In the early 1900s, dentist Fred McKay noticed that many residents of Colorado Springs had dark, pitted teeth but were surprisingly resilient to decay. After 30 years of research, it was discovered that the stain was caused by high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in the water supply, leading to the idea of adding fluoride to water supplies to replicate these benefits.
Fluoridation faced immediate opposition due to concerns about health effects, such as impacts on bone health and potential long-term risks. Some feared it could be a tool for communist saboteurs, but most concerns were about the lack of sufficient long-term studies and the idea of enforced medication through the public water supply.
More than 200 million Americans, or about 75% of the population, have fluoride added to their drinking water at recommended levels of 0.7 milligrams per liter. High levels of fluoride, over 3 milligrams per liter, can cause severe skeletal deformities and dental fluorosis.
A 2019 Canadian study found an association between drinking fluoridated water during pregnancy and lower IQ in male children, but not in girls. The study was observational and had limitations, such as a lack of comprehensive coverage of fluoride sources and a small sample size.
In September 2023, a federal judge ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must begin the process of strengthening fluoride regulations due to concerns about potential health risks. The judge did not specify actions but noted a risk that fluoride might cause neurotoxicity.
Some studies suggest fluoride might be linked to arthritis, bone fractures, and bone cancer, but these claims are not well-supported. Over 50 years of research show no association between fluoride and cancer. Higher doses can cause dental fluorosis and potential bone health issues, but these effects are rare at recommended levels.
The benefits of water fluoridation have decreased since the 1950s due to improved oral hygiene and the widespread use of fluoride toothpaste. However, it still helps reduce socioeconomic disparities in oral health, providing benefits to children in low-income households.
Given the controversy and political costs, some experts suggest focusing on other initiatives to deliver fluoride benefits, especially to children who need it most. While water fluoridation is beneficial, the political and public trust costs may outweigh the benefits in the current climate.
The conversation about fluoride’s health benefits has exploded recently after a US federal toxicology report, court ruling and independent scientific review all called for updated risk-benefit analysis. Ian Sample hears from Catherine Carstairs, professor of history at the University of Guelph in Canada, about how attitudes to fluoridation have evolved, and Oliver Jones, professor of chemistry at RMIT University in Australia, about where the science stands today. Help support our independent journalism at theguardian.com/sciencepod)