top of page
Search

Is Fluoride Safe? Public Health Concerns Fuel Local Bans

Updated: 6 days ago

fluoride ban in florida

A Growing National Battle: Communities Demand End to Fluoride in U.S. Drinking Water


WASHINGTON, D.C. — Across the United States, communities are rising in opposition to the fluoridation of public drinking water, citing health concerns, ethical questions, and industrial interests. A coalition of advocates joined environmental and public health leaders in Washington, D.C., to support a landmark federal lawsuit challenging the legality of adding fluoride to municipal water systems. At the heart of the case: the claim that fluoridated water poses an unreasonable risk to human health, particularly to children.


What Is Being Added to Our Water?


While many Americans assume the fluoride in tap water is pharmaceutical-grade, the reality is quite different. The chemical most commonly added to public water supplies is hydrofluorosilicic acid, a byproduct of phosphate fertilizer production—not a refined medical substance. This industrial waste, primarily sourced from Central Florida's phosphate mines, is captured by pollution scrubbers during fertilizer manufacturing. Without water fluoridation, these facilities would be burdened with disposing of this hazardous waste at significant cost.


Studies have shown that hydrofluorosilicic acid can contain contaminants such as:

  • Arsenic

  • Lead

  • Aluminum

  • Other heavy metals


These contaminants pose potential risks when ingested, especially over long periods and in vulnerable populations such as children and pregnant women.


Industrial Fluoride vs. Medical Ethics


Fluoridation began in the 1940s, long before fluoridated toothpaste and routine dental care became widespread. While early public health officials promoted water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, critics argue the practice today violates informed consent principles by forcing entire populations to ingest a substance for medicinal purposes.

“This is no longer just a dental issue. It’s an ethical and environmental justice concern,” said Stel Bailey, Executive Director of Fight for Zero. “Communities have a right to clean water—not chemically medicated water.”

Lobbying, Influence, and Government Funding


The American Dental Association (ADA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) remain leading supporters of fluoridation. However, these organizations have faced criticism for:


  • Lobbying against alternative dental care access in underserved areas

  • Promoting fluoridation while ignoring emerging toxicity data

  • Accepting millions in federal grants to expand fluoridation


The CDC allocates $6.2 million annually to 21 states to promote fluoridation, totaling $31 million in taxpayer dollars over five years. Critics argue that these funds could more effectively address oral health disparities through:


  • Affordable dental care

  • Nutrition programs

  • Improved water infrastructure


Health Concerns: Fluoride and Children


According to the Environmental Health Perspectives journal, 41% of U.S. children living in fluoridated areas exhibit dental fluorosis, a condition that causes staining and damage to tooth enamel due to fluoride overexposure during development. The EPA acknowledges that children, due to higher water consumption relative to body weight, are at risk of ingesting too much fluoride.


Further scientific reviews suggest possible links between fluoride exposure and:

  • Reduced IQ and neurodevelopmental damage (as studied by Harvard researcher Dr. Philippe Grandjean)

  • Endocrine disruption

  • Bone and thyroid disorders

  • Increased risk of osteosarcoma (bone cancer) in young males


The National Research Council has called for more rigorous evaluation of fluoride’s health impacts, noting its accumulation in bone and teeth—where it remains for decades.


Legal Challenge: Fluoride on Trial


In 2020, a federal lawsuit brought under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) challenged the EPA’s continued support for fluoridation. The suit argues that fluoridated water constitutes an "unreasonable risk" to human health—particularly to the developing brains of infants and young children.


The EPA’s enforceable maximum contaminant level (MCL) for fluoride remains at 4.0 mg/L, while the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommends an optimal level of just 0.7 mg/L for dental benefit. This discrepancy underscores a broader problem: two conflicting federal standards, one intended to minimize health risk, the other to support dental health goals.


Meanwhile, states like New York have adopted stricter limits—setting the bar at 10 parts per billion (ppb)—while the CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) have urged a reevaluation of national guidelines.


A Pattern of Chemical Controversies


Fluoride is not the first chemical added to consumer products or public utilities under the assumption of safety:


  • Radium was once promoted for health and beauty before being linked to fatal radiation sickness

  • DDT, once hailed as a miracle pesticide, was banned after Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring revealed its environmental and human toxicity

  • PFAS chemicals—used in firefighting foam and consumer goods—now contaminate water sources nationwide, despite industry knowledge of their danger for decades


Each case reflects a common theme: delayed regulation, powerful industry lobbying, and public exposure to hazardous substances long before science catches up.


Communities Take a Stand


Across the country, local governments are reexamining fluoride policies. Some have already voted to remove fluoride from drinking water, while others face intense lobbying pressure to maintain it. Critics say that promoting systemic fluoridation, especially when safer alternatives exist, is outdated and unethical.

“Fluoridation may have made sense in the 1940s, but not today,” Bailey said. “We’re medicating the population through the water supply without consent—and it’s time to stop.”

Clean Water, Informed Choice


Public health must evolve with science. With a growing body of evidence linking fluoride exposure to health concerns and the rise of more ethical, community-driven water policy, Americans are asking an increasingly urgent question: Why are we still adding an industrial byproduct to our drinking water—without informed consent, transparency, or modern oversight?


Scientific and Governmental Sources: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Comments

bottom of page