The Truth About Fluoride: Industrial Waste or Public Health Benefit?

Fight For Zero
Jan 3, 2023
4 min read

Updated: 1 hour ago

Fluoride, commonly added to drinking water, is often misunderstood. The fluoride used in municipal water supplies is not the same pharmaceutical-grade substance found in toothpaste. It is usually hydrofluorosilicic acid, a byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry—and it may be contaminated with toxins such as aluminum, lead, and arsenic.

Florida, particularly Central Florida, is home to some of the world's largest phosphate deposits. During the mining process, pollution scrubbers convert airborne waste vapors into liquid waste, which becomes hydrofluorosilicic acid. Rather than treat this waste, it's transported from Florida fertilizer plants and added to drinking water across the U.S.—an arrangement that conveniently spares the industry from expensive disposal.

Industrial Waste in the Water Supply

Unlike fluoride in dental products, the fluoride added to public water is untreated industrial waste. Supporting water fluoridation, critics argue, essentially supports pollution by one of Florida's largest industrial contributors.

Phosphate mining also plays a significant role in nutrient pollution—excess phosphorus and nitrates from fertilizers feed harmful algae blooms, degrade water quality, and lead to devastating fish kills across Florida’s ecosystems.

Fluoride Lobbying and Political Influence

When fluoridation began in 1945, dental hygiene products like fluoride toothpaste weren't widely available. In 1960, the American Dental Association (ADA) endorsed fluoride toothpaste as a significant decay preventative. Yet the ADA continues to push for hydrofluorosilicic acid in public water systems while lobbying against expanding dental care access in underserved areas.

Lobbyists regularly attend public hearings to pressure local governments into maintaining fluoridation. Over $31 million in funding has been directed toward these efforts, with the CDC allocating $6.2 million annually to promote fluoridation across 21 states. Critics argue these funds could better serve low-income communities by providing direct access to dental care, nutrition education, and clean water infrastructure.

Children and Fluoride Overexposure

Roughly 75% of Americans drink fluoridated water. Proponents often justify this by targeting low-income families, yet children who already brush their teeth may be overexposed to fluoride, leading to dental fluorosis.

According to Environmental Health Perspectives, fluorosis rates have increased over the past 30 years. Currently, 41% of U.S. children in fluoridated areas exhibit signs of dental fluorosis. The EPA also acknowledges that some children are likely exposed to too much fluoride due to high fluid intake relative to their body weight.

The Academy of Medical Sciences notes that adults retain about 36% of fluoride in their bodies, while children retain closer to 50%—most of it stored in bones and teeth. In response to these concerns, the U.S. government revised its fluoride recommendation in 2015, lowering the optimal level in drinking water to 0.7 mg/L.

Ethical Concerns: Medicating the Water Supply

While the CDC promotes water fluoridation, it explicitly states that it does not determine safety levels for fluoride in drinking water. This raises ethical questions about medicating populations without consent. Communities are increasingly asking whether substances like hydrofluorosilicic acid—which don't clean water—should be added at all.

In 2020, researchers proposed adding lithium to public water to reduce suicide rates. This echoes early fluoride debates and raises a deeper issue: Where is the line between public health benefit and overreach?

A History of Poor Chemical Oversight

The U.S. government has a checkered history of regulating dangerous substances:

In the 1940s, radium was used in consumer products—even toothpaste—until workers exposed its deadly effects.
In the 1960s, DDT was widely used despite health risks. Rachel Carson's Silent Spring revealed how DDT accumulated in wildlife and humans.
PFAS chemicals, still largely unregulated, have contaminated water nationwide. Legal battles, including those led by attorney Rob Bilott, exposed that chemical companies knew of the health risks but continued production.

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), passed in 1976, more than 62,000 chemicals were grandfathered in without safety testing. The EPA has banned only five chemicals under TSCA since its enactment. This regulatory failure is why critics argue fluoride deserves stricter scrutiny.

A Federal Challenge to Fluoridation

In 2020, a landmark lawsuit against the EPA reached federal court. The plaintiffs seek to halt fluoridation based on growing evidence of its neurotoxic effects, particularly on children. Public health experts like Dr. Philippe Grandjean have raised serious concerns about the safety of ingesting fluoride.

The EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for fluoride is 4.0 mg/L, while the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommends 0.7 mg/L as optimal. These differing guidelines—set under different mandates—add to public confusion.

Conclusion: Informed Consent and Clean Water

The debate over fluoride is no longer just about cavities—it's about consent, transparency, and the safety of our water. As scientific understanding evolves, communities are pushing back against outdated public health measures. Many are choosing to remove fluoride from their water and instead focus on more equitable and transparent public health strategies.

Clean water should be just that—clean, safe, and free from industrial waste.