February 20, 2026 | Fluoride Action Network.
Compiled by Michael F. Dolan, PhD
National Institute of Health Authors Publish Comprehensive Response That Refutes Critics of NTP Fluoride Neurotoxicity Reports
Aware that two major water fluoridation policy revisions are on the horizon, toxicologists from the National Toxicology Program (NTP) have published a detailed list of responses to criticisms of their monograph and meta-analysis that found prenatal and early life exposure to fluoride in drinking water is associated with reduced intelligence as found in IQ tests.
Writing in an open access statement in Annals of Global Health on December 12th, K.W. Taylor and others note, “Evolving evidence has renewed scientific interest and public debate over safe limits for fluoride in drinking water. In April 2025, the US Department of Health and Human Services announced it was reconvening the Community Preventive Services Task Force “to study and make a new recommendation on fluoride” and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it would review the scientific evidence surrounding fluoride in drinking water and its potential health risks.”
The authors’ two publications, “NTP monograph on the state of the science concerning fluoride exposure and neurodevelopment and cognition: A systematic review,” that found with moderate confidence that higher fluoride exposure is associated with lower IQ in children, and “Fluoride exposure and children’s IQ scores: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” that was published in JAMA Pediatrics, and that reported “inverse associations were still observed at fluoride exposure levels below 1.5 mg/L,” have been criticized by advocates of water fluoridation in a desperate attempt to protect the policy.
As the authors note, their work was subject to numerous rounds of peer review from within the NTP and from outside experts as well as by the medical journal.
They offer detailed responses to criticisms having to do with study design, data collection, bias and transparency, concluding, “The peer review process of the NTP systematic review and 2025 meta-analysis generated many comments on important scientific issues that contributed to the rigor and strength of the final documents. Some of these issues, which were rigorously considered and resolved in the assessments, continue to be raised, and are often highlighted in opinion pieces and the popular press. Subsequent reviewers of the evidence, especially in regulatory contexts, may encounter similar critiques. This viewpoint aims to assist and inform those tasked with ensuring the safe use of fluoride for oral health.”
Source: https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.4853
Report: Fluoridated Mouthwash Has Negative Effect on Orthodontic Tooth Movement
Frequent use of fluoridated mouthwash while having braces can damage the wires and reduced the efficacy of the orthodontic therapy as measured in rate of tooth movement, according to a new report.
The investigators from dental schools and clinics in India, the USA and Malaysia recruited twenty orthodontic patients between the ages of 18 and 30, with half using fluoridated Colgate MaxFresh Mouthwash and half using nonfluoridated Listerine.
During the three-month study period, tooth movement was significantly better in the group using the nonfluoridated mouth wash. The investigators also report that the arch wires when examined under a scanning electron microscope showed “more significant surface damage (pitting, corrosion, and inclusions) in wires exposed to the fluoridated mouthwash group than the non-fluoridated rinse.”
The authors concluded, “Nonfluoridated mouth rinses seem to aid in orthodontic tooth movement rates, especially with nickel-titanium (NiTi) arch wire, while fluoridated mouth rinses can inhibit arch wire efficacy.”
They elaborated, “[Fluoride-based] “corrosion-induced topographical roughening may affect the sliding mechanics of their wires as well as tooth movement rate in the long term. The wires exposed to fluoride mouthwashes for three months had the lowest ultimate tensile strength. During the early stage of leveling and aligning with NiTi wires, mouthwashes without fluoride can be used.”
Their open access report appeared on November 25th in The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice.
Source: https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3897
EPA Announces Assessment of Fluoride’s Toxicity For Humans, Showing No Interest In Proclaimed Health Benefits of the Toxin in Drinking Water
In a Notice published in the Federal Register on January 28th, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the availability of its Preliminary Assessment Plan and Literature Survey for the Fluoride Human Health Toxicity Assessment without any indication that dental benefits from ingesting fluoridated water will be considered.
The Agency appears to be following in the footsteps of the National Toxicology Program (NTP), which similarly studied fluoride’s neurotoxicity without any consideration of its alleged benefits in drinking water. The NTP concluded that fluoride in drinking water at just twice the amount added to water is consistently associated with reduced IQ scores in children exposed prenatally to the toxin.
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act regulations EPA is required to periodically evaluate new information on the health effects of toxins in drinking water such as fluoride.
Ironically, the first Trump Administration declined to evaluate fluoride, with the EPA saying it was too busy with other important matters.
The EPA’s assessment this time reflects the urgency of both a federal court order under the Toxic Substances Control Act requiring it to properly regulate fluoride and a growing political movement across the country to end water fluoridation.
An early press report on the plan by Reuters on January 28th mistakenly writes the assessment “will also support the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendations on fluoride in drinking water.” The Federal Register text actually reads, “The results of this toxicity assessment will also be used to inform Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations regarding fluoride in drinking water.”
The 75-page Preliminary Assessment Plan can be seen at this link:
Comments on the plan are due within 30 days. The Federal Register notice can be seen at this link:
Mississippi Utilities Commission Calls For End of Sodium Fluoride in Community Water Systems
The Mississippi Public Service Commission voted unanimously this month to ask state legislators to discontinue the addition of sodium fluoride to public drinking water supplies, according to a report on WLBT on January 16th.
Public support for water fluoridation in Mississippi is declining, as 28 systems “are officially pursuing discontinuing the use of fluoride in the water systems,” according to the report.
The resolution was introduced by Commissioner De’Keither Stamps who said, “Mississippians deserve to know what is being added to their drinking water and why. This resolution is rooted in transparency, safety, and affordability. We want to help water systems reduce avoidable chemical costs while ensuring families have confidence in the quality of the water coming into their homes,” according to a report by WJTV January 16.
The Public Service Commission is a state regulatory agency that oversees gas, electric, water, sewer and telecom utilities.
The complete list of water systems acting to end fluoridation, obtained by this reporter from the Mississippi State Department of Health includes:
Ackerman, Bay St. Louis, Bear Creek Water Association-East, Bear Creek Water Association-West, Brandon, Brookhaven, Cleveland, Collins, Crystal Springs Water System, Diamondhead Utilities-North, Ellisville State School, Eudora Utilities Association, Flowood, Greenville, Inverness, Louise (discontinued in 2025), Macon Water & Sewer, Monticello, North Lamar Water Association, Philadelphia, Poplarville, Richland, Ridgeland, Sardis, Sharon Water Works, Sunrise Utility Association (discontinued in 2025), Water Valley, and Waynesboro.
Morehead City, Hub of Marine Research, Ends Water Fluoridation
The North Carolina city that hosts some of the leading marine research institutes on the east coast has discontinued adding fluoride to its municipal water supply. The City Council voted unanimously to end the practice at its January 13th meeting, according to the Cartert County News Times.
Morehead City had practiced fluoridation for over 50 years. The Council resolution ending the practice read in part, “it is no longer necessary or recommended to add fluoride to water systems and the chemicals used are hazardous for staff to handle,” according to the newspaper report.
The City’s Public Services Director Daniel Williams said, “It was determined it is no longer best practice to add fluoride to the city’s water system, as there is naturally occurring fluoride in our groundwater…This is the most dangerous acid the water plant team works with in bulk,” according to the News Times.
Morehead City is the home of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Institute of Marine Sciences, a major marine research laboratory, and the North Carolina State University’s Center for Marine Science and Technology.
Atlantic Beach, another Carteret County town, also recently decided to end fluoridation.
Source: https://www.moreheadcitync.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/4731?fileID=20948
California Water Board Stops Fluoridation Over Worker Safety Concerns
The Board of the Olivenhain Municipal Water District suspended the addition of fluoride to its water supply on January 21st after workers there refused to receive a large bag of fluoride product that was damaged and that required them to conduct a controlled cleanup.
The Water District, based in Encinitas, CA a city of over 60,000 north of San Diego, serves 87,000 customers in Encinitas, Carlsbad and Solana Beach, according to a report on the hoodline.com website.
During a public meeting on the problem, numerous dentists, apparently unconcerned over worker safety, urged the Board to keep fluoridation in place, according to the report, quoting the San Diego Union Tribune.
According to the hoodline.com report, “Staff told the board that sealed 2,200-pound bags of powdered fluoride had arrived with cuts or tears several times over the past year, according to the newspaper. In a recent incident, employees refused a damaged shipment and carried out a controlled cleanup.”
The suspension will last up to 90 days, and “is intended to give staff time to review handling procedures, look at alternative suppliers and bolster operator training,” according to the report.
Source: https://hoodline.com/2026/01/torn-fluoride-bags-push-north-county-water-board-to-hit-pause/
Arizona Report on Fluoride in Cattle – ‘Critical Information Gap Remains’
While the authors of a new report on Arizona livestock exposure to fluoride from groundwater indicate there is no concern currently over human exposure to fluoride from eating beef, they note that there is no federal standard for fluoride in cattle feed, nor for livestock water supplies, although this has been developed by some states.
Kansas, for example, allows only up to 2.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L) or parts per million (ppm) fluoride in livestock water, according to the authors, who write, “The F- [fluoride] drinking water guideline for livestock (2.0 ppm) is lower than the human MCL [maximum contaminant level] (4.0 ppm) because animals, particularly grazing livestock, are exposed to [fluoride] from additional sources such as their feed or forage. Over time, this cumulative exposure increases the risk of dental or skeletal fluorosis. Therefore, a more protective limit is set for livestock to account for their higher total intake and to prevent adverse health effects such as dental and skeletal fluorosis.”
The authors express concern that more research is needed to better understand the amount of fluoride consumed by Arizonans, writing, “To date, no studies have identified any human health risk associated with consuming meat tissue from cattle that ingest high concentrations of fluoride through their water, feed, or crops. In the U.S., studies have predominantly focused on fluoride exposure through water rather than directly assessing its accumulation in cattle meat or other dietary sources. Additionally, fluoride can accumulate in crops grown in contaminated soil, further contributing to cattle exposure. A critical information gap remains on conducting risk assessments that combine fluoride from well water, crops, cattle exposure, and human consumption.”
The report, published in November by the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension, contains two detailed maps of the Arizona water basins with the percentage of samples exceeding 2.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of fluoride and those exceeding 4.0 mg/L.
Source: http://hdl.handle.net/10150/678916
Dental Researchers See Nonfluoridated Techniques Reshaping Control of Tooth Decay
Recognizing that exposing young children to fluoride is hazardous, and that there are post-fluoride “emerging paradigms” for oral care, dental researchers from Indian and British institutions have published an open access review of ten nonfluoridated remineralizing agents on November 17th in the International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry.
While referencing fluoride’s ability to remineralize enamel, these Indian researchers are concerned especially for young children, “who are more vulnerable to fluoride ingestion.”
They write, “Consequently, there is a growing need to explore nonfluoridated remineralizing agents that can offer comparable efficacy without associated risks.”
Their paper reviews ten new forms of nonfluoridated remineralizing techniques: casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate, nanohydroxyapatite, theobromine, calcium sodium phosphosilicate, Galla Chinensis, Enamelon technology, ozone technology, pro-arginine technology, SensiStat technology, and calcium orthophosphate saccharose complex (Toothmin).
The authors conclude, “As the demand for fluoride-free or adjunctive remineralization therapies grows, the development of safe, biocompatible, and cost-effective nonfluoridated agents may reshape future caries management strategies, ensuring improved oral outcomes for all.”
Source: https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-3309
•• Michael Dolan can be contacted at <mdolan.ecsn@outlook.com>