Question – Is fluoride exposure associated with children’s IQ scores?
Findings – Despite differences in exposure and outcome measures and risk of bias across studies, and when using group-level and individual-level exposure estimates, this systematic review and meta-analysis of 74 cross-sectional and prospective cohort studies found significant inverse associations between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ scores. For fluoride measured in water, associations remained inverse when exposed groups were restricted to less than 4 mg/L or less than 2 mg/L but not when restricted to less than 1.5 mg/L; for fluoride measured in urine, associations remained inverse at less than 4 mg/L, less than 2 mg/L, and less than 1.5 mg/L; and among the subset of low risk-of-bias studies, there were inverse associations when exposed groups were restricted to less than 4 mg/L, less than 2 mg/L, and less than 1.5 mg/L for analyses of fluoride measured both in water and in urine.
Meaning – This comprehensive meta-analysis may inform future risk-benefit assessments of the use of fluoride in children’s oral health.
In simple terms, here’s what the study found:
Higher Fluoride Exposure Linked to Lower IQ Scores:
Children exposed to higher levels of fluoride consistently scored lower on IQ tests compared to those with lower exposure.
Estimated Impact: On average, children’s IQ scores were lower by an SMD of −0.45 (~7 IQ points).
Fluoride in Drinking Water and IQ Scores:
When fluoride levels in drinking water increased, children’s IQ scores tended to decrease.
At Levels Below 4 mg/L: IQ scores were lower (SMD: −0.22, ~3 IQ points).
At Levels Below 2 mg/L: The effect was smaller and less certain (SMD: −0.18, ~3 IQ points).
At Levels Below 1.5 mg/L: No clear relationship was detected.
Fluoride in Urine and IQ Scores:
Fluoride measured in children’s urine showed a clearer link to lower IQ scores than drinking water fluoride levels.
At All Levels of Exposure: Higher urinary fluoride was linked to lower IQ scores (SMD: −0.15, ~2 IQ points).
At Levels Below 4 mg/L: The effect remained significant (SMD: −0.20, ~3 IQ points).
At Levels Below 2 mg/L: The link persisted (SMD: −0.08, ~1 IQ point).
At Levels Below 1.5 mg/L: The link persisted (SMD: −0.08, ~1 IQ point).
Impact of a 1-mg/L Increase in Urinary Fluoride on IQ:
For every 1-mg/L increase in fluoride in a child’s urine, their IQ score decreased by about 1.63 points.
In the most reliable studies, the decrease was slightly smaller at 1.14 points per 1-mg/L increase.
A few months ago, I summarized the deleterious effects of excess fluoride consumption and recommended policy that would enforce physical removal of unsafe levels:
Fluoride is not considered an essential nutrient for any biological function in humans or animals. Approximately 72.3% of the U.S. population on community water systems receives fluoridated water. The CDC currently recommends a fluoride concentration in drinking water of 0.7 mg/L to prevent cavities, with a secondary safety standard of 2.0 mg/L. Physical intervention to remove fluoride from water is currently only required when fluoride concentrations exceed the EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 4.0 mg/L. Boehmer et al found that between 2016 and 2021, approximately 83.7% of the time, people served by fluoridated water systems received water with fluoride levels between 0.6 mg/L and 2.0 mg/L. This implies that a significant number of Americans likely receive fluoride levels above 1.5 mg/L, which is the World Health Organization’s safe limit for fluoride. In Europe, only Ireland, Poland, Serbia, Spain, and the UK fluoridate their water. Most developed countries do not consume artificially fluoridated water.
The U.S. uses fluoride derived from industrial byproducts for water fluoridation: “Three chemicals are used to fluoridate drinking water in the U.S: sodium fluoride (NaF); sodium fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6); and fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6). Fluorosilicic acid is a byproduct of the manufacture of phosphate fertilizer. It is recovered as a vapor, which ensures a high degree of purity. Both sodium fluoride and sodium fluorosilicate are made from fluorosilicic acid recovered in this manner. Sodium fluorosilicate is created by neutralizing fluorosilicic acid with caustic soda, itself a water treatment chemical. Sodium fluoride is created by neutralizing fluorosilicic acid with sodium chloride, common salt.”
Various deleterious health outcomes can occur if water fluoride concentration is above 1.5 mg/L (within the CDC’s safety standard). Kumar et al summarized the major adverse health effects on human beings due to the ingestion of excess fluoride through drinking water (above 1.5 mg/L):
The narrow range between fluoride concentrations that provide purported benefits (0.7 mg/L) and those that pose risks (>1.5 mg/L) presents concerns, especially if fluctuations in concentration occur.
Fluoride is naturally present in the environment and most natural water sources, including bottled waters, and thus can’t be completely removed from the water supply. Some bottled water manufacturers artificially add fluoride to their water or source their water from fluoridated public water systems. Approximately 42% of American children are drinking bottled waters. Johnson and DeBiase found that 95% of the bottled water analyzed (n=65) did not label fluoride content. If there is meaningful public health policy on fluoride, the bottled water industry will have to be properly managed with respect to accurate fluoride testing and labelling.
Since it’s impossible to completely remove fluoride from the environment, gathering precise data on the number of Americans exposed to fluoride concentrations above 1.5 mg/L should be a first priority to identify and protect high-risk populations. Another key policy should be reducing the EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) for fluoride in public drinking water systems from 4 mg/L to <0.7 mg/L, which would effectively enforce physical intervention to remove unsafe levels of fluoride and discourage artificial supplementation. In avoiding autocracy, this approach could be a first step in collaboration with multiple stakeholders that may disagree with a complete water fluoridation ban, even if it’s indicated. Lastly, we should keep in mind that fluoride is only one element among the sea of other water treatment additives and contaminants that present similar, if not worse, negative health outcomes. To drive meaningful improvements in population health, we need a broader perspective on water and public health safety. Additionally, efforts to enhance water safety should encompass both tap and bottled water.
The most effective action would be to completely halt the artificial introduction of industrial byproduct fluoride into the water supply, which would likely lead to the recovery of the IQ of American children and prevent other adverse health outcomes associated with excess fluoride exposure.
Nicolas Hulscher, MPH
Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
Eliminating Fluoride in Drinking Water: The Real Issue
LAURENCE M. VANCE
It was in 1945 that public water systems began adding fluoride to drinking water because it supposedly prevented cavities. By 1980, half of the American population was consuming fluoridated water.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—Donald Trump’s pick to head the Department of Health and Human Services—wants to change that.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):
Fluoride is a chemical ion of fluorine, which is the 13th most common element in the earth’s crust. It is naturally found in almost all soil and water and many rocks. It is released into the environment when rocks or soil containing fluoride are dissolved by water. It can also be released from volcanic emissions or through man-made processes.
Fluoride combines with outer enamel tooth layers, preventing cavities by making teeth stronger and more resistant to decay. Almost all water contains some naturally occurring fluoride, but usually at levels too low to prevent cavities. Many communities add a small amount of fluoride to the water supply to prevent cavities and promote good oral health.
The U.S. Public Health Service recommends that community water systems add fluoride to drinking water.
But according to RFK: “Fluoride is an industrial waste associated with arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, IQ loss, neurodevelopmental disorders, and thyroid disease.” He maintains that the Trump administration will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from drinking water.
RFK is not alone. Opposition to water systems adding fluoride to drinking water has existed since the very beginning. And now,
A federal review published in August by the National Toxicology Program at the National Institutes of Health concluded higher levels of fluoride are linked to lowered IQ in children.
A federal judge in September ordered the US Environmental Protection Agency to take additional measures to regulate fluoride in drinking water because of a possible risk that higher levels of the mineral could affect children’s intellectual development.
Yet, the American Dental Association (ADA) still says that “studies prove water fluoridation continues to be effective in reducing dental decay by at least 25% in children and adults, even in the of era widespread availability of fluoride from other sources, such as fluoride toothpaste.” Fluoride is “the single most effective public health measure to prevent tooth decay.”
So, do the monetary and medical costs of fluoridation outweigh its benefits? Is adding fluoride to water both safe and effective? Is fluoridation really necessary now that we have toothpaste with fluoride? Does it really matter whether fluoride is added since most people drink bottled water?
None of these things matter.
Fluoride should never be added to drinking water by municipal water systems, but not because it is dangerous, unnecessary, unhealthy, an industrial waste, toxic, or doesn’t actually prevent cavities. And it should not be added even if is the opposite of these things and is wanted by the public.
Fluoride is not a disinfectant like chlorine. It is a medication, a medication that the government requires everyone to take because bureaucrats believe it will benefit a particular segment of the population.
And as the late economist Murray Rothbard wrote back in 1992:
Compulsory mass medication is medically evil, as well as socialistic. It is starkly clear that one key to any medication is control of the dose: Different people, at different stages of risk, need individual dosages tailored to their needs. And yet with water compulsorily fluoridated, the dose applies to everyone, and is necessarily proportionate to the amount of water one drinks.
It is not the job of government—at any level—to medicate anyone for any reason or to recommend, encourage, or force any supplier of public drinking water to do so. Period.
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply