Before we get to the editorial below, here is a quick update on our fundraiser for our TSCA lawsuit against the US EPA. We have raised $38,765 from 221 donors. Thank you all for your magnificent response to our appeal. We are well on our way to our goal of $75,000 by May 31 – and if we achieve that our total will be tripled to $225,000

You can donate either:

  • Online at our secure server.
  • Or by Check, payable to the Fluoride Action Network. Send your check to:
    Fluoride Action Network
    c/o Connett
    104 Walnut Street
    Binghamton NY 13905

Warning to Moms2B: Avoid Fluoride.

Better safe than sorry

Before Ellen and I got involved with fighting fluoridation, we were heavily involved in fighting municipal waste incinerators. In fact, between 1985 and 1995 we helped communities stop over 300 incinerators being built in North America. One of the things we learned from that effort was that success was dependent on good grassroots organizing locally. Networking with groups on the state and national level was a great advantage on two fronts: the sharing of successful strategies and the knowing that one was not alone in the fight.

After a few years into the battle the message from Ellen to the grass-roots: The only ones to protect a community from health risks are those who live in it.  And Paul added: No risk is acceptable if it is avoidable.  

It is that second statement that is relevant and important for our court case against the EPA. After we have shown that

• fluoride is a hazard because of its neurotoxicity, and

• it presents serious neurotoxic risks to children at current exposure levels from drinking fluoridated water.

We will have to show that these risks are unreasonable.

The major proponents of fluoridation like the Oral Health Division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have conceded that the predominant benefit of fluoride is topical not systemic (CDC, 1999, 2001). In other words, because you don’t have to swallow fluoride to get its purported benefits, you can more reasonably apply it directly to the surface of the teeth using fluoridated toothpaste. Some would argue that the most important thing is that children be taught to brush their teeth properly whether they use fluoridated or non-fluoridated toothpaste. If the latter is chosen then it is important that young children be supervised to prevent them swallowing the toothpaste and that toothpaste manufacturers be prohibited from using fruit flavors and packaging that actually encourages children to look at fluoridated toothpaste as candy.

Fluoridation promoters will have to argue a very difficult “risks versus benefit” case. They have to argue that the very meager (if any) benefit of swallowing fluoride (their assertions in this regard are theoretical. In 70 years there has never been a randomized control trial at the community or individual level that demonstrates that swallowing fluoride lowers tooth decay) can justify the risks of lowering the IQ of children when it is neither necessary nor rational to swallow fluoride at all. No risk is acceptable if it is avoidable.

To make their task even more difficult, it is not a small risk we are talking about it is a very serious risk. Lowering a child’s intelligence is very serious – particularly at the population level.

The scientific evidence for that serious risk was strengthened even more on Sept 19, 2017, when a rigorous mother-child study was published (Bashash et al., 2017). This study, funded by the US-government, showed a strong correlation between the amount of fluoride mothers were exposed to during pregnancy and a lowered IQ in their offspring. Based on the data from this study typical fluoride exposure levels of pregnant women in USA has the potential to yield a lowering of up to six IQ points. At the population level such a shift in IQ would halve the number of very bright children (IQ greater than 130) and increase by about 50% the number of mentally handicapped children (IQ less than 70). See more information on the Bashash study at the end of this editorial

At the very least, this finding should trigger the Precautionary Principle. If in doubt take it out.

Stop adding fluoride to our water now, if other rigorously-conducted studies come out later that refute the Bashash study then consider putting it back in. But to continue this practice with such evidence on the table is unthinkable. This 70-year experiment must end now.

Meanwhile, as far as pregnant woman are concerned we urge them to be safe rather than sorry. They can find better ways of fighting tooth decay after their children are born, but there are no ways of recovering any IQ points IF they are lost during pregnancy. That loss is irreversible and permanent and, in our view, if they are lost because of fluoride exposure, that loss is unnecessary.

We are still developing our campaign and we need your help. Our message: “Moms2B: Avoid Fluoride.” Better safe than sorry. Please send us your suggestions.

Thank you,

Paul and Ellen Connett for the FAN fundraising Team


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1999. Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of drinking water to prevent dental caries. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review. (MMWR). 48(41): 933-940 October 22, 1999. Available at

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2001. Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review. (MMWR). 50(RR14);1-42. August 17, 2001.

See previous bulletins that discuss Bashash:

Additional Resources:

See all FAN bulletins online