Fluoride in Drinking Water: Safety and Effectiveness – A Comprehensive Review

Introduction
Fluoridation of community drinking water is a public health intervention implemented in many countries to reduce tooth decay. Decades of research have shown that appropriate fluoride levels strengthen tooth enamel and help prevent dental caries ( Fluoride - Health Professional Fact Sheet ). For example, analyses of U.S. national survey data found that children in fluoridated communities had about 30% fewer cavities in baby teeth and 12% fewer in permanent teeth compared to those in low-fluoride areas ( Fluoride - Health Professional Fact Sheet ). Owing to such benefits, organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO), the American Dental Association (ADA), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) endorse water fluoridation as safe and effective. In fact, the CDC named water fluoridation one of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th century ( Principles of fluoride toxicity and the cellular response: a review - PMC ). Nevertheless, some opponents raise concerns about potential health risks. This report reviews the peer-reviewed scientific evidence on common concerns cited by anti-fluoride advocates, examining each claim in light of research findings and expert consensus.

1. Pineal Gland Calcification

What is the concern? The pineal gland is a small endocrine gland in the brain that produces melatonin, a hormone regulating sleep-wake cycles. Opponents of fluoridation argue that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland, contributing to calcification and reduced melatonin production, potentially disrupting circadian rhythms.

Research evidence: Scientific studies have confirmed that fluoride can accumulate in the pineal gland, which lies outside the blood-brain barrier and is highly calcified. The first reports in the 1990s found surprisingly high fluoride levels in pineal gland tissue. In a 2001 study, Luke measured fluoride in human pineal glands and found an average of 297 mg fluoride per kilogram wet weight, with some glands containing up to 875 mg/kg (Fluoride and Pineal Gland) (Fluoride and Pineal Gland). These concentrations are similar to or higher than fluoride levels in bones and teeth, making the pineal gland potentially the most fluoride-rich organ in the body (Fluoride and Pineal Gland) (Fluoride and Pineal Gland). Subsequent research confirmed a strong correlation between pineal fluoride content and calcium (calcification) levels in the gland (Fluoride and Pineal Gland). This suggests that as the gland calcifies with age, fluoride is co-deposited in the calcified tissue. Even in individuals from areas with low environmental fluoride, some fluoride was present in the pineal gland, indicating lifelong accumulation (Fluoride and Pineal Gland).

Effects on melatonin and sleep: Does this accumulation affect gland function? Early studies in older adults noted that pineal calcification is associated with lower melatonin output at night, though results were not always statistically significant (Fluoride and Pineal Gland) (Fluoride and Pineal Gland). More recent research has started examining fluoride’s impact on sleep patterns. A 2019 study by Malin et al. looked at U.S. adolescents and found that higher fluoride exposure was linked to certain sleep disturbances (Fluoride and Pineal Gland). In that study (using national survey data for teens aged 16–19, mean water fluoride ~0.4 mg/L), youths living in areas with higher water fluoride were more likely to report symptoms of sleep apnea (snorting or gasping during sleep) and to experience frequent daytime sleepiness (Fluoride and Pineal Gland). These findings are suggestive of an effect on sleep regulation, possibly via fluoride’s impact on the pineal gland and melatonin, but this research is still preliminary. It is important to note that the fluoride levels in this study were generally within typical ranges (around or below recommended fluoridation levels).

Expert perspective: While fluoride does accumulate in the pineal gland, evidence for significant harm to health or circadian rhythm in humans is limited. The observed associations with altered sleep are correlational and need further study. No public health agency has concluded that fluoride from water fluoridation causes pineal gland dysfunction in humans. Overall, current evidence indicates the pineal gland can sequester fluoride and that heavy calcification mayreduce melatonin output (Fluoride and Pineal Gland) (Fluoride and Pineal Gland), but whether community water fluoride levels have any appreciable effect on sleep or circadian health remains an open research question.

2. IQ Reduction in Children

What is the concern? One of the most frequently cited worries is that fluoride exposure in early life could impair neurodevelopment, leading to reduced IQ in children. This concern gained traction from studies (some in high-fluoride regions) reporting lower IQ scores in children with higher fluoride exposures.

Research evidence: A large body of research has examined fluoride and childhood IQ, with mixed results depending on fluoride levels and study design. In 2012, a Harvard-led team conducted a systematic review of 27 studies (mostly from China) comparing high-fluoride versus low-fluoride communities (Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis - PubMed) (Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis - PubMed). Most of those studies involved naturally high fluoride in water (often well above 1 ppm). The meta-analysis found children in the high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those in low-fluoride areas, with an average difference corresponding to about half an IQ standard deviation (Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis - PubMed). In practical terms, that was roughly a 5–7 point IQ reduction on average in the high fluoride groups (Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis - PubMed). However, the authors cautioned that many of the studies had limitations (e.g. lack of detailed confounder control, and fluoride levels in some high areas far exceeding typical fluoridation levels) (Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis - PubMed) (Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis - PubMed). The review could not determine if there is a safe threshold, but it underscored the need for more high-quality research, especially at lower exposures.

More recent studies have targeted populations with fluoride exposure closer to the levels found in fluoridated countries. Notably, a prospective cohort study in Canada (Green et al., 2019) examined fluoride exposure during pregnancy and subsequent IQ in offspring (Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada - PubMed) (Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada - PubMed). This study measured fluoride in pregnant women (via urine and self-reported water intake) and tested children’s IQ at ages 3–4. It found a sex-specific association: higher prenatal fluoride was associated with lower IQ in boys, although no significant effect was detected in girls (Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada - PubMed) (Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada - PubMed). Specifically, a 1 mg/L increase in maternal urine fluoride corresponded to a ~4.5-point IQ decrement in male children (Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada - PubMed). When considering all children, a 1 mg higher daily fluoride intake by the mother was linked to about a 3.7-point lower child IQ on average (Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada - PubMed). Importantly, about 40% of the sampled mothers lived in fluoridated communities (with water ~0.6–0.8 mg/L fluoride) and the rest in non-fluoridated areas (Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada - PubMed), meaning this study did include exposures in the typical fluoridation range. The authors controlled for factors like socioeconomic status, education, and lead exposure, but as an observational study it cannot prove causation. The findings sparked debate, with some experts noting inconsistencies (e.g. the sex-specific result is not understood) and others calling for precaution due to the potential implications of even small IQ shifts across populations.

Another influential study from Mexico (Bashash et al., 2017) also reported that higher fluoride levels in pregnant women’s urine were associated with lower cognitive scores in their children at 4–12 years old. Those maternal urinary fluoride levels were slightly higher on average than seen in fluoridated North America, but still within an order of magnitude, suggesting relevance to community exposure. On the other hand, a long-term study in New Zealand (Broadbent et al., 2014) followed a birth cohort for 38 years and found no IQ differences between individuals who grew up in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated areas (National Toxicology Program releases fluoride exposure monograph | American Dental Association). That study carefully accounted for childhood health and socioeconomic factors, and its null result suggests that typical fluoridation (around 0.7–1.0 mg/L) was not neurotoxic in that context.

Methodological considerations: When interpreting this research, it’s critical to consider fluoride dose and confounding factors. Many of the Chinese studies in the 2012 meta-analysis involved water fluoride well above 2–4 mg/L, sometimes alongside high arsenic or other co-exposures (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society) (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society). Such conditions are not representative of optimally fluoridated water systems (~0.7 mg/L). Newer studies focusing on lower exposures have improved designs but still face limitations. For instance, measuring individual fluoride intake is challenging (urine fluoride reflects recent exposure and can vary with diet and water habits), and controlling for all potential confounders (lead, iodine nutrition, socio-economic status, etc.) is difficult. As a result, some studies showing an association have been met with scientific scrutiny and calls for further confirmation.

Consensus and expert reviews: To date, expert panels and health organizations have generally concluded that the evidence of IQ impairment at optimally fluoridated levels is not strong. The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) conducted a systematic review of fluoride’s neurodevelopmental effects. While draft versions of the NTP report initially described fluoride as a “presumed developmental neurotoxicant,” the finalized 2023 monograph stepped back from broad conclusions about low-dose fluoride due to inconsistent data and methodological concerns raised by external reviewers (National Toxicology Program releases fluoride exposure monograph | American Dental Association) (National Toxicology Program releases fluoride exposure monograph | American Dental Association). The NTP found that many high-fluoride studies suggested IQ effects, but it explicitly did not evaluate water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L as its focus was on higher exposures. According to the ADA’s National Fluoridation Advisory Committee, none of the human IQ studies reviewed by NTP were conducted in communities with water at the standard 0.7 mg/L level (National Toxicology Program releases fluoride exposure monograph | American Dental Association). After reviewing the totality of evidence, the ADA panel concluded: “The bottom line is that the level of fluoride used in community water fluoridation is effective for preventing tooth decay and is not associated with any change in people’s IQ or neurological development.” (National Toxicology Program releases fluoride exposure monograph | American Dental Association). Likewise, a large 2021 U.S. governmental review found no convincing proof that fluoride in water at recommended levels harms children’s intelligence, though it acknowledged the need for ongoing high-quality research.

In summary, some studies (especially in high-fluoride areas or with prenatal exposure) have reported IQ differences, which merit continued investigation. However, the best current evidence and expert assessments indicate that fluoride at the concentrations used in public water systems does not cause measurable IQ loss in children (National Toxicology Program releases fluoride exposure monograph | American Dental Association). Ensuring fluoride levels remain around the optimal 0.7 mg/L (and below the 1.5 mg/L guideline) provides a large safety margin against potential neurodevelopmental effects.

3. Neurological Effects and Neurotoxicity

What is the concern? Beyond IQ scores, critics worry that fluoride might act as a neurotoxin more broadly – affecting brain development or function, possibly contributing to learning deficits, ADHD, or other neurological problems. In 2014, fluoride was even listed in a Lancet Neurology commentary as a potential “developmental neurotoxicant” based on epidemiological findings (Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity - PubMed). The question is whether fluoride exposure from drinking water can harm the developing or adult brain.

Animal and laboratory evidence: High levels of fluoride can be neurotoxic in animal studies. Rodents given extremely high doses of fluoride have shown neuronal damage and behavioral changes. Such studies establish a theoretical risk, but the doses are far above what humans receive from fluoridated water. Notably, the U.S. National Research Council (NRC) in 2006 reviewed fluoride’s effects and concluded that fluoride is capable of affecting the endocrine and nervous systems at high concentrations. The NRC officially classified fluoride as an “endocrine disruptor” in part due to its potential to inhibit thyroid function (which can indirectly affect brain development) ( Principles of fluoride toxicity and the cellular response: a review - PMC ). The NRC report also noted some evidence of developmental neurotoxicity in animals, but it primarily raised concern for levels above those used in community water programs.

Epidemiological evidence: The IQ studies discussed above are one aspect of neurological development. Some researchers have also examined other outcomes. For example, a 2015 analysis by Malin & Till hypothesized a link between fluoridation and ADHD prevalence. They reported that U.S. states with a higher proportion of fluoridated water had higher rates of ADHD diagnosis, even after controlling for socioeconomic factors. However, this was an ecological study (population-level correlation) and cannot establish causation; critics pointed out that many unmeasured factors could explain state differences in ADHD rates. More direct measures of neurobehavioral effects in individuals (memory, attention, etc.) are sparse. One birth cohort study (in Mexico) found that higher early-life fluoride exposure correlated with more attention deficits and hyperactivity symptoms in school-age children – but again, these children had fluoride exposures somewhat above the optimal range.

On the other hand, cognitive assessments in New Zealand’s Dunedin cohort (mentioned earlier) showed no differences in neurological outcomes through adulthood attributable to childhood fluoridation exposure (National Toxicology Program releases fluoride exposure monograph | American Dental Association). Similarly, no rise in neurological disorders has been observed in communities before vs. after fluoridation. Overall, apart from the IQ findings (which remain controversial at low doses), there is no clear pattern of fluoride causing neurological deficits in humans at typical exposure levels.

Expert reviews: The National Toxicology Program (NTP) 2023 review weighed all available human and animal data on fluoride and neurodevelopment. It concluded that high fluoride exposures (above ~1.5 mg/L in water) are associated with cognitive neurodevelopmental effects in children, but it found the evidence uncertain and inadequate regarding lower exposures (Comments to the NTP BSC on the third draft NTP state of the science report on fluoride exposure and IQ.) (Comments to the NTP BSC on the third draft NTP state of the science report on fluoride exposure and IQ.). The NTP and National Academies recommended that no conclusions be drawn about fluoride in the 0.7 mg/L range because those concentrations were not the focus of most studies (Comments to the NTP BSC on the third draft NTP state of the science report on fluoride exposure and IQ.) (Comments to the NTP BSC on the third draft NTP state of the science report on fluoride exposure and IQ.). Essentially, the consensus was that evidence is mixed and many studies have limitations, so while high fluoride intake should be avoided in pregnancy and early childhood, community fluoridation levels have not been proven to cause neurological harm.

In summary, fluoride can be neurotoxic at excessive doses, but current evidence does not demonstrate neurotoxic effects from the low doses used in water fluoridation. Major health bodies (like the NRC and NTP) recognize fluoride as a substance that warrants continued study for potential neurodevelopmental impacts, yet they also note that research to date has not shown clear harm at the levels provided by fluoridated water (National Toxicology Program releases fluoride exposure monograph | American Dental Association). The weight of epidemiological data indicates no increase in neurological disorders or developmental problems in communities with optimally fluoridated water.

4. Thyroid Function

What is the concern? Fluoride’s chemical similarity to iodine and its use in high doses as an anti-thyroid drug in the past have raised concerns that even low-level fluoride exposure could affect the thyroid gland. Critics suggest that fluoride might reduce the thyroid’s uptake of iodine or alter thyroid hormone production, potentially increasing the risk of hypothyroidism (an underactive thyroid).

Background: In the mid-20th century, very high doses of fluoride (5–10 mg per day or more, much higher than in fluoridated water) were occasionally used to treat overactive thyroid (hyperthyroidism) because fluoride can inhibit thyroid activity. This historical use underpins some fears. The question is whether the ~1 mg of fluoride per day from fluoridated water could also suppress thyroid function.

Epidemiological studies: A notable study in England (Peckham et al., 2015) examined hypothyroidism rates among general practice patients in areas with and without water fluoridation (Is fluoridated drinking water associated with a higher prevalence of hypothyroidism?) (Is fluoridated drinking water associated with a higher prevalence of hypothyroidism?). The authors reported that GP practices in fluoridated regions had slightly higher prevalence of hypothyroidism. Specifically, practices serving areas with water fluoride of 0.3–0.7 mg/L had about 1.37 times higher odds of high hypothyroid rates compared to those in areas <0.3 mg/L (Is fluoridated drinking water associated with a higher prevalence of hypothyroidism?). Additionally, one region with longstanding fluoridation (West Midlands) had nearly double the hypothyroid prevalence of a non-fluoridated region (Greater Manchester) (Is fluoridated drinking water associated with a higher prevalence of hypothyroidism?). These results suggested a possible link between fluoridation and underactive thyroid.

However, experts were quick to point out limitations. The study was an ecological analysis (data averaged by area) and could not control individual factors like iodine intake, which is crucial for thyroid health (Is fluoridated drinking water associated with a higher prevalence of hypothyroidism?). Public health authorities noted that the findings conflicted with prior research and could have been influenced by other regional differences (Is fluoridated drinking water associated with a higher prevalence of hypothyroidism?). For instance, areas with higher hypothyroidism might differ in iodine nutrition or other environmental exposures unrelated to fluoride. Subsequent analyses in Canada and other countries have not consistently replicated a fluoridation-thyroid link, though one recent Canadian study found an association between higher tap-water fluoride and increased risk of hypothyroidism in pregnant women (Green et al., 2020). Again, iodine status was a potential confounder – if someone is borderline iodine deficient, any additional thyroid stressor (even marginal) could have an outsized effect.

Mechanistic and clinical data: A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis pooled data from dozens of studies on fluoride and thyroid hormones (Does fluoride exposure affect thyroid function? A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis - PubMed) (Does fluoride exposure affect thyroid function? A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis - PubMed). The review found that at high fluoride exposures (generally in areas with water above ~2.5 mg/L), there was a trend of elevated thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels – a sign the thyroid is underactive and the body is compensating (Does fluoride exposure affect thyroid function? A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis - PubMed) (Does fluoride exposure affect thyroid function? A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis - PubMed). Notably, the meta-analysis showed no change in TSH at the lowest exposure range, with TSH only starting to rise once water fluoride levels were around 2.5 mg/L or higher (Does fluoride exposure affect thyroid function? A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis - PubMed). In other words, normal fluoridation levels (0.7–1.0 mg/L) did not measurably affect thyroid hormones in these studies; the effect was seen at roughly 2–3 times that concentration and above. The review also found limited evidence of fluoride’s impact on actual thyroid hormone (T3/T4) levels, with a slight indication that very high fluoride might lower T3 a bit (Does fluoride exposure affect thyroid function? A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis - PubMed). A few studies in India and China have observed increased goiter (thyroid enlargement) or hypothyroid symptoms in populations drinking highly fluoridated water, but those often coincide with low iodine intake.

Consensus: Health authorities like the UK Public Health England and the American Thyroid Association have stated that current evidence does not show a link between optimally fluoridated water and thyroid dysfunction in the general population. The NRC (2006) report on fluoride noted that fluoride can affect the thyroid at high doses, especially in iodine-deficient individuals, but did not conclude this was a risk at ~1 mg/L. In fluoridated countries with adequate iodine nutrition (through iodized salt or diet), the prevailing view is that fluoride at 0.7 mg/L poses minimal risk to adult thyroid function. The ADA summarized it well: a small number of studies suggested an association with hypothyroidism, but those results are inconsistent with broader research (Is fluoridated drinking water associated with a higher prevalence of hypothyroidism?). Overall, normal fluoride intake has not been proven to alter thyroid hormone levels or increase hypothyroidism prevalence. For perspective, mild hypothyroidism is relatively common (several percent of adults, especially in areas with historical iodine deficiency), and current data do not indicate that fluoridation has contributed to higher rates outside of isolated high-exposure scenarios.

That said, individuals with existing thyroid issues or iodine deficiency should ensure they get sufficient iodine, as a safeguard. The 2024 meta-analysis concluded that fluoride in high concentrations can impact the thyroid, but also explicitly noted no effect at the low end of exposures (Does fluoride exposure affect thyroid function? A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis - PubMed) (Does fluoride exposure affect thyroid function? A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis - PubMed). Thus, staying within recommended fluoride levels (and maintaining adequate iodine intake) means thyroid risks from fluoridated water are essentially negligible.

5. Bone Health and Skeletal Fluorosis

What is the concern? Fluoride accumulates in bones over time. While low levels may strengthen bone to a degree (similar to how fluoride hardens enamel), excessive fluoride can cause a condition called skeletal fluorosis – a painful stiffening of joints and bones. Opponents worry that long-term water fluoridation could lead to brittle bones, higher fracture rates, or even bone disorders like fluorosis or osteosarcoma (a bone cancer, which we address in the next section).

Fluoride and bone physiology: About 99% of fluoride in the body is stored in calcified tissues (teeth and bones). Fluoride can replace the hydroxyl groups in bone mineral (hydroxyapatite), forming fluorapatite, which can alter bone crystal structure. In moderate amounts, this may increase bone density slightly. In fact, high-dose fluoride (in the form of a drug, not water) was once experimented with as an osteoporosis treatment because it increases bone mass – but it was largely abandoned when it became clear that the new bone formed was of poorer quality and did not significantly reduce fractures.

Skeletal fluorosis: This is a well-known effect of chronic high fluoride exposure. The WHO notes that skeletal fluorosis (with bone changes and joint stiffness) may begin to appear when drinking water fluoride exceeds roughly 3–6 mg/L over many years (). Crippling skeletal fluorosis (the most severe form, causing significant pain and mobility issues) is usually seen only with extremely high fluoride levels in water, typically over 10 mg/L (). Such levels are far above the 0.7 mg/L used in fluoridation programs. In the United States, the EPA’s regulatory limit for fluoride in drinking water is 4.0 mg/L – set specifically to prevent skeletal fluorosis (). At 4 mg/L, the margin of safety is large; indeed, the NRC (2006) recommended lowering the EPA limit mainly because of the potential for milder bone effects at long-term 4 mg/L exposure, but cases of skeletal fluorosis in the U.S. have been exceedingly rare and usually involved industrial accidents or well water with extremely high natural fluoride.

Bone density and fractures: Numerous studies have investigated whether long-term fluoridation influences fracture rates or bone strength in populations. Overall, the evidence indicates no significant increase in fractures at optimally fluoridated levels. For example, a study in Germany compared two similar cities, one fluoridated at 1 mg/L for 30 years and one not fluoridated. It found no difference in bone mineral density between residents of the two cities, and actually observed slightly lower hip fracture rates in the fluoridated city (especially among very old women) (Drinking water fluoridation: bone mineral density and hip fracture incidence - PubMed) (Drinking water fluoridation: bone mineral density and hip fracture incidence - PubMed). The authors concluded that water fluoridation at 1 mg/L did not harm bone and possibly even had a protective effect against fractures in the elderly (Drinking water fluoridation: bone mineral density and hip fracture incidence - PubMed). Other research in the U.S., Britain, and Australia generally found no clear difference in overall fracture rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas (Water fluoridation and osteoporotic fracture - PubMed) (Water fluoridation, bone density and hip fractures: a review of recent ...). Some early studies raised the possibility of a slight increase in hip fractures among the elderly with long-term fluoridation, but later, better-controlled studies did not confirm this, or found the effect was very small and not statistically significant. Inconsistencies in these ecological studies (some showing a small increase in fractures, others showing none or a decrease) suggest that fluoridation is not a major factor relative to the many other determinants of osteoporosis and fractures.

The WHO’s review of fluoride (as part of drinking-water guidelines) concluded that while a total intake of around 14 mg fluoride per day clearly raises risk of skeletal fluorosis, the data on fracture risk at lower intakes were mixed () (). Some high-fluoride areas showed more fractures, others did not; overall, there was no consistent trend attributing fractures to water fluoride levels up to around 1.5–2 mg/L. In fact, WHO cited studies that failed to find an upward fracture trend until fluoride intake was considerably high (e.g., one study estimated a slight fracture risk increase only when water fluoride was above 1.45 mg/L, and even then the increase was modest and not always statistically significant) () ().

Current understanding: At the low doses provided by fluoridated water, fluoride does not damage bones. On the contrary, it may incorporate into bone in small amounts and has not been shown to increase osteoporosis or fracture risk in any meaningful way. Skeletal fluorosis is essentially unheard of in communities fluoridated at ~0.7–1 mg/L; it remains a concern only in regions with very high natural fluoride (or in people with unusual sources of fluoride, like drinking extremely large amounts of certain teas or taking inappropriate fluoride supplements). Public health agencies emphasize that crippling skeletal fluorosis has never been observed from consuming water at 1 ppm fluoride (), and even the milder skeletal effects require exposures several times higher and prolonged over decades. For example, an adult would likely need to ingest well above 6 mg of fluoride every day for many years before any skeletal changes might be detectable () () – this corresponds to drinking water with ~3–4 mg/L fluoride. Typical fluoridated water provides about 1 mg/day, well within safe limits.

In summary, bone health is not adversely affected by community water fluoridation. Studies have not found higher rates of fractures or bone weakness; if anything, optimal fluoride might slightly increase bone density without ill effect (Drinking water fluoridation: bone mineral density and hip fracture incidence - PubMed). As a precaution, regulatory standards (like EPA’s 4 mg/L limit and WHO’s 1.5 mg/L guideline) exist to ensure a wide safety margin to prevent even early-stage skeletal fluorosis. So long as fluoride levels remain controlled, the benefits to dental health are obtained without compromising bone integrity.

Note: For osteosarcoma (bone cancer) risk, see the next section on Cancer Risk.

6. Cancer Risk (Including Osteosarcoma)

What is the concern? Some have claimed that fluoride could be carcinogenic, particularly pointing to osteosarcoma (a rare bone cancer in youth) because fluoride accumulates in bones. This concern partly arose from a 1990 animal study and a 2006 analysis suggesting a possible higher osteosarcoma incidence in young males exposed to fluoride. Anti-fluoride groups sometimes allege that fluoridation “causes cancer,” so it’s crucial to examine what extensive research shows on this point.

Animal evidence: In 1990, the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) published a rodent bioassay where rats and mice were given high doses of fluoride in drinking water. Male rats showed a slight, statistically insignificant increase in osteosarcomas (bone tumors), whereas female rats and mice of both sexes did not (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society) (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society). The NTP deemed the evidence “equivocal” for male rats – essentially uncertain and not conclusive (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society). This finding prompted further scrutiny, but it’s important to note the fluoride dose given to rats was extremely high (many times what humans consume). Subsequent animal studies and mechanistic investigations did not find clear carcinogenic effects. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reviewed these results and, in 1987, categorized fluoride as “not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity in humans,” meaning no convincing evidence either way (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society). They noted at the time that human studies showed no consistent trend of higher cancer rates in fluoridated areas (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society).

Epidemiological studies: Since the 1950s, numerous studies have compared cancer rates in communities with fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated water. These include overall cancer mortality and site-specific cancers (bone, thyroid, oral, etc.). The general consensus from multiple expert reviews is that fluoridation does not increase cancer risk (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society) (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society). For instance, a comprehensive U.S. Public Health Service report in 1991 examined national cancer trends and found “optimal fluoridation of drinking water does not pose a detectable cancer risk to humans” (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society) (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society). A large National Cancer Institute study and others in that report showed no differences in cancer incidence that could be linked to fluoride (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society) (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society). Similarly, a 2000 systematic review by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (University of York) concluded there was no clear association between water fluoridation and rates of bone cancer, thyroid cancer, or all cancers combined (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society). They did mention that much of the epidemiological research was of moderate quality, but the overall pattern did not indicate any cancer hazard (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society).

Specific to osteosarcoma: A Harvard doctoral thesis (Bassin 2006) got attention for finding that young boys who drank fluoridated water during certain growth periods (ages 6–8) appeared to have a higher chance of developing osteosarcoma in adolescence. However, this was an unexpected subset analysis and the study had limitations (small numbers and retrospective exposure estimation). To investigate further, the second part of the Harvard research was published in 2011 (Kim et al.), which measured actual bone fluoride levels in osteosarcoma patients vs. controls (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society) (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society). It found no difference in bone fluoride levels between individuals with osteosarcoma and those with other bone tumors (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society) (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society), indicating no association of fluoride with the cancer. Moreover, multiple large-scale studies in different countries have looked for osteosarcoma patterns. For example, studies in the UK and Ireland compared osteosarcoma incidence in fluoridated versus non-fluoridated regions and found no increased risk in the fluoridated areas (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society). A U.S. national analysis also did not find higher osteosarcoma rates correlated with fluoridation. Given that osteosarcoma is very rare (about 400–500 cases in U.S. youth per year from all causes) (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society), detecting a small risk increase is challenging. But if fluoridation were a major contributor, these population comparisons would likely show a signal, and they have not.

Other cancers: No plausible link has been found between fluoride and cancers of other organs. Some studies in the mid-20th century looked at overall cancer mortality and even things like Down syndrome rates (due to unfounded fears) and found no differences related to fluoride () (). Regulatory and scientific panels, from the National Research Council (1993 & 2006) to the European Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER 2010) to various state health department reviews, have consistently concluded that the weight of evidence does not support fluoride as a cause of cancer in humans (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society) (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society). For instance, SCHER (EU) in 2010 called the fluoride-osteosarcoma evidence “equivocal” and said fluoride cannot be classified as carcinogenic (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society) (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society). California’s Carcinogen Identification Committee in 2011 also reviewed the data and stated fluoride has not been clearly shown to cause cancer (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society) (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society).

Current consensus: After decades of study, the prevailing scientific consensus is that fluoride at concentrations used in drinking water does not cause cancer. The American Cancer Society, summarizing the evidence, notes: “Several systematic reviews over the past few decades have looked at all of the studies… The general consensus among the reviews is that there is no strong evidence of a link between water fluoridation and cancer” (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society). This consensus includes osteosarcoma – the most hypothesized cancer – where comprehensive analyses have failed to show higher rates in fluoridated communities (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society). While it’s impossible to prove an absolute negative (that something never causes cancer), the evidence here is very reassuring. If any risk exists, it is too small to be detected by current epidemiological methods and is vastly outweighed by fluoride’s oral health benefits. Public health agencies continue to monitor new data, but at this point, water fluoridation is not considered a cancer risk by any major health organization.

7. Endocrine Disruption (Beyond Thyroid)

What is the concern? Beyond the thyroid gland, the endocrine system includes many hormones and glands (e.g. insulin and the pancreas, parathyroid hormone, adrenal hormones, sex hormones). Some anti-fluoride arguments suggest that fluoride might be a broad “endocrine disruptor,” potentially affecting insulin regulation (raising diabetes risk) or other hormonal axes.

Endocrine disruptor classification: The National Research Council (NRC) in 2006 did identify fluoride as an endocrine disruptor, specifically due to evidence it can alter normal endocrine function at high exposures ( Principles of fluoride toxicity and the cellular response: a review - PMC ). This was mostly in reference to the thyroid, as discussed, but NRC also noted potential effects on other glands. For example, high fluoride was linked to altered parathyroid hormone levels in some cases (secondary hyperparathyroidism as the body responds to fluoride’s effects on calcium in bone). The NRC emphasized that many of these changes occur at fluoride doses higher than those from 1 ppm water, often in the context of fluoride over-exposure.

Fluoride and insulin/glucose: There is some research investigating fluoride’s influence on glucose metabolism. High fluoride intake in animals has been associated with impaired glucose tolerance and altered insulin secretion. In humans, a few studies from areas with endemic fluorosis suggest that chronic high fluoride might contribute to elevated blood glucose. For instance, a study in an Indian community with high fluoride water found that diabetic patients in the area had an inverse correlation between their fluoride levels and insulin levels (higher fluoride, lower insulin), along with signs of renal stress ( Changes in diabetic and renal profile of people exposed to fluoride in south India - PMC ) ( Changes in diabetic and renal profile of people exposed to fluoride in south India - PMC ). Fluoride in very high amounts can interfere with pancreatic beta-cell function – one mechanism being that fluoride can induce oxidative stress in the pancreas. One review noted that impaired glucose tolerance (a pre-diabetic state) was observed in people consuming fluoride around 0.07–0.4 mg per kg body weight per day (which for a 70 kg adult is 5–28 mg/day, well above normal intake) ( Changes in diabetic and renal profile of people exposed to fluoride in south India - PMC ). Another finding was that fluoride concentrations above about 5 µM (micromolar) in vitro could reduce insulin secretion from pancreatic cells (Changes in diabetic and renal profile of people exposed to fluoride in south India - PMC ).

To examine population-level effects, a 2016 statistical study by Fluegge in the U.S. looked at diabetes prevalence in relation to fluoridation. It reported a positive correlation: counties with more fluoride in the water tended to have slightly higher diabetes rates, even after adjusting for obesity and other factors (Fluoride in Drinking Water Linked to Type 2 Diabetes - Endocrine News) (Fluoride in Drinking Water Linked to Type 2 Diabetes - Endocrine News). Specifically, each 1 mg/L increase in county fluoride level was associated with a 0.17% increase in age-adjusted diabetes prevalence (Fluoride in Drinking Water Linked to Type 2 Diabetes - Endocrine News). Interestingly, that study also noted differences by fluoride compound: areas using silicofluoride additives showed the association, whereas those with natural fluoride or certain additives did not, suggesting this result should be interpreted cautiously. As an ecological analysis, it can’t confirm causation – it simply raises hypotheses. No clinical studies have shown that individuals drinking fluoridated water have higher fasting glucose or diabetes incidence when controlling for diet and weight, so this remains a theoretical concern.

Other hormones: Some animal studies indicate fluoride can affect the adrenal glands and possibly reproductive hormones at high doses ( Principles of fluoride toxicity and the cellular response: a review - PMC ). In high-fluoride regions, a few reports have noted delayed puberty or altered reproductive hormone levels in boys, but these were not well-controlled and often confounded by nutrition. The pineal gland (producer of melatonin) we discussed in Section 1; it could be considered part of this endocrine disruption question as well. High fluoride accumulation in the pineal might reduce melatonin secretion, which is indeed an endocrine effect (though evidence in humans for functional impairment is limited).

Consensus and safety assessments: The consensus is that fluoride at regulatory levels has minimal to no observable impact on endocrine health outside of the thyroid (and even thyroid effects are not seen at 0.7 mg/L). The NRC did caution that more research would be useful on fluoride’s possible endocrine actions, such as on insulin. However, subsequent evaluations (NTP 2019 and others) found no strong evidence of harm to endocrine organs at typical exposure levels ( Principles of fluoride toxicity and the cellular response: a review - PMC ). The American Diabetes Associationhas not flagged fluoridation as a diabetes risk. Similarly, large epidemiological studies have not identified fluoridated water as a contributor to obesity or metabolic syndrome (which would be expected if it caused insulin resistance in a population). If fluoride were significantly impacting insulin or blood sugar, one might see higher diabetes rates historically in fluoridated vs non-fluoridated cities, but no credible research has demonstrated that after accounting for diet and other factors.

In summary, fluoride can interact with endocrine function at high doses – a fact acknowledged by the NRC classification (Principles of fluoride toxicity and the cellular response: a review - PMC ). High fluoride exposure has been linked to increased TSH (as noted) and some evidence of impaired glucose tolerance ( Changes in diabetic and renal profile of people exposed to fluoride in south India - PMC ). However, at the low doses delivered by water fluoridation (0.7 ppm), there is no solid evidence of significant endocrine disruption. Current public health guidelines consider fluoridated water safe with respect to hormonal health. The potential impact on insulin or other hormones is an area of ongoing research, but at this point, organizations like the NTP conclude that there is insufficient evidence to claim low-dose fluoride causes clinically relevant endocrine effects ( Principles of fluoride toxicity and the cellular response: a review - PMC ).

8. Dental Fluorosis (Prevalence and Severity)

What is the concern? Dental fluorosis is a change in tooth enamel appearance caused by excessive fluoride intake while the teeth are developing (typically in early childhood). Opponents argue that fluoridation causes fluorosis in many children, raising cosmetic and health concerns. While fluorosis is not a systemic disease, its presence indicates past fluoride exposure above ideal levels.

What is dental fluorosis? Fluorosis occurs when too much fluoride is incorporated into the enamel-forming process, leading to enamel that is mineralized differently. The result can range from barely noticeable white streaks (mild fluorosis) to brown staining and pitted enamel (severe fluorosis) in extreme cases (Dental fluorosis - Wikipedia) (Dental fluorosis - Wikipedia). The severity depends on the dose and duration of fluoride exposure during the years teeth are developing (from infancy until about age 8). Only children can develop fluorosis; once enamel is formed, fluoride won’t change its appearance (About Dental Fluorosis | Oral Health | CDC).

In the context of fluoridated water at ~0.7 ppm, the most common fluorosis seen is the very mild or mild form – faint white specks or lacy markings on enamel, often only detectable by a dental professional. Moderate or severe fluorosis is uncommon in fluoridated areas and is usually linked to additional sources of fluoride (such as swallowing a lot of toothpaste or high natural fluoride in well water).

Prevalence: According to large surveys (e.g., U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey), the prevalence of any fluorosis in American youth has been around 20–30% in recent years, mostly very mild cases. The CDC reported that in 1999–2004, roughly 23% of 6-19 year-olds had very mild fluorosis and 2% had moderate fluorosis, with <1% having severe fluorosis ([PDF] NCHS Data Brief, Number 53, November 2010 - CDC) (Community Water Fluoridation Levels to Promote Effectiveness - CDC). A more recent analysis showed an increase in very mild fluorosis (likely due to fluoride from multiple sources like toothpaste and processed foods), but moderate/severe cases remained low. Importantly, severe fluorosis was near zero in communities with water fluoride below 2 mg/L (U.S. Public Health Service Recommendation for Fluoride ...) ([PDF] Dental Fluorosis in Children Exposed to - CDC stacks) – meaning in optimally fluoridated communities (0.7–1.0 mg/L), one virtually never sees severe fluorosis. The U.S. Public Health Service has noted that severe enamel fluorosis only occurs when fluoride intake during tooth development was far above recommended levels (U.S. Public Health Service Recommendation for Fluoride ...). That’s why the fluoridation level was adjusted to 0.7 ppm (from the old range of 0.7–1.2) in 2015 to balance getting cavity protection while minimizing any risk of even mild fluorosis ( Fluoride - Health Professional Fact Sheet ).

Health impact: Mild fluorosis manifests as subtle opaque white patches on the teeth and is considered primarily a cosmetic issue. It does not affect the function or integrity of the teeth (About Dental Fluorosis | Oral Health | CDC). In fact, teeth with mild fluorosis are often more resistant to decay (Dental fluorosis - Wikipedia) – a perhaps serendipitous side effect of the increased fluoride in enamel. Moderate fluorosis can cause more noticeable cosmetic changes (white mottling over more of the tooth, possibly some light brown spots) but the enamel remains mostly intact. Severe fluorosis (again, exceedingly rare in fluoridated water systems) can involve brown staining, pitting of the enamel, and enamel that is weaker or prone to wear (Dental fluorosis - Wikipedia) (Dental fluorosis - Wikipedia). This level of fluorosis can impact dental health by increasing the risk of cavities due to compromised enamel.

(image) Mild dental fluorosis typically appears as small opaque white flecks on the enamel of teeth (seen here on a couple of teeth). These faint white spots are usually not noticeable except on close inspection and do not affect the tooth’s function (About Dental Fluorosis | Oral Health | CDC).

(image) Severe dental fluorosis (shown above) is characterized by brown discoloration, enamel pitting, and a corroded appearance. This condition is rare and generally only occurs in areas with very high natural fluoride levels in water (well above fluoridation standards) (About Dental Fluorosis | Oral Health | CDC). Such severe cases can lead to cosmetic concerns and enamel damage, whereas they are virtually never seen at typical community fluoridation levels.

Balancing fluorosis and cavity prevention: Public health experts acknowledge dental fluorosis as the primary known side effect of fluoridation. The goal is to keep it to a minimum while still preventing cavities. The current recommended level of 0.7 mg/L was chosen specifically to reduce the risk of even mild fluorosis while maintaining effectiveness against caries ( Fluoride - Health Professional Fact Sheet ). Parents are advised to supervise young children’s toothbrushing to prevent swallowing of fluoride toothpaste (which has contributed to mild fluorosis in some cases) (About Dental Fluorosis | Oral Health | CDC). The CDC emphasizes that in the U.S., fluorosis is mostly mild and cosmetic, “meaning it does not affect tooth function and is not painful… Moderate and severe forms of dental fluorosis are rare.” (About Dental Fluorosis | Oral Health | CDC).

In optimally fluoridated communities, the trade-off is that a certain percentage of children might get barely visible white specks on their teeth (which often only dentists notice) in exchange for a substantial reduction in decay experience. Surveys indicate most parents and teens with mild fluorosis are not even aware of it or concerned by the appearance. On the other hand, the pain and public health burden of tooth decay – which fluoridation helps prevent – are significant. Nonetheless, fluorosis rates are monitored, and guidelines are updated (as in 2015) to ensure that the benefits of fluoride outweigh the risks. The bottom line: mild dental fluorosis can occur with fluoride use, but at the levels in drinking water it is generally a minor cosmetic condition without health consequence (About Dental Fluorosis | Oral Health | CDC). Proper use of fluoride (monitoring total intake from water, toothpaste, etc.) makes the risk of anything beyond mild fluorosis extremely low.

9. Ethics of Mass Medication (Individual Rights vs. Public Health)

What is the concern? Fluoridating water has been criticized by some as a form of “mass medication” without individual consent. Ethical debates focus on whether it’s appropriate to administer a substance to everyone via the water supply for a communal benefit, potentially infringing on personal autonomy and choice. Opponents argue that people should have the right to avoid fluoride if they wish, rather than having it essentially mandated. Proponents counter that fluoridation is comparable to other public health measures (like fortifying salt with iodine or milk with vitamin D) that are widely accepted.

Public health ethics perspective: Fluoridation pits two ethical principles against each other: beneficence (doing good for the population, i.e. preventing disease) and respect for autonomy (allowing individual choice) ( Community Water Fluoridation: Caveats to Implement Justice in Public Oral Health - PMC ) ( Community Water Fluoridation: Caveats to Implement Justice in Public Oral Health - PMC ). Bioethicists note that CWF (community water fluoridation) is a public health intervention that inevitably overrides individual consent to some extent, since one cannot practically opt out except by drinking alternative water () (). The key ethical question is whether the common good (reduced cavities, especially benefiting those who might not afford dental care) justifies this infringement. Many ethical analyses have concluded that it does, provided certain conditions are met: the intervention should be necessary, effective, safe, and utilize the least restrictive means to achieve the public health goal () ().

Arguments and counterarguments: Pro-fluoridation ethicists argue that water fluoridation promotes justice and equity. Tooth decay is a significant public health problem, disproportionately affecting lower-income groups. By reducing decay across the community, fluoridation helps those who might have limited access to dental services – thus serving social justice by improving health for the vulnerable ( Community Water Fluoridation: Caveats to Implement Justice in Public Oral Health - PMC ). Furthermore, they argue that the “coercion” of fluoridation is minimal. It does not force anyone to consume water; it simply adjusts a naturally occurring mineral in water to an optimal level, akin to how iodine is added to table salt to prevent goiter. In fact, ethical reviews have noted that fluoridation’s limitation on individual choice is no greater than other accepted public health measures like iodized salt, fortified foods, or chlorinating water for safety (). These interventions are done for the collective benefit and have long been deemed ethically acceptable because the risk is very low and the benefit (prevention of disease) is high.

Opponents, however, invoke the principle of non-maleficence (“first, do no harm”) and autonomy. They contend that even a small risk or any harm (like dental fluorosis, which they view as harm) violates non-maleficence ( Community Water Fluoridation: Caveats to Implement Justice in Public Oral Health - PMC ) ( Community Water Fluoridation: Caveats to Implement Justice in Public Oral Health - PMC ). They also argue that medication should be an individual choice – one can choose to take fluoride supplements or use fluoride toothpaste, but in water it becomes indiscriminate. Some also question whether there is informed consent, since people may not be fully aware of fluoridation or its purpose. In ethical consultations, it has been argued that if mild dental fluorosis is considered an adverse effect, then individuals should have the right to avoid it, and a community vote forcing it could be paternalistic ( Community Water Fluoridation: Caveats to Implement Justice in Public Oral Health - PMC ).

Resolutions in practice: In most democracies, water fluoridation is decided at the local or regional level, often with public input or referenda. This is an application of procedural justice – making the decision through a democratic process that weighs majority benefit against minority objections ( Community Water Fluoridation: Caveats to Implement Justice in Public Oral Health - PMC ) ( Community Water Fluoridation: Caveats to Implement Justice in Public Oral Health - PMC ). Courts in places like the U.S., Canada, and Europe have generally upheld the legality of fluoridation, finding that it is a reasonable public health measure and not a violation of fundamental rights. For example, U.S. courts have ruled there is no constitutional right to fluoride-free water, given the compelling interest in preventing disease and the very low risk involved. Ethicists suggest that as long as the policy is enacted through open, transparent processes and the science indicates it’s safe and beneficial, it can be justified even though it bypasses individual consent ( Community Water Fluoridation: Caveats to Implement Justice in Public Oral Health - PMC ) ( Community Water Fluoridation: Caveats to Implement Justice in Public Oral Health - PMC ).

Modern ethical analyses tend to frame fluoridation not as “mass medication” in a pejorative sense, but as a form of community preventive medicine. One Canadian ethics consultation concluded that fluoridation aligns with public health’s mandate to improve well-being and pay special attention to the needs of the disadvantaged (children, low-income families who suffer more from cavities) () (). It also pointed out that alternatives like topical programs or school dental care, while good, have not proven as effective on a population level () (). If a less intrusive measure (like free dental sealants for all kids) could achieve the same cavity reduction, that might be preferred ethically, but in practice no such alternative can reach everyone as consistently as fluoridated water. Therefore, if fluoridation’s benefits outweigh its risks – which scientific consensus says they do – then implementing it for the populace can be ethically justified under the principle of stewardship (the duty of the state to responsibly protect public health) () ().

Summary of ethics: Water fluoridation is an example of a public health policy where communal benefit is weighed against individual autonomy. The prevailing ethical justification holds that because the health benefit (significant cavity prevention) is substantial, the health risk is minimal, and the practice affects everyone equally (with opt-out options like bottled water if one feels strongly), it is a legitimate public health intervention rather than an unethical mass medication ( Community Water Fluoridation: Caveats to Implement Justice in Public Oral Health - PMC ) ( Community Water Fluoridation: Caveats to Implement Justice in Public Oral Health - PMC ). Ethicists do encourage community engagement – fluoridation decisions should be made with public input, transparency, and periodic review of current evidence (Community Water Fluoridation: Caveats to Implement Justice in Public Oral Health - PMC ) ( Community Water Fluoridation: Caveats to Implement Justice in Public Oral Health - PMC ). This helps maintain trust and address any concerns openly. In communities around the world, many votes have been held on fluoridation; some have chosen to implement or continue it, others have not – reflecting the values and preferences of those populations.

In short, while individuals cannot choose the fluoride content of public water in the same way they choose whether or not to take a vitamin pill, society has generally deemed this acceptable given the collective benefits. Fluoridation stands ethically alongside other public health measures that we implement broadly for the good of all (like vaccination campaigns or fortification programs), with the consensus that it is morally justified when done with proper oversight and community consent through the political process ( Community Water Fluoridation: Caveats to Implement Justice in Public Oral Health - PMC ) ( Community Water Fluoridation: Caveats to Implement Justice in Public Oral Health - PMC ).

10. Industrial Waste Concerns (Source and Purity of Fluoride Additives)

What is the concern? Opponents often claim that the fluoride added to water is an “industrial waste product” (typically from fertilizer manufacturing) and may be contaminated with toxic heavy metals or other impurities. They worry that using fluorosilicic acid or sodium fluorosilicate from industrial sources could introduce arsenic, lead, or radionuclides into drinking water and pose health risks unrelated to fluoride itself.

Fluoride sources and additives: It is true that much of the fluoride used for water fluoridation is derived from phosphate fertilizer production. During fertilizer manufacturing, fluoride gas byproducts (hexafluorosilicic acid) are captured from plant scrubbers. Rather than being released as air pollution (as in the past), this captured fluorosilicic acid is reused as the raw material for water fluoridation. It is a common misconception that this means untreated “waste” is dumped into water. In reality, the fluoridation additives (whether fluorosilicic acid (H₂SiF₆), sodium fluorosilicate, or sodium fluoride) are purified and must meet stringent quality standards before being applied to drinking water ( A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals - PMC ) ( A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals - PMC ). These standards are set by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and certified by NSF International (an independent testing body) under NSF/ANSI Standard 60 for drinking water chemicals ( A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals - PMC ).

Purity and contaminant limits: All fluoridation products are tested for contaminants like arsenic (As), lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), mercury, etc. NSF Standard 60 requires that any impurities in the finished drinking water not exceed 10% of the EPA’s regulatory limits (this 10% is known as the “single product allowable concentration” for the additive) ( A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals - PMC ) ( A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals - PMC ). In practice, the amounts are far below even that 10% benchmark. For example, surveys of fluoridated water have found that about 40–50% of samples have a detectable trace of arsenic after fluoridation, but the concentrations are extremely low – on the order of 0.5 parts per billion or less, which is ~5% of the EPA arsenic MCL (10 ppb) ( A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals - PMC ) (A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals - PMC ). Most samples have no detectable lead from the fluoride additive, and if any is present it’s at fractions of a part per billion ( A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals - PMC ) ( A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals - PMC ). These levels are so low that they do not pose a measurable risk; for context, one could get more arsenic from certain foods in a day than from a year of drinking fluoridated water.

NSF certification means each batch of fluoride additive is tested and must be compliant. Water treatment personnel carefully dilute the fluoride concentrate into the water supply – at the tap, the fluoride ion ends up at 0.7 mg/L, and co-occurring substances are diluted to negligible concentrations. A 2013 review noted that when fluorosilicic acid is dosed properly, typical resulting arsenic in water might be ~0.1 ppb, which is 20 times lower than the EPA limit of 10 ppb, contributing virtually no additional cancer risk ( A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals - PMC ). Similarly, any lead contribution is far below 1 ppb (the main sources of lead in water are lead pipes or plumbing, not fluoride additives).

Studies on contaminant risk: Some researchers with concerns have pointed out that theoretically, even trace arsenic from fluoride additives could marginally increase cancer risk over a lifetime. However, this risk is exceedingly small – on the order of 1 in a million or less, which is considered acceptable by regulatory standards (for drinking water, EPA’s goal is often 1 in 10^6 risk for carcinogens). Moreover, those risk calculations assume continuous exposure at the upper bound of impurity levels, whereas in reality many fluoridation systems have impurity levels below detection. An Australianstudy examined the cumulative impact and found no significant difference in heavy metal content of water due to fluoridation. The World Health Organization and other international bodies have also reviewed the chemical safety of fluoridation and found that, when additives meet quality standards, the process does not introduce contaminants at levels of concern.

Public health safeguards: It’s important to highlight that water utilities use high-purity, regulated fluoride compounds, not raw industrial waste. The products have specifications – for instance, AWWA B703 standard for fluorosilicic acid mandates minimum purity and limits on heavy metals. Utilities also routinely test the finished water for various parameters. If impurities ever exceeded standards, the utility would fail compliance testing. So the system has multiple layers of oversight (manufacturer certification, utility dosing and monitoring, regulatory checks) to ensure safety.

Fluoridation has been employed for over 75 years; if it were introducing harmful contaminants, we would expect to see evidence in water monitoring and population health (e.g., signs of arsenic poisoning or heavy metal accumulation in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated areas). No such differences have been found. The American Water Works Associationand CDC maintain that using fluorosilicic acid or its salt forms is safe – when added to water, they dissociate almost immediately to release fluoride ions, the same fluoride ion that calcium fluoride or sodium fluoride would yield ( A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals - PMC ) ( A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals - PMC ). The residual silicic acid and any trace co-products are at levels that are either non-detectable or well within safe limits.

In summary, while the source of fluoride additives is industrial (recycling a byproduct), the materials used in water treatment are purified and subject to standards that effectively protect against harmful contamination. Assertions that we are “dumping toxic waste in water” are not accurate – the reality is a controlled process using certified chemicals. Studies show that any metals or radionuclides present in fluoridation products are diluted to levels far below regulatory concern in the finished drinking water ( A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals - PMC ). Therefore, the risk from contaminants in fluoride additives is negligible, and the focus remains on the fluoride ion’s beneficial effect. Health authorities like the CDC reassure that fluoride additives “have been evaluated and shown to be safe and effective” and that they do not pose a poison risk in the concentrations used. In essence, the fluoride in your tap water – whether it started as sodium fluoride or fluorosilicic acid – ends up the same, and you’re not getting meaningful doses of anything other than fluoride and water.

Conclusion: This comprehensive review finds that the overwhelmingly majority of peer-reviewed evidence and expert assessments support the safety and effectiveness of community water fluoridation. Fluoride at optimal levels (around 0.7 mg/L) significantly reduces tooth decay across populations without causing systemic health problems. Concerns about serious harms (from IQ deficits to cancers or endocrine effects) are not supported by the weight of scientific research at these exposure levels. Mild dental fluorosis can occur, but it is primarily a cosmetic issue and has been mitigated by adjustments to recommended fluoride concentrations. Ethically, fluoridation stands as a sound public health strategy that has been widely endorsed due to its proven benefits and minimal risks. Reputable organizations such as the WHO, CDC, ADA, and countless public health agencies worldwide continue to recommend water fluoridation as a safe, cost-effective measure to improve oral health for all (National Toxicology Program releases fluoride exposure monograph | American Dental Association) (About Dental Fluorosis | Oral Health | CDC). As with any public health program, ongoing research and monitoring are important, but after more than 7 decades and thousands of studies, water fluoridation’s profile remains one of substantial benefit with very low risk.

References:

1. CDC. Community Water Fluoridation – 50 years of improved public health. MMWR 1999; 48(41):933-940.
2. Choi AL, et al. Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Health Perspect. 2012;120(10):1362-1368 (Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis - PubMed).
3. Green R, et al. Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada. JAMA Pediatr. 2019;173(10):940-948 (Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada - PubMed) (Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada - PubMed).
4. Broadbent JM, et al. Community Water Fluoridation and Intelligence: Prospective Study in New Zealand. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(1):72-76 (National Toxicology Program releases fluoride exposure monograph | American Dental Association).
5. Peckham S, et al. Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated with hypothyroidism prevalence in England? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015;69(7):619-624 (Is fluoridated drinking water associated with a higher prevalence of hypothyroidism?) (Is fluoridated drinking water associated with a higher prevalence of hypothyroidism?).
6. Iarmandiei I, et al. Does fluoride exposure affect thyroid function? Environ Res. 2024;242:117759 (Does fluoride exposure affect thyroid function? A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis - PubMed) (Does fluoride exposure affect thyroid function? A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis - PubMed).
7. National Research Council. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. National Academies Press; 2006 ( Principles of fluoride toxicity and the cellular response: a review - PMC ) ( Principles of fluoride toxicity and the cellular response: a review - PMC ).
8. Malin AJ, et al. Fluoride exposure and sleep patterns among adolescents in the United States: a cross-sectional study of NHANES 2015–2016. Environ Health. 2019;18(1):106 (Fluoride and Pineal Gland).
9. U.S. Public Health Service. Recommendation for Fluoride Concentration in Drinking Water for the Prevention of Dental Caries. Public Health Rep. 2015;130(4):318-331 ( Fluoride - Health Professional Fact Sheet).
10. American Cancer Society. Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk – ACS Review. 2020 (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society) (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society).
11. Kim FM, et al. An assessment of bone fluoride and osteosarcoma. J Dent Res. 2011;90(10):1171-1176 (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society).
12. Comber H, et al. Osteosarcoma incidence and water fluoridation in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Cancer Causes Control. 2011;22(6):919-924 (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society).
13. NRC (National Research Council). Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride. National Academy Press; 1993 (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society) (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society).
14. SCHER (EU Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks). Opinion on Fluoridation. 2010 (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society) (Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society).
15. CDC. About Dental Fluorosis (Oral Health Division fact sheet). 2020 (About Dental Fluorosis | Oral Health | CDC).
16. NSF International. NSF/ANSI Standard 60 – Drinking Water Treatment Chemicals – Health Effects. NSF, 2020 ( A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals - PMC ) ( A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals - PMC ).
17. Finney WF, et al. Re-examination of hexafluorosilicate hydrolysis by 19F NMR and pH measurement. Environ Sci Technol. 2006;40(8):2572-2577. (Study on behavior of fluorosilicates in water).
18. Pollick H. Water Fluoridation and the Environment: Current Perspective in the United States. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2004;10(3):343-350. (Covers fluoridation sources and environmental aspects).