Fluoride in drinking water? The study renews the discussion on the impact on IQ: Downloads

Most communities in the US add fluoride to tap water. It has been a common practice for almost 80 years to protect from tooth decay and cavities, and is considered an important achievement in public health. Disease Control and Prevention Centers indicate that research shows that Community water fluorization reduces cavities by about 25%.

It has long drawn up opponents who have raised concerns about practice, ranging from evidence -based concerns to unfounded conspiracy theories. The discussion recently warmed up when elected President Donald Trump chose Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Ministry of Health and Human Services. Kennedy is a long-term anti-invitation activist who has also overcome the opposite fluoridation of water and, if confirmed in the role, could affect politics.

This week, government scientists published a document in the medical journal Jama he has added to the discussion. Is the analysis behind a 300 -page report It was released last August by the National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institutes of Health.

This report ended with “moderate confidence” that there may be a link between high levels of fluoride exposure and reduction of IQ. This could indicate potential neurodevelopmental development damage to pregnant or young children when exposed to drinking water containing at least 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter – one level more than twice that is recommended (0.7 mg/l) for the US water supply.

Monday’s resolution digs deeper into the data behind these conclusions. He examines some dozen foreign studies performed by other researchers, mainly in China and India, and finds a relationship between high levels of fluoride and a slight decrease in children’s IQ.

“There was not enough data to determine if 0.7 mg/L fluoride exposure to the IQ of children affected by drinking water,” writes Christine Flowers, director of the Communication Office at the National Institutes of Health.

While the conclusions are consistent with the August report, the timetable of the document, released weeks before Trump’s duties, gives it a renewed view. The contents of the exhibition received “substantial weight” in a A recent ruling of the federal court that ordered environmental protection service Dealing potential risks set by fluoride levels.

The analysis is controversial. The document was published in parallel with two posts in Jama. One by Steven Levy, a public health dentist at the University of Iowa, questioned the methods of analysis and disagreed with her conclusions. The other, from one trio of children’s health researchers, supported His findings.

Using this resolution – which is not unclear at fluoridation levels below 1.5 mg/l – to inform the conversation at low fluoride levels in drinking water feels like a stretch of fluoride supporters such as the levy.

“The main problem is that science is not as strong as it is presented by these writers,” he says. For example, study authors write in the document’s summary that the exposure of fluoride appears linked (in certain studies) with lower IQ to levels even below 1.5 mg/l, but Levy notes that the data they provide do not are decisive.

Levy also says that the authors did not fully examine any recent research that challenges the links between the exhibition of fluoride and IQ. He says that there is sometimes a standard in public health research, in which some initial studies indicate a problem, but over time, as the problem becomes better thoughtful, “elements go in a somewhat different direction”. He points out that some of the latest fluoride studies, which he believes are best designed, did not find a negative impact on the IQ and believes that more important analysis should have been more important.

In others, the analysis published this week makes a fairly strong case of imperfect evidence of action. “What the study does or should do is shift the burden of proof,” says Dr. Bruce LanphearA children’s health researcher at Simon Fraser University, who co-author of the other editorial, who supported the findings of the document. “People who suggest that fluoridation must now prove that it is safe.”

Lanphear agrees with concerns that the authors of the study raised that the basic level of fluoride, as well as the myriad of other sources of fluoride in people’s lives – such as toothpaste, mouth and food and drinks, including some tea, fruits, vegetables and seafood – could push fluoride to harmful levels in some vulnerable people.

“There is concern that pregnant women and children get fluoride from many sources … and that their overall fluoride exposure is too high and can affect fetal, infants and childhood neuroscience,” the NIH flowers wrote.

And while water fluorization clearly impedes the cavities, Lanphear says the relevant benefits have been reduced in recent decades since people began to use fluorid toothpaste, a point supported by recent resolution by the UK researchers.

“There are other ways in which we can protect children from cavity development,” he says. “We could, for example, adjust the sugar drinks … [or] They have programs to help children learn to brush their teeth more effectively. ”

It’s time to reassess the potential dangers of fluoride against its benefits, says Lanphear.

These benefits are significant and so common that they are considered given, says Levy. But “it is not that the cavities are under control for everyone,” he says. Fluoridated water benefits those who are poor and inadequate, who may not have fluorid toothpaste or regular access to dental care.

And while the cavities can be avoided in other ways, “these alternatives are for much more expensive things,” says Levy. “Even [providing] The fluoride toothpaste for individuals would be 10 to 20 times more expensive than water fluorization. The use of the fluoride mouth or the transition to the dentist to get fluoride treatments would be much more expensive. ”

Levy would like to see more high quality research on the subject before upgrading long -term policies. But even without more scientific clarity, the discussion is likely to escalate. The Environmental Protection Organization is facing delays if it offends the federal court ruling that orders it to reduce the risks of fluoride.

And Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He will soon face confirmation hearings where he may need to answer immediate questions about the views that has been shown in the past.