Adding fluoride to our water supply might have made sense in the 1940s, but today, it is an outdated practice whose necessity should be seriously questioned. Europe provides a valuable example: almost no country there fluoridates its water, and their dental health outcomes are largely on par with, if not better than, those in the United States. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), several European countries that do not fluoridate their water supplies have achieved similar or better dental health outcomes compared to the United States. For instance, data indicates that countries like Germany and Denmark report lower incidences of dental cavities among children. This fact alone should give us pause. If our European counterparts—advanced, prosperous and science-driven nations—have chosen not to fluoridate, perhaps we should reconsider whether this practice is beneficial or even necessary. And even if we set aside potential health concerns, the cost of adding fluoride to our water supply is significant, raising the question: is it really worth it?
Let us start with the context in which water fluoridation emerged. In the 1940s, fluoride was introduced into municipal water supplies to combat rampant tooth decay, a problem exacerbated by dietary habits and limited dental hygiene practices of the era. At that time, fluoride toothpaste was not readily available, and routine dental visits were a luxury for many Americans. In this setting, fluoridating the water seemed like a simple, effective solution to improve the nation’s dental health. But America in the 1940s was a very different place from today. We have made immense strides in public health, individual dental care and overall hygiene practices. We are a vastly more prosperous society, and fluoride is now available in abundance through other, far more targeted means.
One of the most compelling arguments against water fluoridation is the availability of fluoride from other sources. Today, 99% of toothpaste sold in the U.S. contains fluoride, and dentists routinely provide fluoride treatments during checkups, ensuring that everyone—especially children—has access to this essential mineral in a way that is much more controlled and localized. Unlike the systemic intake of fluoride from drinking water, topical applications provide fluoride directly to the teeth, precisely where it is needed. This targeted use is not only effective but preferred by healthcare professionals. Medical experts today generally advocate for topical fluoride applications rather than systemic ingestion, which is far more difficult to control and carries potential risks, particularly for young children. The American Dental Association (ADA) confirms that fluoride toothpaste is widely available and effective in preventing cavities. They recommend using fluoride toothpaste as a primary preventive measure, emphasizing its direct application to tooth surfaces.
Consider, too, the significant changes in drinking habits that have occurred since the mid-20th century. The prevalence of bottled water and filtered water systems has soared, and many Americans are now bypassing unfiltered tap water altogether. In 2022, the International Bottled Water Association reported that bottled water consumption in the U.S. reached approximately 50 gallons per person annually, reflecting a significant increase over the past two decades. When a large portion of the population opts for non-fluoridated bottled or filtered water, the entire argument for fluoridation as a public health measure begins to fall apart. Fluoridation depends on universal consumption to be effective. If fewer people are drinking tap water, then fewer people are receiving the supposed benefits, rendering the practice less impactful overall. This raises an important question: If so many people aren’t benefiting from fluoridated tap water, why are we paying to add it in the first place?
The economic cost of fluoridating community water supplies is often overlooked. Municipalities across the country spend millions of dollars annually to fluoridate their water systems, which is no small expense, especially for smaller or financially strained local governments. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that the per capita annual cost for community water fluoridation ranges from $0.11 to $24.38, depending on the size of the community. While larger communities benefit from economies of scale, smaller communities may face higher per capita costs, making the practice less economically viable. When we consider how this money could be redirected—perhaps toward more targeted dental health programs, educational campaigns or even better fluoride toothpaste distribution—it becomes clear that there might be more efficient ways to spend public funds to improve dental health outcomes.
Perhaps most importantly, there is also the matter of potential health risks. Recent studies have suggested a link between high fluoride intake and various health concerns, particularly in young children and pregnant women. On September 24, 2024, a U.S. District Court ruled that community water fluoridation at levels of 0.7 milligrams per liter presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health under the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act, and ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take regulatory action in response. Such a ruling underscores the point that, even if definitive proof of harm is still being debated, there are enough concerns about fluoride’s impact on cognitive development and bone health to warrant caution. A 2019 study published in JAMA Pediatrics found that higher prenatal fluoride exposure was associated with lower IQ scores in children aged 3 to 4 years. This study adds to a growing body of research raising concerns about the potential neurodevelopmental effects of fluoride overexposure. The potential for overexposure is not insignificant—fluoride is present in water, toothpaste, mouth rinses and even some foods and beverages. With so many possible sources of fluoride, why take the risk of adding even more through the water supply, particularly when doctors overwhelmingly favor topical use over ingestion?
In addition, Europe—with its robust public health systems, advanced scientific community and prosperous economies—has largely decided against water fluoridation. Countries such as Germany, France and Sweden have all chosen not to fluoridate their water since the 1970s, relying instead on alternative fluoride delivery methods like toothpaste and dental care. The decision of these nations to avoid systemic fluoridation is telling. They have arrived at a conclusion that systemic exposure, especially one imposed universally without individual consent, is neither necessary nor desirable. If the advanced nations of Europe can maintain excellent dental health outcomes without fluoridating their water, it stands to reason that the United States could follow a similar path.
Ultimately, fluoridating our water supply might have been the right move in the 1940s, but times have changed. We have more knowledge, better dental care products and an array of ways to deliver fluoride precisely where it is needed—directly on our teeth. Given the shift in drinking habits, the availability of fluoride from other sources, the costs involved and the emerging concerns over potential health impacts, it is time to reconsider whether adding fluoride to our water supply is still a sound public health measure. Even if there is just a small risk of negative health impacts, why take it? Why continue with an outdated approach when more modern, effective and targeted options exist?
In an age where Americans are increasingly choosing bottled and filtered water, where fluoride is ubiquitous in toothpaste, and where modern dental practices offer more controlled and effective means of fluoride application, fluoridating our water supply seems like an unnecessary relic of the past. It is time to retire this outdated practice, align ourselves with our European counterparts and focus on fluoride delivery methods that make sense in the modern world—methods that are controlled, targeted and safe.
Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.
READ NEXT: [ALERT] Airport Workers Threaten CHAOS On America’s Busiest Travel Day!
No thanks.