• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

US National Toxicology Program Report: High levels of fluoride exposure linked to lower IQ in children

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member

NEW YORK (AP) — A U.S. government report expected to stir debate concluded that fluoride in drinking water at twice the recommended limit is linked with lower IQ in children.

The report, based on an analysis of previously published research, marks the first time a federal agency has determined — “with moderate confidence” — that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. While the report was not designed to evaluate the health effects of fluoride in drinking water alone, it is a striking acknowledgment of a potential neurological risk from high levels of fluoride.


Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.

“I think this (report) is crucial in our understanding” of this risk, said Ashley Malin, a University of Florida researcher who has studied the effect of higher fluoride levels in pregnant women on their children. She called it the most rigorously conducted report of its kind.

The long-awaited report released Wednesday comes from the National Toxicology Program, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. It summarizes a review of studies, conducted in Canada, China, India, Iran, Pakistan, and Mexico, that concludes that drinking water containing more than 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter is consistently associated with lower IQs in kids.

The report did not try to quantify exactly how many IQ points might be lost at different levels of fluoride exposure. But some of the studies reviewed in the report suggested IQ was 2 to 5 points lower in children who’d had higher exposures.

Since 2015, federal health officials have recommended a fluoridation level of 0.7 milligrams per liter of water, and for five decades before the recommended upper range was 1.2. The World Health Organization has set a safe limit for fluoride in drinking water of 1.5.

The report said that about 0.6% of the U.S. population — about 1.9 million people — are on water systems with naturally occurring fluoride levels of 1.5 milligrams or higher.


“The findings from this report raise the questions about how these people can be protected and what makes the most sense,” Malin said.

The 324-page report did not reach a conclusion about the risks of lower levels of fluoride, saying more study is needed. It also did not answer what high levels of fluoride might do to adults.

The American Dental Association, which champions water fluoridation, had been critical of earlier versions of the new analysis and Malin’s research. Asked for comment, a spokeswoman late Wednesday afternoon emailed that the organization’s experts were still reviewing the report.

Fluoride is a mineral that exists naturally in water and soil. About 80 years ago, scientists discovered that people whose water supplies naturally had more fluoride also had fewer cavities, triggering a push to get more Americans to use fluoride for better dental health.

In 1945, Grand Rapids, Michigan became the first U.S. city to start adding fluoride to tap water. In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and continued to promote it even after fluoride toothpaste brands hit the market several years later. Though fluoride can come from a number of sources, drinking water is the main source for Americans, researchers say.

Officials lowered their recommendation for drinking water fluoride levels in 2015 to address a tooth condition called fluorosis, that can cause splotches on teeth and was becoming more common in U.S. kids.

Separately, the Environmental Protection Agency has maintained a longstanding requirement that water systems cannot have more than 4 milligrams of fluoride per liter. That standard is designed to prevent skeletal fluorosis, a potentially crippling disorder which causes weaker bones, stiffness and pain.

But more and more studies have increasingly pointed to a different problem, suggesting a link between higher levels of fluoride and brain development. Researchers wondered about the impact on developing fetuses and very young children who might ingest water with baby formula. Studies in animals showed fluoride could impact neurochemistry cell function in brain regions responsible for learning, memory, executive function and behavior.

In 2006, the National Research Council, a private nonprofit organization in Washington, D.C., said limited evidence from China pointed to neurological effects in people exposed to high levels of fluoride. It called for more research into the effect of fluoride on intelligence.

After more research continued to raise questions, the National Toxicology Program in 2016 started working on a review of the available studies that could provide guidance on whether new fluoride-limiting measures were needed.

There were earlier drafts but the final document has repeatedly been held up. At one point, a committee of experts said available research did not support an earlier draft’s conclusions.

“Since fluoride is such an important topic to the public and to public health officials, it was imperative that we made every effort to get the science right,” said Rick Woychik, director of the National Toxicology Program, in a statement.

Malin said it makes sense for pregnant women to lower their fluoride intake, not only from water but also from certain types of tea. It might also make sense to have policy discussions about whether to require fluoride-content on beverage labels, she said.
"



Direct link to report: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/completed/fluoride
"

Background Information​

Since 1945, the use of fluoride has been a successful public health initiative for reducing dental cavities and improving general oral health of adults and children. There is a concern, however, that some pregnant women and children may be getting more fluoride than they need because they now get fluoride from many sources including treated public water, water-added foods and beverages, teas, toothpaste, floss, and mouthwash, and the combined total intake of fluoride may exceed safe amounts.

Therefore, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) conducted a systematic review of the published scientific literature on the association between fluoride exposure and neurodevelopment and cognition. The NTP released their findings in a State of the Science Monograph (available below under Documents). A corresponding meta-analysis on children’s IQ has been accepted by a scientific journal for publication later in 2024.

The NTP started this work in 2016. As with all research documents intended for publication, the NTP fluoride monograph and meta-analysis underwent rigorous scientific evaluation. The evaluation process has involved many steps. The draft fluoride monograph received critical feedback during peer-review by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM), from other external experts, and from experts in several federal health agencies. After modifications were made, additional evaluation following a rigorous scientific framework was conducted by subject matter experts organized by the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors. This document is now complete and available for reference.

The monograph represents a thorough review of the data, and the various interpretations of the data, to accurately reflect what we know and where additional research is needed.

Findings​

The NTP monograph concluded that higher levels of fluoride exposure, such as drinking water containing more than 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter, are associated with lower IQ in children. The NTP review was designed to evaluate total fluoride exposure from all sources and was not designed to evaluate the health effects of fluoridated drinking water alone. It is important to note, however, that there were insufficient data to determine if the low fluoride level of 0.7 mg/L currently recommended for U.S. community water supplies has a negative effect on children’s IQ.

The NTP uses 4 confidence levels - high, moderate, low, or very low - to characterize the strength of scientific evidence that associates a particular health outcome with an exposure. After evaluating studies published through October 2023, the NTP Monograph concluded there is moderate confidence in the scientific evidence that showed an association between higher levels of fluoride and lower IQ in children.

The determination about lower IQs in children was based primarily on epidemiology studies in non-U.S. countries such as Canada, China, India, Iran, Pakistan, and Mexico where some pregnant women, infants, and children received total fluoride exposure amounts higher than 1.5 mg fluoride/L of drinking water. The U.S. Public Health Service currently recommends 0.7 mg/L, and the World Health Organization has set a safe limit for fluoride in drinking water of 1.5 mg/L. The NTP found no evidence that fluoride exposure had adverse effects on adult cognition.

Application​

Many substances are healthy and beneficial when taken in small doses but may cause harm at high doses. More research is needed to better understand if there are health risks associated with low fluoride exposures. This NTP monograph may provide important information to regulatory agencies that set standards for the safe use of fluoride. It does not, and was not intended to, assess the benefits of fluoride.
"
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
A 2-5 IQ point reduction is similar to the effect of leaded gasoline fumes. Millions of people could've had their IQ reduced by 10 full points over the past 100 years between the two. Difference between becoming an accountant and a doctor.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
If flouride is bad for people's development, probably due to some people overloading on it. Not all places on earth have it for their people, but right off the bat if you live in a city or country with mandated floruide added to water, that's all you really need. But then probably every toothpaste has it and whatever other stuff does too. Or who knows. Maybe having it in water is overloading it right off the bat.

I faintly remember reading about this long time ago. It was either having in in drinking water is good enough and you dont need it in other products. Or it was if people brush their teeth with flouride toothpaste, that's good enough and you dont need it in water.

But overall, you can tell flouride isnt a universally agreed upon benefit as there's flouride-free toothpaste some people prefer buying.
 

jason10mm

Gold Member
Damn, you mean i could had a 100 iq if I just didn't drink dah watta and inhale all thems gas fumes?

But seriously, this kind of stuff makes laughing at the Romans for leaded aquaducts pretty silly.

And there's my Roman empire thought of the day :p

Now we just need a map of high fluoride areas and let the jokes write themselves!
 

jason10mm

Gold Member
And related note, anyone else remember "the swish" in grade school when they made us take a fluoride shot and swirl it around for 30 seconds, then spit it out? I never had a cavity!
 
And related note, anyone else remember "the swish" in grade school when they made us take a fluoride shot and swirl it around for 30 seconds, then spit it out? I never had a cavity!

My dentist's office still offers this, I had one at my last appointment.
 

daffyduck

Member
If memory serves, the “swish” stuff is what was offered in grade school in those areas that didn’t have fluoride added to drinking water.
 
I keep hearing this, but I'm not sure how useful it is to say, "getting twice the recommended limit of something is bad." That's probably why the recommended limit was set, right?

I'm more interested in how many people in the U.S. are actually getting exposed at or near the 1.5 mark and if the dangers are still there at low levels, which isn't known according to the article.
 

jason10mm

Gold Member
I keep hearing this, but I'm not sure how useful it is to say, "getting twice the recommended limit of something is bad." That's probably why the recommended limit was set, right?

I'm more interested in how many people in the U.S. are actually getting exposed at or near the 1.5 mark and if the dangers are still there at low levels, which isn't known according to the article.
Double the limit = harm is a REALLY LOW LIMIT. Most things "allowed" to be freely out in the public have a far higher toxicity limit versus the "normal" amount, though there are some exceptions like tylenol, obviously alcohol doesn't really apply, etc.

But if the water level of flouride is such that a kid that drinks twice as much tap water as another can hit that IQ impairing dose, thats a legit concern. I'm guessing very few places have a flouride level anywhere near that, but some might andif its being added to the water, not naturally occuring, its something folks should be aware of. In america at least we kinda have this assumption that "daddy government is watching out for us" and we can kind of do anything and be safe, when clearly this is not accurate.

Of course if our foods weren't SATURATED with sugar/carbohydrates then the need for fluoride would be much less, maybe we should go after the root cause instead?
 
Double the limit = harm is a REALLY LOW LIMIT. Most things "allowed" to be freely out in the public have a far higher toxicity limit versus the "normal" amount, though there are some exceptions like tylenol, obviously alcohol doesn't really apply, etc.

But if the water level of flouride is such that a kid that drinks twice as much tap water as another can hit that IQ impairing dose, thats a legit concern. I'm guessing very few places have a flouride level anywhere near that, but some might andif its being added to the water, not naturally occuring, its something folks should be aware of. In america at least we kinda have this assumption that "daddy government is watching out for us" and we can kind of do anything and be safe, when clearly this is not accurate.

Of course if our foods weren't SATURATED with sugar/carbohydrates then the need for fluoride would be much less, maybe we should go after the root cause instead?

Yes, the awareness should be there if it's possible certain areas are getting too much. It would also be ideal if we just had proper funding and oversight to make sure the water was safe from any kind of contamination (including high flouride) in the first place.
 
Good thing my parents got me used to drinking boiled water that's been cooled off ever since I was little so I rarely drink bottled water anyway unless I'm on a trip or outside. Learned about them being bad from some conspiracy videos a long time ago when youtube still allowed them. It was a conspiracy back then by glad it's more known now.
 
Last edited:

poppabk

Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Good thing my parents got me used to drinking boiled water that's been cooled off ever since I was little so I rarely drink bottled water anyway unless I'm on a trip or outside. Learned about them being bad from some conspiracy videos a long time ago when youtube still allowed them. It was a conspiracy back then by glad it's more known now.
Unless you are talking about distilled water (which tastes like ass) then boiling your water would increase the fluoride concentration.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
I think just about anything eaten or overused is bad. People shouldnt rely on gov or docs to always need to blatantly say it.

Put it this way. Even water drank in huge amounts can kill you (every once in a while you hear about some college kid dying from it during a hazing ritual). So if even overloading on healthy water is bad, it makes sense any chemicals would be too. But should the gov need to remind people of this?

Every 5 years I get a prescription for a cortizone cream for any rash that acts up. Use it for a week or two and it goes away. The doc shouldnt need to tell me "Hey, make sure to dont slather that whole tube all over your body"
 

poppabk

Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
A 2-5 IQ point reduction is similar to the effect of leaded gasoline fumes. Millions of people could've had their IQ reduced by 10 full points over the past 100 years between the two. Difference between becoming an accountant and a doctor.
Why last 100 years? No-one has been getting above the 1.5 mg/L unless it was naturally in their water. So basically this has been happening since forever.
 

Soltype

Member
I remember way back in elementary they would give us that bubble gum fluoride swish and my dad telling me not to do it, not sure why he made that decision though.
 
Last edited:

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Last time i trust scientists with anything. fuck you.
When it comes to science and doctors, always be weary. I'd like to assume the professions are honest for sake of numbers, objective opinions and results, but not all the time.

My buddy's dad was a pharmacist (retired). Owned a drug store. He got payouts from drug companies if he agreed to stock his cabinets with their drugs more than other companies. So what would happen is the drug rep would literally go through the shelves and cabinets to ensure he'd see there was as little competing drugs in stock. So i guess if the rep was happy with what he saw, the dad got a payout. The deal was he had to look like he stocked a certain kind of ratio of that company's drugs.

You'd think this kind of wheeling and dealing would come from potato chip companies. Nope. Pharmacy and medical industry.
 
Last edited:

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
Is it still ok in toothpaste?
We don’t know.

I would be much more concerned about ingestion, particularly of fluoridated water but also anything else with fluoride content, than brushing with fluoride toothpaste. But the effects are cumulative, so if you're drinking fluoridated water and getting exposed to other fluoride sources, that's going to be bad news.
 

Roxkis_ii

Member
It would be nice to think that reducing the fluoride in our water supply could solve the issues the US has. One can only dream I suppose.
 

sankt-Antonio

:^)--?-<
I feel like the narrative here is ... of the rails. This is about 0,6% of US people who drink water with naturally more fluoride in it than the recommendation. So adding fluoride within the limit is good for you, exceeding it, like with Vitamins etc. is bad.

So the moral of the story is not to stop fluoride in water, but to enforce the recommended limit.
 
Last edited:

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
I feel like the narrative here is ... of the rails. This is about 0,6% of US people who drink water with naturally more fluoride in it than the recommendation. So adding fluoride within the limit if good for you, exceeding it, like with Vitamins etc. is bad.

So the moral of the story is not to stop fluoride in water, but to enforce the recommended limit.
Taking twice the RDA of vitamin C doesn’t permanently reduce your IQ.
 

Dacvak

No one shall be brought before our LORD David Bowie without the true and secret knowledge of the Photoshop. For in that time, so shall He appear.
I still maintain that I’d rather just have fake teeth implants for ALL of my teeth.

I lost three teeth due to extreme amounts of chemo years ago, and the implants I’ve got have been absolutely perfect. If it weren’t so insanely expensive, I’d legitimately consider replacing all of my teeth with permanent implants. But replacing just the three was about $40,000 :(
 

sankt-Antonio

:^)--?-<
Taking twice the RDA of vitamin C doesn’t permanently reduce your IQ.
Than, lets use medication in a broader sense for the sake of argument.
Lot of things are harmful if used in excess while having benefits when used in moderation. I mean, we don't give honey to children under one year old, as it can kill them.

I think it would be wrong to come to the conclusion to stop adding fluoride to water altogether. This basically says, 99,4% of Americans are fine and have better teeth health, while a subset of 0,6% of Americans (children) suffer consequence. They need to fix the water from these 0,6%.

In Munich, where I live, tap water has 0,17mg/L of Fluoride (while having the same allowed upper limit as the US), almost less than ten times the FDA limit. Over 1,5mg/L seems excessive and more than what most people would ever consume I would Imagine.
 
Last edited:

jason10mm

Gold Member
Every 5 years I get a prescription for a cortizone cream for any rash that acts up. Use it for a week or two and it goes away. The doc shouldnt need to tell me "Hey, make sure to dont slather that whole tube all over your body"
Switch to my doctor, he is very clear in his instructions!

13GJbqo.jpeg
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Good thing my parents got me used to drinking boiled water that's been cooled off ever since I was little so I rarely drink bottled water anyway unless I'm on a trip or outside. Learned about them being bad from some conspiracy videos a long time ago when youtube still allowed them. It was a conspiracy back then by glad it's more known now.

Boiling water evaporates out chlorine gas from chlorinated water. I don't think it does anything for flouride levels. If anything, I suspect it would raise them. You need a filter to remove flouride.
 

Kraz

Member
Fluoride overexposure and BPA would've been a hella one-two punch for developing brains.

Fluoride is federally regulated not to exceed similarly here to the US. Here it's the choice of the community to put fluoride in or not. It just couldn't go past a certain amount. Boiling concentrations was in 80s general science grade 9, but not for specifically pointing out fluoride toxicity, although minerals were mentioned, fluoride to be inferred if relevant I guess.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Taking twice the RDA of vitamin C doesn’t permanently reduce your IQ.

As the saying goes, the difference between medicine and poison is the dosage amount, but the difference here for flouride seems shockingly low and should warrant concern and further inquiry. I'm not sure if I'm convinced flouride should be banned, but making sure it's at the right dosage is very important.

Hell, the difference in dosage between Tylenol relieving your headache or relieving you of your mortal coil is also uncomfortably close (much higher than 2x recommend dose, to be fair though) .
 

West Texas CEO

GAF's Nicest Lunch Thief and Nosiest Dildo Archeologist
A 2-5 IQ point reduction is similar to the effect of leaded gasoline fumes. Millions of people could've had their IQ reduced by 10 full points over the past 100 years between the two. Difference between becoming an accountant and a doctor.
Oh my God.
 

Aesius

Member
It's honestly wild to think about where American society would be without lead paint/leaded gasoline and fluoride. A 5-7 IQ point increase across the board would have massive ramifications for everything.
 

notseqi

Member
<0,15mg on a cap of 1,5mg in 2024, tested by our local water supplier, tested yearly and the report uploaded to our communities' page. Lovely jubbly.
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
The high levels of fluoride that cause these issues are only natural.
No. It would be accurate to say that fluoride levels in water supplies are regulated to within the recommended levels, as of the present day, unless the higher than recommended levels are naturally occurring.

That does not account for fluoride exposure from other sources, which can increase your dose to potentially brain damaging levels. And we also don't understand the cumulative effects of long-term exposure at other levels.

Therefore, drinking fluoridated water is likely a bad idea.
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
We also don't know what the relationship is between dose and harm. We see that 2x the recommended level is causing this 2-5 IQ point reduction, but we don't know what 1x the recommended dose is doing. It could be perfectly safe, it could be 10% of the harm, 20%, or it could be a linear relationship and cause 50% of the harm. It's difficult to detect a 2-5 IQ point drop in an individual, but on a societal level it is very significant. A 1 IQ point drop would also be significant but is unlikely to be detectable in an analysis.

This is a big problem in general. It is very difficult to figure out the long-term effects of exposure to chemicals. The main way to do it is to let a population be exposed for 20 years and see if they have obvious problems compared to a similar population that isn't being exposed, but you have so many other variables to account for.
 
Top Bottom