RFK Jr.'s Agenda to Prohibit Fluoridation? Efforts Are Already in Progress
Recent studies on excessive fluoride exposure, coupled with a ruling from an Obama-nominated judge, may pave the way for a federal shift on the issue.
TroibNews 
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s commitment to eliminate fluoride from the nation’s drinking water presents a challenging yet feasible undertaking for the incoming Trump administration.
The addition of fluoride to water supplies is recognized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as one of the key public health successes of the 20th century, describing the practice as “a practical, cost-effective, and equitable way for communities to improve their residents’ oral health.” Currently, nearly two-thirds of Americans are served water containing added fluoride, a decision made by state and local health authorities rather than imposed by federal mandate.
However, increasing scrutiny regarding excessive fluoride exposure has led some environmental groups and health experts to express concerns, resulting in a few communities opting to discontinue water fluoridation. Recent developments, including a September federal court ruling and a bipartisan chemical safety law enacted in 2016, present a potential route through which President-elect Donald Trump’s administration could pursue a ban on fluoridation.
Legal experts caution that this effort would not come easily. Implementing such a ban via Environmental Protection Agency regulations could be a lengthy process, likely facing significant legal challenges. Strong resistance is expected from the American Dental Association, which argues that fluoridation is vital for the oral health of individuals who lack access to quality dental care, preventing at least 25 percent of tooth decay over a person's lifetime.
Interestingly, fluoride is a public health issue where Kennedy and Trump could find common ground, as the broader public health and environmental communities have consistently opposed numerous initiatives from the first Trump administration. Trump has expressed his intention to allow Kennedy—an advocate of vaccine skepticism who has built a platform on public distrust of government—to freely pursue his health agenda. In a recent interview, Kennedy reaffirmed his commitment to eliminating fluoride from drinking water.
When asked by NPR’s Steve Inskeep if Trump’s administration would call for the removal of fluoride from water on Inauguration Day—an idea Kennedy had shared on X over the weekend—Kennedy replied affirmatively, stating, “Yes, that is something the administration will do.”
During his victory speech early Wednesday, Trump indicated he would grant Kennedy broad authority to operate within his agenda, excluding oil and gas policy. "He wants to go do some things, and we're going to let him go to it," Trump told supporters in West Palm Beach, Florida.
While federal regulations do not mandate water utilities to add fluoride to their supplies, the government has recommended since the 1960s that small amounts be included to prevent cavities. The U.S. Public Health Service last reviewed these recommendations in 2015, revising the optimal fluoride levels downward.
Research indicates that excessive fluoride exposure over time can lead to various health issues, including dental fluorosis, which causes discoloration and surface imperfections on teeth, as well as skeletal fluorosis, impacting joints and potentially leading to osteoporosis. Given that fluoride can occur naturally in source water, the EPA established a federal drinking water limit for fluoride back in 1986, which exceeds the recommended level by nearly six times.
In recent years, concerns about fluoride’s neurotoxic effects have been amplified. A review by the National Institutes of Health’s National Toxicology Program found “moderate confidence” that long-term exposure to fluoride levels more than twice what the federal government recommends is “consistently associated with lower I.Q. in children.” The report acknowledged, however, that further studies are necessary to clarify this relationship.
This scientific analysis contributed to a federal judge's conclusion in an ongoing lawsuit filed by anti-fluoride activists, stating that even the federally recommended fluoride levels present “an unreasonable risk of injury to health of the public.” U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, nominated by President Barack Obama, made it clear that his ruling did not definitively assert fluoride’s harm to public health. However, he indicated that the associated risk warranted regulatory action under the federal Toxic Substances Control Act.
Although major environmental and public health organizations have not prioritized fluoride in drinking water, Chen’s ruling earned respect from some notable figures within these circles.
Linda Birnbaum, a former head of both the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program, praised Chen’s decision as “excellent.” She argued that fluoride’s benefits are primarily topical and stated, "We should not be exposing all fetuses and infants to something that can impact their brains."
Kennedy echoing this sentiment in the NPR interview, noted, “Fluoride made sense in the 1940s when they put it in, but now we have fluoride in toothpaste. We don’t need fluoride in our water and it’s a very bad way to deliver it because it’s delivered through the blood system.”
Some communities have already ceased fluoridation efforts following the court ruling. The decision now provides the Trump administration with a potential path to prohibit fluoride in drinking water, as explained by Robert Sussman, an environmental litigator and former EPA deputy administrator under the Clinton administration. He suggested that it presents a more straightforward option compared to the Safe Drinking Water Act, which is more oriented towards establishing safety limits rather than enforcing outright bans.
“EPA does have broad authority under TSCA, and if [the administration wants to be] really aggressive in its approach to implementing a ban, there are certainly the authorities there,” Sussman stated.
Previously, the EPA has employed TSCA to ban substances like asbestos and methylene chloride, a component in paint strippers associated with numerous fatalities.
Nonetheless, the EPA division responsible for toxic substances has faced challenges in keeping pace with legislative demands. Elevating the regulation of fluoride to a high-priority issue could detract from the agency’s ability to address other critical toxic chemicals such as formaldehyde and trichloroethylene, a widely used chemical spotlighted in the film “A Civil Action.”
The Biden administration also retains the option to appeal the court ruling mandating EPA regulation of fluoride. An EPA spokesperson indicated that the agency is still evaluating the ruling. Regardless, even if the Biden administration opts to appeal, the incoming Trump administration has the capacity to overturn that decision.
Under Biden, drinking water safety was a key objective, but the focus largely centered on contaminants prioritized by environmental and public health advocates. The Biden administration set a historic precedent with its first new drinking water contaminant regulation in over three decades, introducing stringent limits on “forever chemicals” utilized in products ranging from Teflon cookware to military firefighting foam, known to be linked to a variety of health issues, including cancer.
Moreover, the Biden administration also prioritized lead removal from drinking water systems, securing $15 billion for this initiative through a bipartisan infrastructure law. Last month, they finalized a regulation updating a 2020 Trump administration rule that mandates nearly all drinking water utilities eliminate lead pipes within the coming decade.
Alejandro Jose Martinez contributed to this report for TROIB News
The addition of fluoride to water supplies is recognized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as one of the key public health successes of the 20th century, describing the practice as “a practical, cost-effective, and equitable way for communities to improve their residents’ oral health.” Currently, nearly two-thirds of Americans are served water containing added fluoride, a decision made by state and local health authorities rather than imposed by federal mandate.
However, increasing scrutiny regarding excessive fluoride exposure has led some environmental groups and health experts to express concerns, resulting in a few communities opting to discontinue water fluoridation. Recent developments, including a September federal court ruling and a bipartisan chemical safety law enacted in 2016, present a potential route through which President-elect Donald Trump’s administration could pursue a ban on fluoridation.
Legal experts caution that this effort would not come easily. Implementing such a ban via Environmental Protection Agency regulations could be a lengthy process, likely facing significant legal challenges. Strong resistance is expected from the American Dental Association, which argues that fluoridation is vital for the oral health of individuals who lack access to quality dental care, preventing at least 25 percent of tooth decay over a person's lifetime.
Interestingly, fluoride is a public health issue where Kennedy and Trump could find common ground, as the broader public health and environmental communities have consistently opposed numerous initiatives from the first Trump administration. Trump has expressed his intention to allow Kennedy—an advocate of vaccine skepticism who has built a platform on public distrust of government—to freely pursue his health agenda. In a recent interview, Kennedy reaffirmed his commitment to eliminating fluoride from drinking water.
When asked by NPR’s Steve Inskeep if Trump’s administration would call for the removal of fluoride from water on Inauguration Day—an idea Kennedy had shared on X over the weekend—Kennedy replied affirmatively, stating, “Yes, that is something the administration will do.”
During his victory speech early Wednesday, Trump indicated he would grant Kennedy broad authority to operate within his agenda, excluding oil and gas policy. "He wants to go do some things, and we're going to let him go to it," Trump told supporters in West Palm Beach, Florida.
While federal regulations do not mandate water utilities to add fluoride to their supplies, the government has recommended since the 1960s that small amounts be included to prevent cavities. The U.S. Public Health Service last reviewed these recommendations in 2015, revising the optimal fluoride levels downward.
Research indicates that excessive fluoride exposure over time can lead to various health issues, including dental fluorosis, which causes discoloration and surface imperfections on teeth, as well as skeletal fluorosis, impacting joints and potentially leading to osteoporosis. Given that fluoride can occur naturally in source water, the EPA established a federal drinking water limit for fluoride back in 1986, which exceeds the recommended level by nearly six times.
In recent years, concerns about fluoride’s neurotoxic effects have been amplified. A review by the National Institutes of Health’s National Toxicology Program found “moderate confidence” that long-term exposure to fluoride levels more than twice what the federal government recommends is “consistently associated with lower I.Q. in children.” The report acknowledged, however, that further studies are necessary to clarify this relationship.
This scientific analysis contributed to a federal judge's conclusion in an ongoing lawsuit filed by anti-fluoride activists, stating that even the federally recommended fluoride levels present “an unreasonable risk of injury to health of the public.” U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, nominated by President Barack Obama, made it clear that his ruling did not definitively assert fluoride’s harm to public health. However, he indicated that the associated risk warranted regulatory action under the federal Toxic Substances Control Act.
Although major environmental and public health organizations have not prioritized fluoride in drinking water, Chen’s ruling earned respect from some notable figures within these circles.
Linda Birnbaum, a former head of both the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program, praised Chen’s decision as “excellent.” She argued that fluoride’s benefits are primarily topical and stated, "We should not be exposing all fetuses and infants to something that can impact their brains."
Kennedy echoing this sentiment in the NPR interview, noted, “Fluoride made sense in the 1940s when they put it in, but now we have fluoride in toothpaste. We don’t need fluoride in our water and it’s a very bad way to deliver it because it’s delivered through the blood system.”
Some communities have already ceased fluoridation efforts following the court ruling. The decision now provides the Trump administration with a potential path to prohibit fluoride in drinking water, as explained by Robert Sussman, an environmental litigator and former EPA deputy administrator under the Clinton administration. He suggested that it presents a more straightforward option compared to the Safe Drinking Water Act, which is more oriented towards establishing safety limits rather than enforcing outright bans.
“EPA does have broad authority under TSCA, and if [the administration wants to be] really aggressive in its approach to implementing a ban, there are certainly the authorities there,” Sussman stated.
Previously, the EPA has employed TSCA to ban substances like asbestos and methylene chloride, a component in paint strippers associated with numerous fatalities.
Nonetheless, the EPA division responsible for toxic substances has faced challenges in keeping pace with legislative demands. Elevating the regulation of fluoride to a high-priority issue could detract from the agency’s ability to address other critical toxic chemicals such as formaldehyde and trichloroethylene, a widely used chemical spotlighted in the film “A Civil Action.”
The Biden administration also retains the option to appeal the court ruling mandating EPA regulation of fluoride. An EPA spokesperson indicated that the agency is still evaluating the ruling. Regardless, even if the Biden administration opts to appeal, the incoming Trump administration has the capacity to overturn that decision.
Under Biden, drinking water safety was a key objective, but the focus largely centered on contaminants prioritized by environmental and public health advocates. The Biden administration set a historic precedent with its first new drinking water contaminant regulation in over three decades, introducing stringent limits on “forever chemicals” utilized in products ranging from Teflon cookware to military firefighting foam, known to be linked to a variety of health issues, including cancer.
Moreover, the Biden administration also prioritized lead removal from drinking water systems, securing $15 billion for this initiative through a bipartisan infrastructure law. Last month, they finalized a regulation updating a 2020 Trump administration rule that mandates nearly all drinking water utilities eliminate lead pipes within the coming decade.
Alejandro Jose Martinez contributed to this report for TROIB News
