Background: The Dublin San Ramon Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility in Pleasanton, Calif. on Tues. September 22, 2015 (Michael Macor/San Francisco Chronicle via AP). Inset: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (X/RFK Jr.).
Donald Trump winning the presidency this week has opened a door for erstwhile presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to try and get fluoride out of the nation’s water systems — with there being plans to let him “go wild” with ideas and regulations, according to the president-elect, despite there being “scarce” research to suggest he should, according to scientists. But the bigger boost of confidence may have actually come weeks earlier in federal court.
On Sept. 24, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in favor of strengthening fluoride regulations in drinking water, siding with a group of advocacy and environmental groups that argued in favor of reducing the current levels of fluoride in our water systems.
“The issue before this Court is whether the Plaintiffs have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the fluoridation of drinking water at levels typical in the United States poses an unreasonable risk of injury to health of the public within the meaning of Amended TSCA [Toxic Substances Control Act],” wrote U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in his September ruling, which was obtained by Law&Crime.
“The Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (‘mg/L’) — the level presently considered ‘optimal’ in the United States — poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children,” Chen said, noting that his finding, however, “does not conclude with certainty that fluoridated water is injurious” to public health.
“Rather, as required by the Amended TSCA, the Court finds there is an unreasonable risk of such injury, a risk sufficient to require the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] to engage with a regulatory response,” Chen, a Barack Obama appointee, explained. “This order does not dictate precisely what that response must be.”
It is now up to the EPA to decide how much fluoride to suggest taking out of the nation’s water systems, according to Chen. “One thing the EPA cannot do, however, in the face of this Court’s finding, is to ignore that risk,” he warned.
An order sent out on Oct. 31 says the EPA is currently reviewing the case and weighing an appeal. Michael Connett, lawyer for the advocacy groups that were plaintiffs in the federal fluoride case, hailed Chen’s ruling as a “historic decision” after it was handed down, saying it should “help pave the way towards better and safer fluoride standards for all,” according to Reuters.
With Trump now set to become America’s 47th president, Kennedy — a Trump ally who is predicted to be a cabinet member or health adviser of some sort — says he is ready to start waging his war on fluoride starting on day one.
“On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” Kennedy wrote on X earlier this month. “Fluoride is an industrial waste associated with arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, IQ loss, neurodevelopmental disorders, and thyroid disease.”
On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water. Fluoride is an industrial waste associated with arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, IQ loss, neurodevelopmental disorders, and thyroid disease[.]
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) November 2, 2024
Speaking to NPR on Wednesday, Kennedy reportedly confirmed that this plan was still a go, despite scientists coming forward and insisting that there is “no evidence” to support the need to remove fluoride completely from the nation’s water supplies.
“Yes, that is something the administration will do,” Kennedy said, according to Politico.
The weekend before the election, Trump told supporters at a rally in New York City that he planned on giving Kennedy the keys to America’s health care castle.
“I’m gonna let him go wild on health,” Trump said, according to reports. “I’m gonna let him go wild on the food. I’m gonna let him go wild on medicines.”
American water has been fluoridated since 1945 as a way to help strengthen teeth. Levels have been reduced over the years, but the decades-old consensus from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been that fluoride helps “create a strong surface protecting the teeth from cavities.”
“In children and adults teeth are bathed in fluoride when drinking water, giving teeth the fluoride they need all day long,” the CDC says on its website. “Acid produced by bacteria in the mouth can create holes on the surface of the teeth. Fluoride helps protect and rebuild this surface, preventing up to 25% of cavities. Build a better foundation for healthy teeth and keep your teeth stronger, longer.”
Kennedy and others have argued that there is new scientific evidence showing that fluoride poses a risk to human health, something Chen sided with in his ruling.
“At least at dosages of 1.5 mg/L or higher, fluoride is associated with reduced IQ in children,” he asserted, citing a federal review published by the National Toxicology Program, which found that higher levels of fluoride are linked to lower IQs in children.
“Subsequently, toxicology experts endeavored to put a finer point on the impact of fluoride on children’s IQ at ‘lower’ exposure levels, i.e., those below 1.5 mg/L, and conducted a pooled benchmark dose analysis to define the precise hazard level of fluoride,” Chen said.
According to his ruling, the pooled benchmark dose analysis concluded that a “one point drop in IQ of a child is to be expected for each 0.28 mg/L of fluoride in a pregnant mother’s urine.”
Chen called this “highly concerning” seeing how maternal urinary fluoride levels for pregnant mothers in the United States range from 0.8 mg/L at the median and 1.89 mg/L, “depending upon the degree of exposure,” per his ruling.
“Not only is there an insufficient margin between the hazard level and these exposure levels, for many, the exposure levels exceed the hazard level of0.28 mg/L,” Chen explained.
Currently, it is up to state and local health officials to decide how much fluoride should be added to their respective water supplies, if at all. Places like Lebanon, Oregon, and Rutland, Vermont, voted this year on fluoridation regulations, with each differing in opinions.
Lebanon, according to local radio station KLCC, saw 52% of voters reject a ballot measure this week calling for fluoride to remain in the city’s water supply. Rutland voted to keep fluoridating its water.
“It’s reassuring that they listen to the science and the history and the long-standing effectiveness that we’ve seen with water fluoridation,” Judith Fisch, a longtime dentist from Rutland who has served on the board of trustees of the American Dental Association, told VTDigger.
“I think that was the right decision for future generations,” she said.
Kennedy disagrees, telling NPR on Wednesday that even if Americans needed to consume fluoride, water wasn’t the best choice for delivering it. “It’s a very bad way to deliver it into our systems,” he said.
While some research has been done that sides with Kennedy, numerous scientists and experts have come forward to tell people to pump the brakes on his fluoride claims.
Dr. Ashley Malin, assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology at the University of Florida’s College of Public Health and Health Professions, for example, told CNN this week that more data is needed to “better understand impacts of chronic low level fluoride exposure on adult health outcomes because that research is scarce.”
She said, “I think that health effects of fluoride on young children, particularly in the realm of neurodevelopment have been sufficiently studied such that it has now been identified that a hazard to child IQ is present. However, I would argue that more research is needed to better understand impacts of chronic low level fluoride exposure on adult health outcomes because that research is scarce.”
Athanasios Zavras, a Massachusetts professor at Tufts University School of Medicine and chair of the school’s Department of Public Health and Community Service, told the magazine Health that while the science behind fluoride is “very interesting,” there’s currently no concrete evidence or proof to supports Kennedy’s calls for its removal.
“Fluoride in small amounts is beneficial whereas fluoride in high doses is toxic,” Zavras points out. “There is no evidence to back up the claims that 0.7 mg/L of fluoride leads to any of the conditions mentioned.”
According to Connett, if the EPA were to issue a nationwide ban of fluoridation, the U.S. would join a long list of European nations where the process is currently barred, including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland.
But that hasn’t stopped experts from speaking out against it and Chen’s ruling.
“There is nothing about the current decision that changes my confidence in the safety of optimally fluoridated water in the U.S.,” said Charlotte W. Lewis, a doctor and member of the American Academy of Pediatrics oral health section, in a statement to Health. “Water fluoridation is a public health policy based on a solid foundation of evidence. When new research is published, health experts scrutinize it to make sure it meets high standards for public safety.”
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
