RFK Jr. on fluoride bans: Probably 'more cavities'
Fluoridation is not banned in Europe, according to a 2018 fact sheet from the American Dental Association (ADA). However, adding fluoride to drinking water is not as widespread in European countries as in the U.S. Some European countries fluoridate their water, while others do not and the reasoning and result of those actions varies, according to BBC reporting. USA TODAY has reached out to ADA for more information.
Kennedy's response came after anchor Harris Faulkner asked him how removing fluoride from public drinking water would affect children who don't have access to dentists or proper oral healthcare.
Kennedy has been pushing to ban fluoride in public drinking water. In April, during a meeting with President Donald Trump, he said that kids get "stupider" the more fluoride they take in. Kennedy's remarks were met with backlash, as the study he pulled from was criticized for inadequate statistical rigor and other methodological flaws.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately respond for additional comment when contacted by USA TODAY on Friday, June 27.
Fluoride bans: Two states have now passed fluoride bans. These other ones introduced bills.
What is fluoride?
Fluoride is a naturally-occurring mineral found in many foods and water and has been long thought to help prevent tooth decay, according to the Cleveland Clinic.
Throughout the day, the protective outer layer of our teeth, called enamel, breaks down. Natural minerals within the enamel are broken down by bacteria, plaque and sugar. This is called demineralization. To gain these minerals back, people must consume food and water that contains chemicals like fluoride, calcium and phosphate, the Cleveland Clinic states. This is known as remineralization.
The Cleveland Clinic says with too much demineralization and not enough remineralization, tooth decay may begin.
Exclusive: As RFK Jr. targets fluoride, Texas is coming for kids toothpaste
When was fluoride introduced in the US?
Fluoride was first introduced in Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1945, according to the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC).
Where is fluoride banned in the U.S.?
Utah and Florida have banned fluoride from public drinking water - Utah in March and Florida in May. Kennedy has championed these states, and others looking to pass bans, including Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, South Carolina, North Dakota, Arkansas, Tennessee, Montana and New Hampshire.
American Dental Association responds to fluoride bans
After Utah passed its fluoride ban in March, the ADA released a statement saying dentists "see the direct consequences fluoride removal has on our patients."
"It's a real tragedy when policymakers' decisions hurt vulnerable kids and adults in the long term. Blindly calling for a ban on fluoridated water hurts people, costs money and will ultimately harm our economy," ADA President Dr. Brett Kessler said in a news release.
The ADA has also pointed to studies, like one 2024 study conducted by the University of Queensland, which found that children exposed and not exposed to fluoride showed no difference in IQ testing.
Contributing: Natalie Neysa Alund, Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy and Mary Walrath-Holdridge, USA TODAY
Greta Cross is a national trending reporter at USA TODAY. Story idea? Email her at gcross@usatoday.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
5 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
RFK Jr. on fluoride bans: Probably 'more cavities'
Fluoridation is not banned in Europe, according to a 2018 fact sheet from the American Dental Association (ADA). However, adding fluoride to drinking water is not as widespread in European countries as in the U.S. Some European countries fluoridate their water, while others do not and the reasoning and result of those actions varies, according to BBC reporting. USA TODAY has reached out to ADA for more information. Kennedy's response came after anchor Harris Faulkner asked him how removing fluoride from public drinking water would affect children who don't have access to dentists or proper oral healthcare. Kennedy has been pushing to ban fluoride in public drinking water. In April, during a meeting with President Donald Trump, he said that kids get "stupider" the more fluoride they take in. Kennedy's remarks were met with backlash, as the study he pulled from was criticized for inadequate statistical rigor and other methodological flaws. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately respond for additional comment when contacted by USA TODAY on Friday, June 27. Fluoride bans: Two states have now passed fluoride bans. These other ones introduced bills. What is fluoride? Fluoride is a naturally-occurring mineral found in many foods and water and has been long thought to help prevent tooth decay, according to the Cleveland Clinic. Throughout the day, the protective outer layer of our teeth, called enamel, breaks down. Natural minerals within the enamel are broken down by bacteria, plaque and sugar. This is called demineralization. To gain these minerals back, people must consume food and water that contains chemicals like fluoride, calcium and phosphate, the Cleveland Clinic states. This is known as remineralization. The Cleveland Clinic says with too much demineralization and not enough remineralization, tooth decay may begin. Exclusive: As RFK Jr. targets fluoride, Texas is coming for kids toothpaste When was fluoride introduced in the US? Fluoride was first introduced in Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1945, according to the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC). Where is fluoride banned in the U.S.? Utah and Florida have banned fluoride from public drinking water - Utah in March and Florida in May. Kennedy has championed these states, and others looking to pass bans, including Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, South Carolina, North Dakota, Arkansas, Tennessee, Montana and New Hampshire. American Dental Association responds to fluoride bans After Utah passed its fluoride ban in March, the ADA released a statement saying dentists "see the direct consequences fluoride removal has on our patients." "It's a real tragedy when policymakers' decisions hurt vulnerable kids and adults in the long term. Blindly calling for a ban on fluoridated water hurts people, costs money and will ultimately harm our economy," ADA President Dr. Brett Kessler said in a news release. The ADA has also pointed to studies, like one 2024 study conducted by the University of Queensland, which found that children exposed and not exposed to fluoride showed no difference in IQ testing. Contributing: Natalie Neysa Alund, Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy and Mary Walrath-Holdridge, USA TODAY Greta Cross is a national trending reporter at USA TODAY. Story idea? Email her at gcross@
Western Telegraph
10 hours ago
- Western Telegraph
Brain-eating parasite in salad bag as food poisoning rises
Research has highlighted potentially-deadly contamination fears, following 3,320 salad samples between October 2021 and September 2022 and found that over 4 per cent of the leaves were contaminated with toxoplasma gondii oocysts. The contamination has now been reported across 10 European countries including the UK, the study, published in the journal Eurosurveillance found. The research says: "The parasite Toxoplasma gondii can cause severe disease in humans. People can acquire the parasite by eating raw or undercooked infected meat or unwashed fruits or vegetables contaminated with the parasite. "We wanted to investigate T. gondii in commercial ready-to eat (RTE) salads in European countries to estimate the importance of these food products as sources of T. gondii." This bacteria can be passed on by digesting cat faeces, which can contaminate food and water, making salad that is washed or watered with dirty water a prime place for bacteria. Other research reported this week showed that the bacteria "can seriously disrupt the brain function of intermediate hosts, potentially including humans". Research by the National Institute of Health has previously said that half of the UK population show signs of past infection by the age of 50, and once acquired, parasites remain in human tissues for life. It can then cause a problem later in life for people who have a weakened immune system, which can happen during treatment for cancer or while taking immunosuppressant drugs. According to the Food Standards Agency, you should always "wash fruit and vegetables with water before you eat them to make sure that they are clean. You should wash them under a running tap, or in a bowl of fresh water, making sure to rub their skin under the water." Recommended reading: Symptoms of toxoplasmosis According to the NHS website, toxoplasmosis does not usually cause any symptoms and most people do not know they've had it. Some people may have flu-like symptoms such as: high temperature headache sore throat aching body swollen glands feeling tired feeling sick or being sick Some people may have more serious symptoms including: confusion blurred vision slurred speech unsteady walking The NHS adds that toxoplasmosis is not usually serious and normally gets better on its own. But it can cause serious problems if you: get it while you're pregnant have a weakened immune system – for example, if you have HIV or are having chemotherapy have more severe symptoms such as confusion, blurred vision or slurred speech If you have a weakened immune system toxoplasmosis may cause problems with your eyes, brain, heart or lungs.
NBC News
15 hours ago
- NBC News
By maintaining Obamacare pillar, Supreme Court hands win to HIV advocates
The Supreme Court on Friday granted the HIV-prevention field a historic win — yet with a major caveat — as it upheld a federally appointed health task force's authority to mandate no-cost insurance coverage of certain preventive interventions, but clarifying that the Health and Human Services secretary holds dominion over the panel. The 6-3 decision in Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc. essentially leaves in place a popular pillar of the Affordable Care Act, which mandates that most insurers cover various task force-recommended preventive screenings, therapies and interventions, with no out-of-pocket costs imposed on patients. The case reached the high court after a group of Christian businesses in Texas objected to being compelled to cover a certain drug used for HIV prevention, known as PrEP, given their claims that it 'promotes homosexuality.' 'Since our efforts to address HIV in the U.S. are under attack on so many levels, preserving insurers' requirement to cover preventive services, including PrEP, will help ensure access to people who need it,' said Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV + Hepatitis Policy Institute, a patient advocacy group in Washington, D.C. But the court clarified the scope of the task force's independence, thus potentially compromising its impact. Addressing concerns that the 16-member volunteer task force's power over insurers was unconstitutional, the justices asserted that the health secretary holds the authority to appoint and dismiss the panelists and to block their new recommendations from mandating insurance coverage. The secretary could also possibly direct the panel, including one stocked with his or her own hand-picked members, to revisit previous recommendations that have already gone into effect. Given the unpredictable nature and unconventional approach to health policy of the current health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., HIV advocates are concerned that he might undermine the task force's current or future endorsements of HIV-prevention medications, known as PrEP. The ruling 'is a victory in the sense that it leaves intact the requirement to cover task-force recommendations,' said attorney Richard Hughes, a partner with Epstein Becker Green in Washington, D.C., who represented a group of HIV advocacy organizations in submitting a friend-of-the-court brief in the casel. 'It was always going to be a double-edged sword, as the political accountability that salvaged its authority comes with the ability to alter its recommendations.' The U.S. has secured only a modest decline recently in HIV cases, and HIV advocates stand at a crossroads amid the Trump administration's dramatic withdrawal of support for their cause. Promisingly, the Food and Drug Administration last week approved a long-acting injectable form of PrEP, Yeztugo, made by Gilead Sciences. Injected every six months, Yeztugo overwhelmingly bested Truvada, a daily-pill form of PrEP also made by Gilead, at lowering HIV transmissions in clinical trials. But Yeztugo has debuted as the Trump administration is gutting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's HIV-prevention division and after it canceled scores of HIV-related research grants. HIV experts have warned that this upheaval could lead HIV to rise again. Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc. The plaintiffs' initial religious-liberty complaint was ultimately dropped from the case. The court more narrowly considered the constitutionality of an ACA provision that lent effective authority to a longstanding volunteer medical task force to mandate no-cost insurance coverage to preventive interventions that the expert group rated highly, including PrEP. The plaintiffs argued that because the task force was not appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, granting it such power over insurance markets violated the Constitution's appointments clause. The justices grappled with the task force's balance of independence versus accountability. In particular, they sought to determine whether the task force members were appointed by the Senate-confirmed Health and Human Services secretary. In addition to PrEP, the task force has issued high scores, for example, to screening for lung cancer, diabetes, and HIV; treatment to help quit smoking; and behavioral counseling to prevent heart disease. Had the Supreme Court fully sided with the plaintiffs, insurers would have been free to drop such popular benefits or, at the very least, to impose related co-pays and other cost sharing. Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh found that the health secretary has the power 'to appoint Task Force members, and no statute restricts their removal.' He was joined by an ideological mix of colleagues, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the right, and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson on the left. Concerns and uncertainty about Kennedy HIV advocates expressed concern that Kennedy might undo the task force's recommendation for PrEP, or at the least deprioritize ensuring that Yeztugo receives a clear coverage mandate. Earlier this month, Kennedy dismissed the entire CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, and replaced them with his own hand-picked selections, including one notable anti-vaccine activist. At the first meeting of the newly formed committee this week, ACIP dropped recommendations for some flu vaccines over claims, widely debunked by researchers, that one ingredient in them is tied to autism. Mitchell Warren, executive director of the HIV advocacy nonprofit AVAC, expressed concern about 'what happened with the CDC ACIP this week, as it could be a harbinger of what a secretary of HHS can do to twist committees and task forces that should be composed of experts guided by science to ones that are guided by ideology and politics.' In an email to NBC News, Carmel Shachar, faculty director of the Health Law and Policy Clinic at Harvard Law School, characterized Kennedy's potential approach to overseeing the health task force as unpredictable. 'RFK has been skeptical of the medical approach to HIV/AIDS in the past, and that may color his attitude to revising PrEP guidance,' Shachar said. HHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the HIV advocates' concerns. In 2019, the health task force granted Truvada as PrEP a top rating. The drug was already widely covered by insurers. But under ACA rules, the task force's recommendation meant that by January 2021, insurance plans needed to cease imposing cost-sharing for the drug. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, then clarified that insurers were also forbidden to impose cost sharing for the quarterly clinic visits and lab tests required for a PrEP prescription. A CDC study published in October found that about 200,000 people were using PrEP at any point in 2023. In 2019, the FDA approved another Gilead daily pill, Descovy, for use as PrEP. In late 2021, ViiV Healthcare's Apretude — an injection given every two months — was also green lit. The health task force gave top ratings to both of the newer forms of PrEP in 2023, which triggered a mandate for no-cost coverage to begin in January. A generic version of Truvada emerged in 2020 and now costs as little as $30 per month. The list prices of the three brand-name PrEP drugs range from about $2,200 to $2,350 a month. How the court's ruling could play out for HIV prevention Were Kennedy to appoint task force members who ultimately voided the PrEP coverage mandate, generic Truvada, at the very least, would still likely remain widely covered by insurance. But insurers would be free to demand cost-sharing for all forms of PrEP, including for required clinic visits and lab tests. And they could restrict access to the more expensive versions, including by imposing prior authorization requirements and higher cost sharing. Research suggests that even a small increase in monthly out-of-pocket costs for PrEP can depress its use and that those who accordingly forgo a prescription are especially likely to contract HIV. Johanna Mercier, Gilead's chief commercial officer, said even before the health task force's 2023 insurance mandate for Descovy went into effect in January, the drug's coverage was still pretty solid. Private insurers provided unrestricted coverage of Descovy for PrEP to 74% of commercially insured people, and 40% of prescriptions for the drug had no co-pay. After the mandate went into effect — including after CMS released a clarification on the PrEP-coverage mandate in October — those rates increased to 93% and 85%, respectively. This experience, Mercier said, has left the company optimistic that an increasing proportion of health plans will cover Yeztugo during the coming months. Health-policy experts are not certain whether the existing PrEP rating from the task force automatically applies to Yeztugo, or whether the drug will require its own rating to ensure coverage comes with no cost sharing. If Apretude's history is any guide, a requirement for Yeztugo to receive a specific rating could delay a no-cost insurance-coverage mandate for the drug from going into effect until January 2027 or 2028. It's also possible that CMS could release guidance clarifying that the existing mandate for PrEP coverage applies to Yeztugo, which would likely have a more immediate impact on coverage. However, Elizabeth Kaplan, director of health care access at Harvard's Health Law and Policy Clinic, said in an email that 'given this administration's and RFK's stated priorities,' the publication of a guidance on Yeztugo coverage by an HHS division 'appears unlikely.'
