust evidence from larger studies (e.g., a 2023 meta-analysis) shows no cognitive harm from fluoride at recommended levels.
- Misinformation and Policy Challenges
– Figures like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. have amplified unsubstantiated claims about fluoride causing various health issues, eroding public trust.
– Political and legal developments, such as a federal court order for stricter EPA guidelines, have bolstered anti-fluoridation efforts. However, these rely on contested or weak scientific findings.
– Over 170 U.S. communities have ceased water fluoridation since 2010, raising concerns about increases in tooth decay, especially in vulnerable populations.
- Consequences of Removing Fluoride
– Case studies, such as Israel’s 2014 cessation, demonstrate that stopping fluoridation leads to increased dental health issues and costs.
– Alternatives to fluoridated water, such as fluoride toothpaste and professional treatments, are less accessible for disadvantaged groups, exacerbating health disparities.
- Future Directions
– Experts call for sustained efforts to counter misinformation and promote the benefits of fluoridation.
– There is interest in exploring new technologies like hydroxyapatite-based toothpaste as a potential complement or alternative, though more research is needed.
Conclusion:
The article underscores the importance of maintaining water fluoridation to protect public health, especially for socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, while addressing the challenge posed by misinformation. Experts advocate for continued vigilance in defending scientifically supported practices and ensuring equitable access to preventive dental care.
NTP revises its critical attitude to fluoride in water
Some years ago, researchers presented data claiming an association between fluoride exposure in pregnant women and cognitive function of their offspring. As a consequence, the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) undertook a systematic review of the literature. The NTP’s draft review (2019) was peer reviewed by the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (2020). The National Academy’s Expert Committee was critical of the design and methods of many of the studies reviewed by the NTP, was critical of NTP’s own analysis, and of NTP’s failure to provide adequate support for its conclusions. The National Academy’s Expert Committee recommended that NTP conduct further work to correct these errors. The NTP subsequently produced a second monograph, but a committee of The NASEM said that it ‘still falls short of providing clear and convincing documentation of the evidence to support its conclusions.’ The NASEM committee recommended that the NTP further improves its monograph. It issued a review rejecting the NTP conclusion regarding fluorides safety. NASEM specifically states that NTP’s analysis cannot be used to draw any conclusions in regards to fluoride at the concentration used for community water fluoridation.
The NTP has now issued a follow-up report that backtracks significantly from its original draft which failed to complete the peer review process.