The scientific evidence on the risks and benefits of fluoride in drinking water was extensively scrutinized across seven years of litigation in the case of Food & Water Watch v. EPA. In September, the Obama-appointed federal judge overseeing the case concluded that fluoridation “poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children.”

One of the reasons the court found the risk to be “unreasonable” is because fluoridation exposes large numbers of children to fluoride during vulnerable periods of development (in the womb and early months of infancy). As the Court noted:

“It is undisputed that large numbers of susceptible individuals are being exposed each year to fluoride through fluoridation, namely, approximately two million pregnant women, and over 300,000 exclusively formula-fed babies.”

So is there any medical justification for exposing the unborn child, or newborn infant, to fluoride’s risk to health?

NO.

Below is sworn testimony from Casey Hannan, the then Director of CDC’s Division of Oral Health, regarding early life exposure to fluoride.

As you will see, the CDC director admits that fluoridated water provides *no* benefit to the baby in the womb, and *no* benefit during the first 6 months of infancy. This makes biological sense because, as the CDC director also admits, fluoride’s predominant benefit to teeth comes from topical contact with the teeth, not ingestion, and a topical benefit to teeth is obviously only possible after the teeth have erupted into the mouth.

Admission 1: Fluoride Supplements Do Not Provide A Benefit For Children When Given During Pregnancy

Admission 2: No Benefit To Children’s Teeth If Fluoride Is Swallowed By Their Mother

Admission 3: “We Don’t Promote Fluoride Use For In Utero Benefits.”

Admission 4: Fluoridated Water Does Not Provide A Benefit During The First 6 Months Of Life

Admission 5: Fluoride’s Primary Benefit To Teeth Comes From Topical Contact

Admission 6: Fluoride Is Only Effective “In The Right Amount, In The Right Place, At The Right Time”