Dental and medical groups have promoted misleading and even false statements that downplay the evidence that fluoridation is likely lowering some children’s IQ. These groups oversimplify the debate, disregard key scientific evidence, and provide an incomplete view of recent findings.

Below, FAN addresses misinformation and misstatements about the risk to child IQ from fluoride exposures seen in fluoridated communities.

Claim: “There is no evidence the current level of community water fluoridation of 0.7 mg/L harms health.”

• This is inaccurate. The recent U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) report (2024) concluded, with moderate confidence, that fluoride exposure at levels as low as 1.5 mg/L is associated with reduced IQ in children. When applying the EPA’s safety margin factor of 10, fluoride concentrations would need to be 0.15 mg/L or lower to protect children.
• Fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L is not far below the hazardous level of 1.5 mg/L and is far above a safe level.
• The NTP report and a recent EPA lawsuit ruling identified multiple high-quality recent studies. finding reduced IQ at levels below 1.5 mg/L, with some below 0.7 mg/L. The court ruling concluded that “… evidence in the record … establishes with little doubt that fluoridated drinking water presents a risk of injury to health.”
• 18 out of 19 of the highest-quality studies in the NTP report link higher fluoride with lower IQ, with 7 of those studies done at fluoride levels seen in fluoridated water.
• To say “no evidence” dismisses these credible findings.

Claim: “The amount of fluoride added to the community water supply is extremely small.”

• Fluoride is added in milligrams per liter (mg/L), and “extremely small” does not account for cumulative exposure from drinking water, food, tea, dental products, and other sources. Total fluoride intake can exceed safe levels, especially for children and pregnant women.

Claim: “The levels discussed in recent reports and litigation are more than double the current levels used in community water fluoridation.”

• This is misleading. While some studies include higher fluoride levels, the NTP report found neurotoxicity concerns at levels consistent with community fluoridation. In the EPA lawsuit, Judge Edward Chen ruled that fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ.

“Because people receive fluoride from multiple sources (not just drinking water), individuals living in areas with optimally fluoridated water can have total fluoride exposures higher than the concentration of their drinking water” [therefore] “the moderate confidence conclusions [of fluoride neurotoxicity] may also be relevant to people living in optimally fluoridated areas of the United States depending on the extent of their additional exposures to fluoride from sources other than drinking water.” – Page 84 of the NTP Fluoride Monograph

Claim: “Organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and American Dental Association (ADA) support fluoridation.”

• While these organizations historically support fluoridation, their positions are not immune to industry influence. Support does not negate the growing body of peer-reviewed evidence highlighting neurotoxicity risks. Further, these organization’s position statements from 2024 are not scientifically responsive to the EPA ruling or the latest NTP findings.

Claim: “In some areas funding from private dental foundations is still being offered as an inducement for communities to fluoridate.”

• Financial incentives to maintain fluoridation programs do not address health risks or public safety concerns. Promoting funds distracts from the central issue: fluoride’s potential to harm children’s brain development.

As shown above, recent statements from some dental and medical groups ignore credible, modern research and a federal court ruling that challenges the safety of fluoridation at current levels. Local policymakers and the public should rely on up-to-date science, not outdated endorsements, to ensure public health protection.