As Fluoride Bans Spread, Who Will Be Hit the Hardest?
In March, Utah became the first state to prohibit adding fluoride to drinking water. A couple months later, Florida followed suit. Several other states are now considering similar bills.
In a recent study published in JAMA Health Forum, researchers projected what would happen if the entire country were to stop adding fluoride to the water supply. The potential impact on both people's oral health and their dental bills was substantial: Tooth decay, the study found, would increase by about 7.5%—representing about 25 million more cavities—and the U.S. would face about $9.8 billion in additional costs over five years, including both what families would have to pay out-of-pocket for dental care and what the government would need to pay for public health insurance.
And those impacts would disproportionately affect children on public insurance plans or without insurance, the researchers found.
Fluoridated water is 'an amazing public health intervention that comes straight from the tap,' says the senior author of the study, Dr. Lisa Simon, an internal medicine physician at Brigham and Women's Hospital, who is also a general dentist.
'Fluoride works for everyone—it benefits adults, it benefits children,' Simon says. 'But the people who derive the most benefit from it are people who have a harder time accessing routine dental care.'
'Unfortunately, in our country, that is more likely to be children and families who are low-income, who rely on public insurance, or who otherwise face challenges in getting to a dentist,' she says.
States' moves to ban the use of fluoride in public drinking water come as the Trump Administration—due in large part to the influence of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—has pushed back against the practice. Kennedy has long blasted water fluoridation, claiming it is linked to arthritis, bone cancer, IQ loss, and more, and signaled that HHS will stop recommending it. The Environmental Protection Agency has said that it is studying the potential health risks of fluoride, and the Food and Drug Administration said it is taking steps to remove prescription ingestible fluoride supplements for children from the market.
Some research suggests that fluoride could be associated with lower IQ scores, but only at significantly high levels of exposure—the amount of fluoride that is added to public water, based on federal guidelines, is far lower.
And the majority of public health experts, pediatricians, and dentists insist that water fluoridation is a long-standing practice that is both safe and effective at protecting oral health and fighting cavities and tooth decay.
'It's been touted to be one of the most successful or greatest public health initiatives, right up there with vaccinations,' says Dr. Tomitra Latimer, a pediatrician at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago.
U.S. localities started adding fluoride to public water in 1945, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has credited the public health initiative for the 'dramatic decline in cavities' in the country in the years since. According to the CDC, drinking fluoridated water reduces cavities by roughly 25% in both children and adults.
Tooth decay, though preventable, is one of the most common childhood diseases. And children of color, children who come from low-income households, children on public insurance plans that limit which providers they can see, and children who live in rural areas and have to travel long distances to access care—all of them are at greater risk of developing cavities, according to Latimer. Children with autism also tend to have a heightened risk of developing cavities because they may struggle with brushing their teeth regularly, she says.
While there are alternative sources of fluoride that people can purchase, the cost may be out of reach for many families, Latimer says. That's why, she says, fluoridated water is so critical: It's an easily accessible tool that can help protect the oral health of children who are most vulnerable to cavities. And for generations, it's flowed straight from the tap.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
9 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Hershey makes major change candy lovers may not have seen coming
For those with a sweet tooth, candy is the ultimate guilty pleasure. Whether chocolate, lollipops, or gummies, these treats are undeniably addictive. Let's be honest. We often tell ourselves we'll just have one bite, but once we get a taste, it's nearly impossible to stop. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Many of us can relate to hiding candy from our parents as kids so they wouldn't lecture us on how bad it is for our health. Now that we are adults, we have no one to prevent us from eating an entire box of chocolates in one sitting, except ourselves. Related: Hershey adds new products to move beyond chocolate Most people aren't trying to cut out candy just because it's high in calories; they're also concerned about the added sugars, lack of nutrients, and potential health risks that come with it. Yet, the ingredients list often gets overlooked, which can be nearly as long and difficult to pronounce as a college philosophy book. Image source: Getty Images The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently kicked off various new measures to phase out six petroleum-based synthetic dyes from the nation's food supply by the end of next year. The intent is to encourage natural alternatives, as synthetic dyes may be linked to childhood diabetes, obesity, depression, and ADHD. Related: Hershey creates new guilt-free candy that's a dream combo "For too long, some food producers have been feeding Americans petroleum-based chemicals without their knowledge or consent," said HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. "These poisonous compounds offer no nutritional benefit and pose real, measurable dangers to our children's health and era is coming to an end." This request has reached multiple states, with West Virginia becoming the first state to ban the sale of food containing artificial dyes and preservatives beginning in 2028. Texas will now require warning labels on food products containing synthetic dyes starting in 2027. Major food companies, including ConAgra Brands (CAG) , General Mills (GIS) , Tyson Foods (TSN) , and W.K. Kellogg (KLG) , have recently joined the initiative by committing to completely remove synthetic dyes by the end of 2027, with Nestlé USA (NSRGY) aiming for mid-2026. Now, Hershey (HSY) , the largest chocolate manufacturer in the U.S., is hopping on the trend, promising to remove synthetic dyes from its products by the end of 2027. More Food News: Starbucks' huge new rival opens first US storesMcDonald's brings back experimental menu item 13 years laterOreo listens to fans and brings back flavor after nearly a decade Many of the company's products, including Jolly Ranchers, Twizzlers, and Reese's Pieces, rely on synthetic dyes, and removing them would require a hefty investment if it wants to fulfill its promise. Hershey acknowledges that making these changes would increase consumer costs, but removing the dyes will provide customers with more options, while ensuring confidence and trust in its products. However, finances might be a bit tight, since net sales in its North America Confectionery sector fell 15% in the first quarter of 2025 compared to last year. Related: Veteran fund manager unveils eye-popping S&P 500 forecast The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
CBS News
14 hours ago
- CBS News
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser files lawsuit against U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services
Colorado is now part of a group of 20 states suing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser says the lawsuit was filed after Medicaid data was sent to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The lawsuit alleges that on June 13, multiple states learned that the federal government conducted a "mass transfer" of data to the Department of Homeland Security, including personal health records of millions of individuals. They said that "reports indicate that the federal government plans to create a sweeping database for mass deportations and other large-scale immigration enforcement purposes." However, the DHS said the records are needed "to ensure that Medicaid benefits are reserved for individuals who are lawfully entitled to receive them." In a statement, Weiser said, "Personal healthcare data collected about Medicaid beneficiaries is confidential, to be shared only in narrow circumstances that benefit public health and the integrity of the Medicaid program. There's no reason to share this sensitive data with immigration or law enforcement agencies." Included in the lawsuit are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. They claim that the transfer is illegal and will lead to eligible noncitizens and their family members disenrolling from the program or refusing to enroll. This would place the costs of federally mandated emergency healthcare services onto the states and their safety net hospitals.
Miami Herald
a day ago
- Miami Herald
Feds investigate hospitals over religious exemptions from gender-affirming care
The Trump administration has launched investigations into health care organizations in an effort to allow providers to refuse care for transgender patients on religious or moral grounds. One of the most recent actions by the Department of Health and Human Services, launched in mid-June, targets the University of Michigan Health system over a former employee's claims that she was fired for requesting a religious exemption from providing gender-affirming care. An administration release announcing the probe says the Michigan case is the third investigation in "a larger effort to strengthen enforcement of laws protecting conscience and religious exercise" for medical providers, citing federal laws known as the Church Amendments. The probes are the first time HHS has explicitly claimed the amendments "allow providers to refuse gender-affirming care or to misgender patients," said Elizabeth Sepper, a professor at the University of Texas who studies conscience laws. Those laws, Sepper said, primarily allow objections to performing abortions or sterilizations but "don't apply to gender-affirming care, by their very own text." But religious freedom groups that supported the health worker in the Michigan case, Valerie Kloosterman, say the investigation is a welcome recognition of existing protections for medical professionals to refuse to provide some types of care that conflict with their beliefs. "We are pleased to learn that the Department of Health and Human Services is taking its responsibility seriously to enforce the federal statutes protecting religious health care providers," said Kloosterman's attorney Kayla Toney, of the First Liberty Institute, which advocates for religious liberty plaintiffs. The two other cases HHS announced in recent months involve ultrasound technicians who didn't want to be involved in "abortion procedures contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions," and a nurse who asked for a religious exemption to "avoid administering puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to children," according to HHS. The department did not disclose the locations for those investigations. Sepper said opening investigations into gender-affirming care cases is a new tactic for HHS after federal courts blocked a 2019 effort by the previous Trump administration to broaden conscience rules. And it sends a message that this administration will "investigate or otherwise harass providers of gender-affirming care, even when that provision is legal in the states where they operate," said Sam Bagenstos, a general counsel at HHS during the Biden administration and a professor at the University of Michigan. HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon declined to comment, citing the ongoing investigation. HHS launched its investigation years after Kloosterman filed a lawsuit against her former employer. She started working for Metropolitan Hospital in Caledonia, Michigan, as a physician assistant in 2004. When the hospital merged to become part of University of Michigan Health-West in 2021, Kloosterman took part in a "mandatory diversity training," according to a federal lawsuit filed in 2022. In that training and follow-up discussions, the health system "attempted to compel Ms. Kloosterman to pledge, against her sincerely held religious convictions and her medical conscience, that she would speak biology-obscuring pronouns and make referrals for 'gender transition' drugs and procedures," according to the lawsuit by Kloosterman's attorneys. These were, at this point, purely hypotheticals: "No patient ever asked her for a referral for such drugs or procedures, and she never used pronouns contrary to a patient's wishes," the suit claimed. But when Kloosterman requested a religious accommodation, she was "summoned" to a meeting with administrators, who "called her 'evil' and a 'liar,' mockingly told her that she could not take the Bible or her religious beliefs to work with her, and blamed her for gender dysphoria-related suicides," according to the lawsuit, which alleges she was fired in August 2021, shortly after the meeting. The health system denied all allegations, and in April 2024, U.S. District Judge Jane Beckering dismissed Kloosterman's case to proceed into arbitration. Kloosterman's lawyers filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Appellate judges heard oral arguments in the case in February but have not issued a decision. HHS initiated its investigation under the Church Amendments because it's "committed to enforcing Federal conscience laws in health care," said Paula M. Stannard, director of the department's Office for Civil Rights, in a statement announcing the investigation. "Health care workers should be able to practice both their professions and their faith." But the investigation "represents a real expansion beyond what the Trump administration did in the first term, and also in terms of the text of the law," Sepper said. The Church Amendments date to the 1970s and allow health care institutions and providers to refuse to participate in abortion or sterilization procedures. "Some of these also apply to end-of-life care and to physician aid in dying. So they have relatively narrow scope," Sepper said. "They focus on a set of procedures. They don't allow health care providers or institutions to refuse to provide all kinds of care based on their religious or moral objections." There is one broader provision in these laws that "is about the conscience-based decision to perform, or not to perform, a lawful medical procedure," said Bagenstos, the former HHS general counsel during the Biden administration. But that applies only to recipients of a "grant or contract for biomedical or behavioral research," he said. So this case is "an extreme stretch of the conscience protections, and probably more than a stretch." But Ismail Royer, director of Islam and religious freedom at the Religious Freedom Institute, which filed an amicus brief supporting Kloosterman's lawsuit, said the Church Amendments are just a few of the laws HHS enforces, along with broad civil rights protections and laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion. "This is not a case where someone is refusing to treat someone who is LGBT," Royer said. "This is a case of someone who does not believe that they should be forced to use pronouns that would constitute a lie." Other providers are available if a patient's "feelings are hurt," he said. "But hurt feelings do not constitute the basis for the government violating our constitutional rights." The stakes for a health system are very different in an HHS investigation than in civil suits, Sepper said. The government agency, which oversees the vast majority of health care spending, could decide to strip Medicare and Medicaid funding from the health system. HHS has previously been hesitant to remove funding, Sepper said. But it would be highly unusual - and possibly illegal - for HHS to actually withhold funding from the health system over a case like this, Bagenstos said. By taking up these investigations so publicly, Sepper said, HHS is putting health systems "in a very difficult situation." Antidiscrimination laws require them to treat transgender patients equally, she said. But now the administration is prioritizing "employees that might want to make it more difficult for transgender patients to receive care." These investigations are "meant to offer red meat to the anti-LGBT rights movement, to tell them that HHS is squarely on their side," Sepper said. ____ This article is from a partnership with Michigan Public and NPR. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
