The shocking relationship between fluoride in water and children’s health… as RFK Jr calls for nationwide bans

A rigorous new study concluded that fluoride, a mineral added to public water supplies to prevent tooth decay, poses no harm to children’s health and has no detectable impact on birth weight or other birth outcomes.

Health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr has long criticized fluoride in public drinking water, likening it to ‘mass medication’ that poses significant health risks, particularly to neurological development in children, despite a lack of conclusive evidence.

Critics commonly highlight research linking fluoride to health concerns like impaired cognitive development or thyroid dysfunction, and a January 2025 study found an association between higher fluoride exposure and lower IQ scores in children. 

However, a major caveat was that the study analyzed no US data. Most of the research was conducted in other countries, primarily China and India, where fluoride exposure levels are significantly higher than those in US water systems.

The authority to stop fluoridating water rests with local and state authorities, as seen recently with the first two states to ban it outright: Florida and Utah. But Kennedy can influence policy from the top by directing the CDC and the EPA to revise their recommendations and safety limits. 

But now, a sweeping new study from Columbia University accounted for more than 11 million births across 677 US counties over two decades as fluoridation in community water systems became more common and widely accepted, largely due to its ability to help prevent tooth decay.

To measure the effect, researchers tracked changes in birth weight, gestation, and prematurity in counties that started adding fluoride between 1968 and 1988, and compared these trends to counties without fluoridation. They did not measure IQ. 

There were no statistically significant changes. Any difference in weight was so tiny – less than one percent of an average baby’s weight – that it holds no statistical or real-world significance.

In the latest study, published in JAMA Network Open, researchers analyzed over 11 million singleton births from 1968 to 1988 across 677 counties. 

Researchers tracked what happened to babies before and after individual US counties began adding fluoride to their water. They compared these changes to counties that never added fluoride during the same 20-year period. 

The study group comprised 408 counties that adopted fluoridation during the study period. 

Each county’s birth outcomes were compared before and after fluoridation adoption. The control group consisted of the remaining 269 counties that were never fluoridated, providing a baseline for comparison.

This staggered rollout design allowed researchers to compare treated counties to not-yet-treated and never-treated counties over the same time periods.

The primary analysis showed no statistically significant change in average birth weight following community water fluoridation (CWF) adoption.

The estimated effects were minuscule in magnitude, ranging from a decrease of 8.4g to an increase of 7.2g, with zero being well within the margin of error, and are clinically meaningless, representing less than one percent of average birth weight, and pose no known health risk to infants. 

Similarly, the study found no association between CWF and the incidence of low birth weight, the length of gestation or the rate of premature births.

Researchers said: ‘Our findings provide reassurance about the safety of community water fluoridation during pregnancy.’ 

This is not the first study to rule that fluoride in water poses no long-term adverse health effects. Among the first major breakthroughs in fluoride science came in 1970, 25 years after the city council of Newburgh, New York began fluoridating its water.

For a decade, researchers compared the dental health of Newburgh’s children with those in the similar, non-fluoridated ‘control’ city of Kingston.

The results showed children who grew up drinking fluoridated water had 60 to 70 percent fewer cavities, far lower dental costs, and fewer tooth extractions. 

Comprehensive health monitoring over 25 years found no harmful effects, confirming its safety.

Then-75-year-old dentist Dr Maxwell Serman, whose practice predated fluoridation, told The New York Times in 1970: ‘Today, whenever I see a child with a mouthful of cavities, I know immediately he’s not from Newburgh.’

But even then, the public health measure sparked controversy, as some people believed that adding what they equated with medication without their say-so encroached on their bodily autonomy.

Public health experts have cited decades of robust evidence demonstrating that fluoride, at the optimal level used in US water systems, dramatically reduces tooth decay by as much as 25 percent across all socioeconomic groups, making it a powerful tool for nearly every American.  

The American Dental Association maintains that fluoride in community water supplies is ‘the single most effective public health measure to prevent tooth decay,’ while the CDC lists it among the Ten Great Public Health Achievements. 

But some studies, particularly from regions with naturally high fluoride levels, such as parts of China, India and Iran, where levels can exceed four to 10 parts per million, have found associations with skeletal fluorosis, cognitive effects or thyroid changes.

And long-simmering skepticism about the use of fluoride in water, as well as supplements and toothpaste, has increased in recent years, RFK Jr at the forefront. 

In April 2025, he said as he stood alongside Utah lawmakers at a press conference: ‘The evidence against fluoride is overwhelming.’

Kennedy believes fluoride is best as a topical ingredient, such as toothpaste, and is harmful systemically.  

During the Utah event, EPA head Lee Zeldin thanked RFK Jr for pushing the agency to accelerate its review of fluoride safety standards in water, a process not formally due until 2030.

The FDA is also launching a multi-agency fluoride research initiative, while the CDC has eliminated its core oral health division as part of major budget cuts.