Debunking anti-fluoridationist’s remaining 12 reasons for opposing fluoridation

New Zealand anti-fluoride campaigners have whittled their list of objections to community water fluoridation (CWF) down to 12 reasons. Maybe that’s progress – they used to tout a list of 50 reasons!

Let’s go through that list one by one and see if any stand up. I am responding here to each reason given in the Fluoride Free New Zealand’s (FFNZ) document Top 12 Reasons why Fluoridation Should End.

You can download a printable version of my responses.

1: Fluoride works by a surface reaction with existing teeth but research shows that it has a beneficial systemic effect with developing teeth.

The document asserts that “Fluoride promoters now claim that if there is any benefit from fluoride it is from contact with the surface of the tooth” and cite as their authority a High Court judge (incidentally, from a ruling that went against anti-fluoride campaigners). A High Court Judge is hardly an authority on scientific matters

Yes, the surface or “topical” action at the tooth surface is understood to be the predominant mechanism for existing teeth. The US Center for Disease Control illustrates this in its figure from the document Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States).

But, I pointed out in my article Cherry-picking and misinformation in Stan Litras’s anti-fluoride article, research also suggests fluoride is incorporated into the developing teeth of children and this helps provide protection.

Newbrun (2004), for example, stressed in a review of the systemic role of fluoride and fluoridation on oral health:

“The role of systemic fluoride in caries prevention is neither “minimal” nor “of borderline significance.” On the contrary, it is a major factor in preventing pit and fissure caries, the most common site of tooth decay. Maximal caries-preventive effects of water fluoridation are achieved by exposure to optimal fluoride levels both pre- and posteruptively.”

Cho et al (2014) presented data showing that children exposed to CWF during teeth development retained an advantage over those never exposed to it. Systemic fluoride may not play a role with existing teeth but it does during tooth development – even if it is difficult to determine the relative contributions of systemic fluoride and “topical” or surface fluoride to lasting oral health.

2: Too much fluoride causes dental fluorosis but this is not relevant to CWF.

Some children from both fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas do exhibit dental fluorosis. This is thought to be due to excessive consumption of fluoridated toothpaste and one important factor used in determining the optimum concentration of fluoride used in CWF is to prevent the development of dental fluorosis.

Anti-fluoride propagandists usually cite horrific figures for dental fluorosis because they incorporate all forms of dental fluorosis, from the mildest to the most severe, into their figures. For example, they will cite Ministry of Health Oral Health Survey data to claim that New Zealanders have a prevalence of 45% dental fluorosis caused by fluoridation. In fact, the dental fluorosis of concern (the severe and moderate forms) is very rare and the NZ Oral Health survey (from which this data is taken) showed no difference between fluoridated and unfluoridated areas.

3: Fluoride is not a neurotoxin (or neurotoxicant) at concentrations used in CWF.

Sure, animals studies show effects at high concentrations and there are studies of possible negative cognitive effects from areas of endemic fluorosis where drinking water concentrations of fluoride are relatively high. However, studies from areas where CWF is used (Broadbent et al, 2014) or natural levels of fluoride in drinking water are similar (see More nails in the coffin of the anti-fluoridation myths around IQ and hypothyroidism) do not show any negative effect on cognitive ability. In fact, the research suggests that fluoride may actually improve cognitive ability and improve chances of employment and income in adults (see the last link).

The Lancet article cited by FFNZ did not classify fluoride as a “neurotoxin” and the only discussion of fluoride in that article related to the poor quality studies from areas of endemic fluorosis referred to above. Scientific journals publish research findings and reviews – they don’t pass regulations or get into classifications.

4: FFNZ’s reference to dose is simply an attempt to claim evidence from high concentrations studies is relevant to CWF. It isn’t.

All the research indicates that the optimum recommended concentrations used in CWF are high enough to help reduce tooth decay but low enough to have no negative health effects. Only very mild dental fluorosis. which is often judged positively by teenagers and parents, is a possible result of such low concentrations.

The US National Toxicology Review referred to will simply extend previous reviews of animal studies to include human studies. This research programme also plans to include some animal studies using low fluoride concentrations – precisely because most former studies have used high concentrations unrepresentative of CWF.

The fact that new research like this commonly occurs is a good thing as it helps guarantee that social health measures like CWF are safe and they provide confidence to the public that there is continuous monitoring that would pick up any formerly unseen problems.

5: Skeletal and dental fluorosis occurs in parts of the world with high drinking water fluoride concentration but this is not relevant to CWF

The World Health Organisation recommends that drinking water fluoride concentrations should be in the range  0.5 – 1.5 mg/l. High enough to support dental health but low enough to prevent skeletal fluorosis or dental fluorosis of any concern.

Anti-fluoride campaigners commonly refer to the negative health effects in areas of endemic fluorosis (eg., China, India, and Senegal) where drinking water fluoride concentrations are much higher than used for CWF. But those facts are completely irrelevant to the situation in countries like New Zealand. And they are irrelevant to CWF which uses much lower drinking water concentrations.

6: There is no credible evidence to suggest that fluoride is an endocrine disruptor at concentrations used for CWF

A number of animal and human studies have produced conflicting results for endocrine effects of fluoride. These studies suffer from the use of high or unspecified fluoride concentrations. Effects have sometimes been seen for human in areas of endemic fluorosis. Studies have often been confused because of confounding effects due to iodine deficiency (known to cause thyroid problems), calcium and water hardness.

This means that it is easy to cherry-pick individual studies to support claims of harm from fluoride but these are usually for areas of high fluoride concentration or the studies are flawed by the problem of confounding effects.

The authoritative 2014 New Zealand Fluoridation Review (Eason et al. Health effects of water fluoridation: A review of the scientific evidence) considered “alleged effects of CWF on health outcomes  . . . including effects on reproduction, endocrine function, cardiovascular and renal effects, and effects on the immune system. “ It concluded:

“The most reliable and valid evidence to date for all of these effects indicates that fluoride in levels used for CWF does not pose appreciable risks of harm to human health.”

7: Bottle-fed babies do not receive harmful amounts of fluoride.

The FFNZ claim they do is a common anti-fluoride misrepresentation of the health recommendations concerning CWF and bottle-fed babies. These recommendations advise that use of fluoridated water to reconstitute baby formula is not harmful. They simply suggest that parents who are concerned should occasionally use non-fluoridated water for that reconstitution – a peace of mind thing.

For example, the American Dental Association advises:

“Yes, it is safe to use fluoridated water to mix infant formula. If your baby is primarily fed infant formula, using fluoridated water might increase the chance for mild enamel fluorosis, but enamel fluorosis does not affect the health of your child or the health of your child’s teeth. ”

Where parents want to reduce the risk of dental fluorosis they:

“can use powdered or liquid concentrate formula mixed with water that either is fluoride-free or has low concentrations of fluoride.”

Arguments based on low concentrations in human breast milk simply rely on the naturalistic fallacy – the claim that something is good or right because it is natural (or bad or wrong because it is unnatural). There are common concerns about deficient levels of some beneficial elements in human breast milk and recommendations for using supplements. See, for example, Iron and fluoride in human milk.

8: Fluoridation chemicals are not contaminant-laden waste products.

For example, fluorosilicic acid, the most commonly used fluoridation chemical in New Zealand, is a by-product of the fertiliser industry. When used for water treatment it must pass rigorous restrictions on contaminant levels. Certificates of analysis are required.


With these regulations and checks for water treatment chemicals, the concentration of any contaminant introduced into tap water by their use is much lower than the concentration of those contaminants already naturally present in the source water used. See Chemophobic scaremongering: Much ado about absolutely nothing for data based on a typical certificate of analysis for fluorosilicic acid and the natural concentrations of contaminants for the source water used by Hamilton City. The concentration of contaminants introduced into drinking water is well under 1% of the levels already naturally present in the water source (see graph).

9: Fluoridation is not a medicine and it does not violate human basic rights.

That was determined in High Court rulings – cases brought by anti-fluoride campaigners financed by the “natural”/alternative health industry. All appeals so far against those rulings have been rejected.

10:   Community water fluoridation is not suitable or necessary for many countries

A claim that only 5% of the world uses community water fluoridation is not relevant. Consider that just over 10% of the world do not have access to safe clean water so their people have more pressing concerns that water fluoridation. Many countries like China, India, and parts of North Africa use drinking water with fluoride concentrations that are excessive – fluoride removal or searches for alternative sources are their priority.

Even many developed countries or regions do not have reticulation systems which enable cost-effective fluoridation. This may be the case in Christchurch where the use of a number of bores may mean fluoridation of much of the city is not cost-effective.

Many countries already have natural concentrations of fluoride in their drinking water that are near optimum – making any supplementation unnecessary.

A recent review (O’Mullane et al., 2016) summarised the numbers of people around the world with access to beneficial levels of fluoride in their drinking water:

“General estimates for the number of people around the world whose water supplies contain naturally fluoridated water at the optimum level for oral health are around 50 million. This means that, when the numbers of people with artificially (369.2 million) and naturally fluoridated water supplies (50 million) at the optimum level are added together, the total is around 437.2 million.”

11: The effectiveness of community water fluoridation in reducing tooth decay is well established.

This fact is very often misrepresented by anti-fluoride campaigners. For example, in the FFNZ document, a recent New Zealand study is cited to argue that “there is no difference in decay rates between non-Māori children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas.” In fact, the authors of that study warned that the data for “non-Māori” children were misleading because it included data for Pacific Island children who have generally poorer dental health than other ethnic groups and are concentrated in fluoridated regions, thus distorting the data for non-Maori. When the data for all ethnic groups are considered separately it clearly shows the beneficial effects of community water fluoridation. This figure shows the non-Māori data corrected by removing the data for Pacific Island children. iut confirms that there is a difference in decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated area.

Comparison of data for “other” (non-Māori/non-Pacifica) children in fluoridated (F) and unfluoridated (UF) areas. 5-year-old New Zealand children. dmft = decayed, missing and filled teeth.

FFNZ claims about the Cochrane Review and data from the District Health Boards and Ministry of Health are also incorrect. While the Cochrane Review did specifically exclude most recent studies because of its selection criteria it still concluded:

“Data suggest that the introduction of water fluoridation resulted in a 35% reduction in decayed, missing or filled baby teeth and a 26% reduction in decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth. It also increased the percentage of children with no decay by 15%. These results indicate that water fluoridation is effective at reducing levels of tooth decay in both children’s baby and permanent teeth.”

12: Community water fluoridation is only one part of successful dental health policies

These included regular fluoride varnishes, regular dental examinations, registering children into dental programmes, education measures such as guided toothbrushing, presenting children with toothpaste and toothbrushes, the involvement of parents in dental health and plaque checking and in dental health programmes generally. Health professionals see all these elements, including water fluoridation, as complementary. There is absolutely no suggestion that community water fluoridation means no other social dental health programme is used. However, in areas where community water fluoridation is not available health professionals will often introduce extra measures, such as wider use of fluoride dental varnishes, to help protect child dental health.

FFNZ misleads when it claims other aspects of a dental health programme can simply be substituted for water fluoridation. All parts of these programmes are complementary, one cannot normally be substituted for another.


So, none of the 12 reasons given by FFNZ for their opposition to CWF stand up to critical scrutiny.

Having whittled their original list down from 50 to only 12 reasons perhaps they should bite the bullet, face the facts, and continue whittling it down to zero.

That would then conform to the scientific information available.

Similar articles


5 responses to “Debunking anti-fluoridationist’s remaining 12 reasons for opposing fluoridation

  1. The most common Endocrine Disruptor in use today is taken by millions of individuals with no lasting effects. And what would that be?The birth control pill.
    “Overall,it appears weird how the supporters of the ED hypothesis appear
    to be mesmerised by the idea that a handful of weakly acting chemicals
    that involve produce little or negligible human exposure must be somehow
    responsible for a range of hypothetical adverse effects on human reproduction or other human health problems”

    Endocrine disruption:
    Fact or urban legend?
    Gerhard J. Nohynek A,∗,Christopher J.Borgert B,Daniel Dietrich c,Karl K Rozman.


  2. “10: Community water fluoridation is not suitable or necessary for many countries” I suspect you do not have a list of countries where water fluoridation is not suitable, and you probably do not have a list of countries where it is not necessary.

    “Many countries like China, India, and parts of North Africa use drinking water with fluoride concentrations that are excessive – fluoride removal or searches for alternative sources are their priority.” That does not mean they could not practice fluoridation if they wanted to in the areas with less than recommended amounts in the water. But they choose not to. China tested fluoridation and rejected it. India had a debate over fluoridation and then rejected it.

    “Many countries already have natural concentrations of fluoride in their drinking water that are near optimum – making any supplementation unnecessary.” Do you have a list of such nations? Just like the people your criticize, it seems you make generalizations unsupported by evidence.


  3. I refer you to my article Fluoridation: New scientific review of fluoride and oral health This does have a list and refers to the review article which goes into details. A little checking ion your part will show there is evidence out there – and I refer to it in my articles. This specific article, however, is a response to, a debunking of, an article promoted by Fluoride Free NZ which is full of misleading and distorted information. It is significant that you are unable to show any of my debunking to be incorrect.

    Now, could you cite and link to your sources for your claims “China tested fluoridation and rejected it. India had a debate over fluoridation and then rejected it.”

    The fact is that many, if not most, regions in India and China suffer from endemic fluorosis. I am aware that China has some areas where fluoride deficiency is a problem, Fluoridated milk has been used and fluoridated water advised. But I imagine few reticulation systems in China and India would be suitable for cost-effective water fluoridation.

    But they are huge countries and do have dental health problems.

    By the way, your claimed web site National Fluoridation News does not exist. What is the story there?


  4. I scanned the review article by written by scientists and dentists who promote fluoridation before I made my comments. I also looked at your new article. Yes, there is a list of nations with water and salt fluoridation. But that is not the same thing as a list of nations where fluoridation is not suitable or necessary. I doubt it anything like that is in the review article, or anywhere else. I’ve never seen such a list.

    Yes, countries and cities have made the decision to not practice water fluoridation due to the expense. That judgement call is not clear cut, and debates about whether the expense is worthwhile have occurred since the beginning. But I think water fluoridation can be done in any nation that has water treatment plants. It can be done with very small water systems.

    I’m sorry, but I do not have a link to the Chinese water fluoridation study or studies done by the communist government. They found too much fluorosis and not enough benefit. And I do not have a link to the debate that happened in India several decades ago when dentists advocated for water fluoridation in India. These things are not easily found with web searches. But they happened.

    I chose your statements to comment on that were questionable, and I’m not inclined to debate all the other stuff or get into your debunking.

    One day I made a comment to you through Facebook, and that associated me with a website I produced. It’s not easy to find.


  5. The website you claim is – it contains nothing. So why use it? Why not use a name?

    OK – I call you out on the situation in CVhina and India. I don’t believe either of your claims – and the fact you are unable to back them up underscores that.

    What a strange assertion – “I doubt it anything like that is in the review article, or anywhere else. I’ve never seen such a list.” Is this all you have to go on? A feeling about the content of an article you haven’t read?

    Sure fluoridation can be done with small systems – but it is not cost effective to do so. That is basically why Christchurch is not fluoridated.

    The countries and regions not suitable for fluoridation will, of course, be made on a case by case basis. I am aware, for example, that Switzerland and France do not have suitable reticulation systems. Other countries culturally rely on bottle water (where excessive F concentrations can be an issue) rather than tap water.

    Any list of countries with reticulation systems not suitable for fluoridation will be bound to be incomplete. Hell, as I have already pointed out, parts of New Zealand are in that situation – whereas you would probably not put NZ on such a list.

    You claim my point 10 is “questionable” – implying you accept all the other 11 points. Yet all you have asked for is a probably non-existent complete list instead of the logical and referenced arguments I presented. You actually have not questioned my argument at all.


Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s