Is flourine in water bad?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Fluoride in drinking water can protect teeth at low levels — U.S. policy recommends about 0.7 mg/L — but multiple recent government reviews say higher concentrations (above about 1.5 mg/L) are associated with developmental harms such as lower IQ in children and other health risks [1] [2]. Scientific authorities say the evidence is strongest for harm at higher exposures and remains uncertain for low-level community fluoridation; policy and litigation are actively evolving [1] [3].
1. What the science now says: benefits at low doses, risks at higher doses
Decades of public-health practice show fluoride reduces tooth decay when present in drinking water; U.S. policy has settled on 0.7 mg/L as the recommended level for community fluoridation to prevent cavities [1]. The National Toxicology Program’s 2024 review concluded with “moderate confidence” that higher fluoride exposures — for example, drinking water concentrations that exceed 1.5 mg/L — are consistently associated with lower IQ in children, though that association is not proof of causation and uncertainty remains at lower exposures [1]. Reuters and other outlets report that levels above 1.5 mg/L are linked in the literature to other health risks such as bone fractures and thyroid effects [2].
2. How robust is the evidence linking fluoride to IQ loss?
The NTP review pooled 74 studies from 10 countries and found an association between higher fluoride and lower neurodevelopmental scores; however only 22 of those studies were rated high quality and none were conducted in the United States, raising questions about generalizability and potential bias [1]. The NTP and independent meta-analyses have prompted regulators to re-examine the evidence rather than to declare settled causation; they explicitly call for more research on low-level exposures commonly used in fluoridation programs [1] [4].
3. Policy and legal moves: regulators and courts are taking note
Litigation and administrative actions have accelerated scrutiny: a federal district court in 2024 found potential neurodevelopmental risks from fluoride presented an unreasonable risk under TSCA and ordered EPA rulemaking, a decision the agency appealed, and EPA has said it will review “new” science on fluoride under Safe Drinking Water Act obligations [3]. European and U.S. authorities have also commissioned risk assessments — for example EFSA’s 2025 update that considers fluoride from all oral sources — signaling regulatory interest in re-evaluating acceptable exposures [4].
4. Tradeoffs: dental benefits versus systemic exposures
Public-health literature and modeling studies show removal of community fluoridation is followed by rises in dental disease and carries economic and health costs; preventive dental benefits are well-documented in many settings [5]. At the same time, reviewers note the population’s total fluoride intake has increased because of multiple sources — toothpaste, foods and beverages, teas and supplements — which complicates estimating individual risk and means some subgroups (pregnant people, young children) could receive higher cumulative exposures [1] [4].
5. Areas of disagreement and uncertainty among expert groups
Some analyses and meta-analyses find no IQ effect at fluoride levels typical of U.S. fluoridated water, while the NTP and others report associations at higher levels and express uncertainty about effects at lower levels [6] [1]. Advocacy groups such as EWG emphasize risks and call for lower limits or alternative approaches [7] [8], while longstanding public-health bodies emphasize the historical benefits of fluoridation and caution that associations do not equal causation [1] [5].
6. Practical takeaways for consumers and policymakers
If your community’s fluoride concentration is near the U.S. recommendation (0.7 mg/L), major public-health agencies still view that level as the balance point for dental benefit and safety, but federal reviews are ongoing and the evidence prompted formal reassessments [1] [3]. Communities with naturally high fluoride in groundwater or supplies exceeding 1.5 mg/L should treat that as a clear risk signal that merits remediation; regulators and researchers say more study is needed to determine whether even lower ranges pose measurable developmental risk [1] [4] [2].
Limitations: available sources do not settle whether low-level community fluoridation (around 0.7 mg/L) causes neurodevelopmental harm; they instead report associations at higher concentrations and call for additional research and policy review [1] [4].