Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Controversy: The evolving science of fluoride: when new evidence doesn’t conform with existing beliefs


Over the past 75 years, health authorities have declared that community water fluoridation—a practice that reaches over 400 million worldwide—is safe. Yet, studies conducted in North America examining the safety of fluoride exposure in pregnancy were nonexistent. When a Canadian study reported that higher fluoride exposure in pregnant women was associated with lower IQ scores in young children, critics attacked the methodology of the study and discounted the significance of the results. Health authorities continued to conclude that fluoride is unequivocally safe, despite four well-conducted studies over the last 3 years consistently linking fluoride exposure in pregnancy with adverse neurodevelopmental effects in offspring. We describe the challenges of conducting fluoride research and the overt cognitive biases we have witnessed in the polarized fluoride debate. The tendency to ignore new evidence that does not conform to widespread beliefs impedes the response to early warnings about fluoride as a potential developmental neurotoxin. Evolving evidence should inspire scientists and health authorities to re-evaluate claims about the safety of fluoride, especially for the fetus and infant for whom there is no benefit.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    Needleman, H. L. Salem comes to the National Institutes of Health: notes from inside the crucible of scientific integrity. Pediatrics 90, 977–981 (1992).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Newbrun, E. Effectiveness of water fluoridation. J. Public Health Dent. 49, 279–289 (1989).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Water Fluoridation Data & Statistics. Monitoring Fluoridation in the United States. Accessed 10 Dec 2019.

  4. 4.

    Choi, A. L., Sun, G., Zhang, Y. & Grandjean, P. Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ. Health Perspect. 120, 1362–1368 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Bashash, M. et al. Prenatal fluoride exposure and cognitive outcomes in children at 4 and 6–12 years of age in Mexico. Environ. Health Perspect. 1, 1–12 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    National Research Council (NRC). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2006).

  7. 7.

    Mullenix, P. J., Denbesten, P. K., Schunior, A. & Kernan, W. J. Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 17, 169–177 (1995).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Green, R. et al. Fluoride exposure during fetal development and intellectual abilities in a Canadian birth cohort. JAMA Pediatr. 173, 940–948 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Jenco, M. American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) continues to recommend fluoride following new study on maternal intake and child IQ. AAP News (August 19, 2019).

  10. 10.

    Picard, A. Fluoride won’t make you dumber, but the ‘debate’ about its safety might. The Globe and Mail (August 23, 2019).

  11. 11.

    Berezow, B. A., No, Fluoride Doesn’t Lower IQ. It Fails To Satisfy Hill’s Criteria of Causality. (American Council on Science and Health, 2019). Accessed 11 Nov 2019.

  12. 12.

    Science Media Centre. Expert reaction to study looking at maternal exposure to fluoride and IQ in children. (2019).

  13. 13.

    Off, C. & Howden, C. As it happens. (2019).

  14. 14.

    Iheozor-Ejiofor, Z. et al. Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.

  15. 15.

    American Dental Association. Responses to fluoride study flood in from all over the globe. ADA News. Accessed 27 Aug 2019.

  16. 16.

    National Toxicology Program (NTP). Systematic Literature Review on the Effects of Fluoride on Learning and Memory in Animal Studies (National Toxicology Program (NTP), Research Triangle Park, NC, 2016).

  17. 17.

    Ritchey, S. Maternal Fluoride and IQ—The Scientific Community Pushes Back (Science Based Medicine, 2019).

  18. 18.

    Valdez Jiménez, L. et al. In utero exposure to fluoride and cognitive development delay in infants. Neurotoxicology 59, 65–70 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Bashash, M. et al. Prenatal fluoride exposure and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children at 6–12 years of age in Mexico City. Environ. Int. 121, 658–666 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Kirkey, S. “So much is at stake”: Academics call for release of data behind controversial Canadian fluoride study. The National Post (October 29, 2019).

  21. 21.

    Limeback, H. A re-examination of the pre-eruptive and post-eruptive mechanism of the anti-caries effects of fluoride: is there any anti-caries benefit from swallowing fluoride? Community Dent. Oral. Epidemiol. 27, 62–71 (1999).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations for using fluoride to prevent and control dental caries in the United States. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. 50, 1–42 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Takahashi, R. et al. Fluoride supplementation (with tablets, drops, lozenges or chewing gum) in pregnant women for preventing dental caries in the primary teeth of their children. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. (2017).

  24. 24.

    Canadian Pediatrics Society. The use of fluoride in infants and children. Pediatr. Child Health 7, 569–572 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We disclose funding from the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) grant #s R21 ES027044 and R01 ES030365.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christine Till.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Till, C., Green, R. Controversy: The evolving science of fluoride: when new evidence doesn’t conform with existing beliefs. Pediatr Res (2020).

Download citation


Quick links