Dr. James H. Bekker made it clear while he was on a stage in front of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in Silver Spring, MD. On July 23: there is no way to replace fluoride supplements if the government decides to remove them from the market.
In communities without fluoridated water, these supplements are the only way in which families can help children get access to fluoride, the dentist said, protecting their teeth against decay.
“If we don’t have a fluoride, there are certain things that happen that are very disturbing” hearing Debating of the FDA plan to ban removable fluoride tablets from the market. “We have an increase in tooth decay and we have an increase in the use of emergency services to receive care for dental emergency situations.”
Nevertheless, the FDA seems to be going to prohibit these supplements after a controversial hearing in which scientists, pediatricians and other doctors argue for and against the prohibition of fluoride supplements. The movement comes after a controversial study Published in Jama Pediatrics In January 2025 it discovered that significant exposure to fluoride was linked to a decrease in children’s IQ scores. The level of fluoride linked to IQ decay was much greater than the amount to which children are exposed through supplements or fluoridated water.
“What this says is that fluoride in water caused a cognitive decrease in younger children – so that is difficult to defend,” said Dr. George Tidmarsh, the former pharmaceutical director Recently tapped To run the FDA center for drug evaluation and research during the hearing. He then criticized the pro-fluoride presentations that had just taken place and praised the presentation of Dr. Bill Osmunson, a dentist on the board of directors of the Fluoride Action Network, a group that argues against fluoride throughout the country.
In May the FDA said it was Initiate action To remove incorporable fluoride recipe medicine products for children from the market, and that it had asked the organization that Tidmarsh is now on its way to evaluate the evidence of these drug products on prescription. It established a date before October 31 for completing a safety assessment and public comment period, and for “taking appropriate measures with regard to removing these products from the market.” The hearing of July 23 was part of that public comment period.
These fluoride supplements, unlike fluoridated water, have not been extensively studied or tested, what is one of the reasons why the FDA says it wants to prohibit them. “When it comes to children, we have to mistake the side of safety,” said FDA commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, in the announcement that the FDA would move to prohibit supplements.
Read more: America’s dental health is in trouble
The movement to limit access to fluoride supplements follows efforts to ban fluoride throughout the country; These efforts have been successful in Utah and Florida, who have forbidden both fluoride this year to drink this year. Challenges for fluoride in the drinking water were more common after Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), called Fluoride “Industrial Waste” in November 2024And said that the Trump administration would advise that it will be removed from the drinking water supply.
The debate on fluoride is the newest example of how Kennedy’s term of office has built up on HHS decades of scientific consensus, so that many medical professionals are brought into the defense. Fluoride has been generally proven that it reduces cavities, and places that are forbidden fluoride from drinking water such as Calgary, in Canada, saw a remarkable increase In tooth decay afterwards. (Calgary later decided to restore fluoride to the water supply.) Studies that indicate negative effects of fluoride on the IQ and the thyroid function of children, on the other hand, were usually performed outside the US and looked at higher series of fluoride than most American children are exposed.
“We are the only country that questions the safety of fluoride at this level,” says Dr. Scott Tomar, a dentist at the University of Illinois Chicago College of Dentistry, one of the many medical professionals who spoke during the hearing and did not seem a bit frustrated by a part of the science that was forward.
Doctors and dentists also said that the prohibition of fluoride supplements would have disproportionate influence on children with a low income who do not have consistent access to dental care and who often live in areas who already have a high degree of cavities. Even if these children have the best practices to take care of their teeth, the absence of fluoride can hurt.
“Just brushing and using toothpaste is not enough,” said Dr. Jennifer Webster-Cyriaque, a dentist who is the acting director of the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research at the National Institutes of Health.
While the official FDA panels were evenly divided between pro and anti-fluoride speakers, the public commentary period was full of doctors and dentists who repeated the benefits of fluoridation.
“It is important to note that there are no serious or robust data to support the claim that these products pose a threat to public health,” said Peter Pitts, president and co-founder of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, in the public commentary period.
Read more: The science behind fluoride in drinking water
The American Dental Association, the American Association of Pediatrics, other professional medical organizations, as well as many independent dentists and dental hygienists have submitted comments to the FDA on the subject of fluoridation, argue for the supplements to stay on the market. One of the irony of the move to ban fluoride supplements is that forbidden fluoride from water stocks to supplements pointed as a way in which families could give their children as soon as it was removed from the water supply. Now the government is talking about the removal of that.
“That whole argument in that legislation was:” Get a supplement, “said Bekker, the dentist from Utah. “While we are considering supplements, the possibility of having them available is a matter of choice of people. We do not force anyone to take them; we allow them to have an option and have a choice.”
TIDMARSH, of the FDA, assured the pro-fluoride contingent that if supplements are forbidden, there is still a way to get them back on the market: as a medicine. He pointed out that supplements were not approved by the FDA, which means that they have not undergone rigorous tests and analysis. (Many pharmaceutical products that are prescribed to children, such as some cold medicines, did not go through that analysis either, because it is not the case Many clinical studies Involved with children.) “If we decide to get sodium fluoride supplement from the market, there is nothing that would prevent a group from doing the rigorous studies that brings it back to the FDA,” he said.
The hearing contained evidence about the effect of fluoride on intestinal microbioma, on neurocognitive development and on the thyroid gland. But many of these presentations received pushback from doctors and dentists during the hearing, who said they did not present the full picture of what the research actually thought.
“What we have seen today are people who draw cherry picks and conclusions without presenting us the full data we need,” said Dr. Charlotte W. Lewis, a pediatrician and professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine, during the hearing. “And that is not what research in this country should be about.”
#FDA #prohibit #fluorides #supplements #Dentists #upset