Science
What a new study does — and doesn't — say about fluoride and its link to IQ
A new report linking fluoridated drinking water to lower IQ scores in children is sure to ratchet up the debate over a practice that’s considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.
The report published Monday in JAMA Pediatrics synthesizes the results of dozens of research studies that have been released since 1989. Its overall conclusion is that the more fluoride a child is exposed to, the lower he or she tends to score on intelligence tests.
The analysis was conducted for the U.S. National Toxicology Program, and it has attracted a good deal of criticism over the many years of its development. Among the biggest critiques is that it’s based on data from places where fluoride levels are far higher than the concentration recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service.
Adding fluoride to community drinking water is credited with reducing the average number of teeth with cavities by 44% in adults and 58% in adolescents since the 1960s, the health service says. Yet even with the proliferation of fluoride-containing toothpastes and dental sealants, tooth decay is still the most common chronic disease affecting American children, and the average senior citizen is missing at least 10 permanent teeth.
About 209 million Americans receive fluoridated water in their taps, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, has said he’d like to see that number fall to zero, in part due to concerns over “IQ loss.”
The JAMA Pediatrics report is based on work prepared for the National Toxicology Program’s 324-page monograph on fluoride and brain development, which was finalized in August. Here’s a closer look at what it does — and doesn’t — show.
Where do the data come from?
The report combines data from 74 studies on fluoride exposure and children’s IQ. The bulk of them — 45 — were conducted in China, and another 12 were from India. None were from the United States, although three were from Canada and four were from Mexico.
Ten of the studies were designed to follow groups of people over time to see how their differing levels of fluoride exposure affected IQ scores and other outcomes. The rest of the studies assessed a population’s fluoride exposure and IQ at the same time.
IQ scores were usually reported as averages for a group, though sometimes they reflected an individual’s specific level of fluoride exposure.
How much fluoride are we talking about?
Fluoride exposure was measured multiple ways.
Sometimes researchers measured the amount of fluoride in a community’s drinking water, and sometimes they measured the amount of fluoride in participants’ urine. Dental fluorosis — a condition that occurs when teeth get too much fluoride and appear to be stained — was also used to assess exposure. So were environmental factors, such as exposure to pollution from burning coal with a high fluoride content.
The studies were grouped into three categories: those in which exposure was less than 4 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water (the maximum concentration allowed in the U.S. by the Environmental Protection Agency); those in which exposure was less than 2 mg/L (the EPA’s non-enforceable secondary standard to prevent cosmetic problems in places where fluoride levels are naturally high); and those in which exposure was less than 1.5 mg/L (the guideline value set by the World Health Organization).
So what’s the link with IQ?
Of the 65 studies included in the primary analysis, 64 found an inverse relationship between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ — the higher (or lower) fluoride was, the lower (or higher) IQ scores were.
The researchers also pooled together data on nearly 21,000 children from 59 studies that reported average IQ scores. Those data showed that children exposed to higher fluoride levels had lower IQ scores than children exposed to lower fluoride levels.
In addition, the report authors combined data from 38 studies and crunched the numbers themselves to see whether there was an overall dose-response relationship between fluoride and IQ. Sure enough, they wrote, “lower children’s IQ scores were associated with increasing levels of fluoride exposure.”
This sounds bad. Should I be worried?
Not necessarily. The findings are only as strong as the data they’re based on, and the studies in this analysis have some issues.
For starters, 52 of the 74 studies were judged by the report authors to have a “high risk of bias.” That undermines the validity and reliability of their results.
Another issue is that most of the studies considered fluoride exposures far above the target level for the U.S. Since 2015, the Public Health Service has pegged the “optimal” concentration of fluoride at 0.7 mg/L, the equivalent of about 3 drops of fluoride in a 55-gallon barrel. (Prior to that, the target ranged from 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L.)
Only seven of the studies assessed children whose water contained less than 1.5 mg/L of fluoride. When they were considered on their own, there was no relationship between fluoride exposure and IQ.
Besides, the American Academy of Pediatrics has noted that assessing IQ in children is not a straightforward affair, since measurements can be skewed by “socioeconomic, physical, familial, cultural, genetic, nutritional, and environmental factors.” Comparing IQ scores from multiple studies in multiple countries as if they were the same only compounds the problem, the academy said.
Hmmm. What else should I know about this report?
Plenty. In fact, JAMA Pediatrics published an editorial by Dr. Steven M. Levy, a dental public health expert from the University of Iowa, to enumerate the reasons why the report shouldn’t be taken at face value.
Take the issue of bias. Of the 59 studies that comprised the heart of the analysis, only 12 had a low risk of bias, and eight of them found no inverse connection between fluoride and IQ, Levy wrote.
Then there’s the use of urine to measure fluoride exposure. The report authors touted this as a more precise way to measure an individual’s exposure to fluoride from all sources, not just drinking water. But that reasoning is contrary to the “scientific consensus,” Levy wrote. Urinary fluoride measurements vary significantly over the course of a day and from one day to the next, so there’s no way to know whether any particular sample is indicative of a person’s long-term exposure.
Levy also chided the report authors for cherry-picking the studies they included in their analysis. For instance, given the choice of two publications based on data from the Canadian Maternal-Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals study, the report authors opted against the one that included fluoride exposure after birth. The publication they omitted found no link between “fluoride exposure during pregnancy, infancy, or childhood and full-scale IQ,” he wrote.
Other recent, high-quality studies showing no association got short shrift as well, he added.
Is that all?
There are other critiques about methodology and statistical analysis. But one of Levy’s biggest complaints about the report is the “lack of transparency” about its backstory.
The authors downplayed the report’s link to the controversial monograph they produced for the National Toxicology Program, Levy wrote. The first two drafts of that monograph received harsh peer reviews from the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine. The initial version lacked clear evidence to support the authors’ claim that “fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans,” and the second one glossed over the fact that it wasn’t equipped to shed light on the risks posed by the low concentration of fluoride in U.S. water systems, the NASEM reviewers said.
Nor, Levy wrote, does the new report mention that animal studies using fluoride levels that reflect the U.S. standard of 0.7 mg/L found “no exposure-related differences in motor, sensory, or learning and memory performance” in nearly a dozen tests, as researchers reported in 2018.
How can I tell whether fluoride is being added to my water?
State and local authorities decide for themselves whether to fluoridate the water supply. In some places, the water is naturally high in fluoride because there happens to be a lot of it in the soil and bedrock. If the concentration is higher than 2.0 mg/L, the EPA requires officials to notify people who drink that water within 12 months. If the concentration exceeds 4.0 mg/L, officials must notify people within 30 days and take steps to reduce fluoride to safe levels.
Nearly 63% of Americans receive fluoridated water, including the 3.5% whose fluoride levels exceed optimal levels, according to the CDC. If you want to see whether your water system adds fluoride, try looking it up on the CDC website. (Depending on where you live, you may have to contact your water supplier directly.)
If you live in Los Angeles County, you can use this map to see whether you’re among the 62% receiving “optimally fluoridated” water, the 5% whose water is “largely fluoridated,” the 22% whose water is “partially fluoridated,” or the 11% whose water isn’t fluoridated.
That doesn’t mean the water is fluoride-free: According to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the city’s groundwater contains fluoride at concentrations ranging from 0.1 to 0.3 mg/L, and fluoride levels in the water supplied by the Los Angeles Aqueduct range between 0.4 and 0.8 mg/L. All water delivered by the DWP is adjusted to a fluoride concentration of 0.7 mg/L, the agency says.
So what’s the bottom line?
The report authors acknowledged that their analysis “was not designed to address the broader public health implications of water fluoridation in the United States.” Even so, they suggested that their findings “may inform future public health risk-benefit assessments of fluoride.”
A second editorial that accompanies the report said it raises enough questions to warrant a reassessment of “the potential risks of fluoride during early brain development.” The lack of a clear link between IQ scores and fluoride exposure below 1.5 mg/L “does not exonerate fluoride as a potential risk,” the editorial argued.
Levy disagreed. “There is no evidence of an adverse effect at the lower water fluoride levels commonly used” in water systems in the U.S., he wrote. “The widespread use of fluoride for [cavity] prevention should continue.”
Science
The share of Americans medically obese is projected to rise to almost 50% by 2035
On Wednesday, a new study published in JAMA by researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle projected that by 2035, nearly half of all American adults, about 126 million individuals, will be living with obesity. The study draws on data from more than 11 million participants via the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, and from the independent Gallup Daily Survey.
The projections show a striking increase in the prevalence of obesity over the past few decades in the U.S. In 1990, only 19.3% of U.S. adults were obese, according to the study. That figure more than doubled to 42.5% by 2022, and is forecast to reach 46.9% by 2035.
The study highlights significant disparities across states, ages, and racial and ethnic groups. While every state is expected to see increases, the sharpest rises are projected for Midwestern and Southern states.
For example, nationwide, by 2035, the study projects that 60% (11.5 million adults) of Black women and 54% (14.5 million) of Latino women will suffer from obesity when compared with 47% (36.5 million) of white women. Similarly, 48% (13.2 million) of Latino men will suffer from the disease compared with 45% (34.4 million) of white men and 43% (7.61 million) of Black men.
The findings say California will see similar trends in gender and racial disparities. The study projects that by 2035, obesity rates among Latino and Black women in California will reach nearly 60%, compared with nearly 40% for their white counterparts. Additionally, Latino men in California could see rates over 50%, compared with nearly 40% for their white counterparts.
“These numbers are not surprising, given the systemic inequalities that exist,” in many California cities, said Dr. Amanda Velazquez, director of obesity medicine at Cedars-Sinai Hospital, pointing to economic instability, chronic stress and the car-dependency of Los Angeles and other California metro areas. “There are challenges for access to nutritious foods, depending on where you’re at in the city,” Velazquez said. ”There’s also disparities in the access to healthcare, especially to treatment for obesity.”
That’s recently become more of a challenge, since changes in Medi-Cal plans that went into effect at the beginning of this year mean obesity medication and treatment are no longer covered for hundreds of thousands of low-income Californians. “To take that away is devastating,” said Velazquez.
Despite these disparities, California is projected to fare better than most other states, with its rates of obesity growing more slowly than the national average.
“There are statewide and local policies that influence food, nutrition and social determinants of health for individuals,” said Velazquez.
Church pointed to measures such as SB 12 and SB 677, passed in the mid 2000s, which set strict nutritional standards for schools, existing menu labeling laws at both the state and federal levels requiring restaurants to provide nutritional facts on menu items, and cities like Berkeley and Oakland imposing local soda taxes as key local and statewide initiatives to keep obesity at bay.
To keep up this momentum, both doctors stressed that California must continue to strengthen school nutrition standards, expand transportation infrastructure that encourages walking instead of driving, maintain and expand economic disincentives to unhealthy foods, such as beverage taxes, and address food deserts by incentivizing new grocery stores and farmers’ markets in underserved neighborhoods.
Future efforts, Church says, should prioritize the Black and Latino populations identified by the study as most affected.
Science
Pediatricians urge Americans to stick with previous vaccine schedule despite CDC’s changes
For decades, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention spoke with a single voice when advising the nation’s families on when to vaccinate their children.
Since 1995, the two organizations worked together to publish a single vaccine schedule for parents and healthcare providers that clearly laid out which vaccines children should get and exactly when they should get them.
Today, that united front has fractured. This month, the Department of Health and Human Services announced drastic changes to the CDC’s vaccine schedule, slashing the number of diseases that it recommends U.S. children be routinely vaccinated against to 11 from 17. That follows the CDC’s decision last year to reverse its recommendation that all kids get the COVID-19 vaccine.
On Monday, the AAP released its own immunization guidelines, which now look very different from the federal government’s. The organization, which represents most of the nation’s primary care and specialty doctors for children, recommends that children continue to be routinely vaccinated against 18 diseases, just as the CDC did before Robert F. Kennedy Jr. took over the nation’s health agencies.
Endorsed by a dozen medical groups, the AAP schedule is far and away the preferred version for most healthcare practitioners. California’s public health department recommends that families and physicians follow the AAP schedule.
“As there is a lot of confusion going on with the constant new recommendations coming out of the federal government, it is important that we have a stable, trusted, evidence-based immunization schedule to follow and that’s the AAP schedule,” said Dr. Pia Pannaraj, a member of AAP’s infectious disease committee and professor of pediatrics at UC San Diego.
Both schedules recommend that all children be vaccinated against measles, mumps, rubella, polio, pertussis, tetanus, diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib), pneumococcal disease, human papillomavirus (HPV) and varicella (better known as chickenpox).
AAP urges families to also routinely vaccinate their kids against hepatitis A and B, COVID-19, rotavirus, flu, meningococcal disease and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).
The CDC, on the other hand, now says these shots are optional for most kids, though it still recommends them for those in certain high-risk groups.
The schedules also vary in the recommended timing of certain shots. AAP advises that children get two doses of HPV vaccine starting at ages 9 to12, while the CDC recommends one dose at age 11 or 12. The AAP advocates starting the vaccine sooner, as younger immune systems produce more antibodies. While several recent studies found that a single dose of the vaccine confers as much protection as two, there is no single-dose HPV vaccine licensed in the U.S. yet.
The pediatricians’ group also continues to recommend the long-standing practice of a single shot combining the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) and varicella vaccines in order to limit the number of jabs children get. In September, a key CDC advisory panel stocked with hand-picked Kennedy appointees recommended that the MMR and varicella vaccines be given as separate shots, a move that confounded public health experts for its seeming lack of scientific basis.
The AAP is one of several medical groups suing HHS. The AAP’s suit describes as “arbitrary and capricious” Kennedy’s alterations to the nation’s vaccine policy, most of which have been made without the thorough scientific review that previously preceded changes.
Days before AAP released its new guidelines, it was hit with a lawsuit from Children’s Health Defense, the anti-vaccine group Kennedy founded and previously led, alleging that its vaccine guidance over the years amounted to a form of racketeering.
The CDC’s efforts to collect the data that typically inform public health policy have noticeably slowed under Kennedy’s leadership at HHS. A review published Monday found that of 82 CDC databases previously updated at least once a month, 38 had unexplained interruptions, with most of those pauses lasting six months or longer. Nearly 90% of the paused databases included vaccination information.
“The evidence is damning: The administration’s anti-vaccine stance has interrupted the reliable flow of the data we need to keep Americans safe from preventable infections,” Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo wrote in an editorial for Annals of Internal Medicine, a scientific journal. Marrazzo, an infectious disease specialist, was fired last year as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases after speaking out against the administration’s public health policies.
Science
‘We’re not going away’: Rob Caughlan, fierce defender of the coastline and Surfrider leader, dies at the age of 82
Known by friends and colleagues as a “planetary patriot,” a “happy warrior” and the “Golden State Eco-Warrior,” Rob Caughlan, a political operative, savvy public relations specialist and one of the early leaders of the Surfrider Foundation, died at his home in San Mateo, on Jan. 17. He was 82.
His wife of nearly 62 years, Diana, died four days earlier, from lung cancer.
Environmentalists, political operatives and friends responded to his death with grief but also joy as they recalled his passion, talent and sense of humor — and his drive not only to make the world a better place, but to have fun doing it.
“He’d always say that the real winner in a surfing contest was the guy who had the most fun,” said Lennie Roberts, a conservationist in San Mateo County and longtime friend of Caughlan’s. “He was true to that. It’s the way he lived.”
“When he walked into a room, he’d have a big smile on his face. He was a great — a gifted — people person,” said Dan Young, one of the original five founders of the Surfrider Foundation. The organization was cobbled together in the early 1980s by a group of Southern California surfers who felt called to protect the coastline — and their waves.
They also wanted to dispel the stereotype that surfers are lackadaisical stoners — and show the world that surfers could get organized and fight for just causes, said Roberts, citing Caughlan’s 2020 memoir, “The Surfer in the White House and Other Salty Yarns.”
Before joining Surfrider in 1986, Caughlan was a political operative who worked as an environmental adviser in the Carter administration. According to Warner Chabot, an old friend and recently retired executive director of the an Francisco Estuary Institute, Caughlan got his start during the early 1970s when he and his friend, David Oke, formed the Sam Ervin Fan Club, which supported the Southern senator’s efforts to lead the Watergate investigation of President Nixon.
According to Chabot, Caughlan organized the printing of T-shirts with Ervin’s face on them, underneath the text “I Trust Uncle Sam.”
“He was an early social influencer — par extraordinaire,” he said.
Glenn Hening, a surfer, former Jet Propulsion Laboratory space software engineer and another original founder of the Surfrider Foundation, said one of the group’s initial fights was against the city of Malibu, which in the early 1980s was periodically digging up sand in the lagoon right offshore and destroying the waves at one of their favorite surf spots.
According to Hening, it was Caughlin’s unique ability to persuade and charm politicians and donors that put Surfrider’s efforts on the map.
Caughlan served as the foundation’s president from 1986 to 1992.
The foundation grabbed the national spotlight in 1989 when it went after two large paper mills in Humboldt Bay that were discharging toxic wastewater into an excellent surfspot in Northern California. The foundation took aim and in 1991 filed suit alongside the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; the paper mills settled for $5.8 million.
Hening said the victory would never have happened without Caughlan.
The mills had tried to brush off the suit by offering a donation to the foundation, Hening said. But Caughlan and Mark Massara — an environmental lawyer with the organization — rebuffed the gesture.
“The paper mill guys said, ‘Well, what can we do here? How can we make this go away?’” said Hening, recalling the conversation. “And Rob said, ‘It’s not going to go away. We’re not going away. We’re surfers.”
Roberts said Caughlan’s legacy can be felt by anyone who has ever spent time on the San Mateo County coastline. In the 1980s, the two spearheaded a successful ballot measure still protects the coast from non-agricultural development and ensured access to the beaches and bluffs. It also prohibits onshore oil facilities for off-shore facilities.
The two also worked on a county measure that led to the development of the Devil’s Slide tunnels on Highway 1 between Pacifica and Montara, designed to make that formerly treacherous path safer for travelers.
The state had wanted to build a six-lane highway over the steep hills in the area. “It would have been dangerous because of the steep slopes, and it would be going up into the fog bank and then back down out of the fog. So it was inherently dangerous,” Roberts said.
Chad Nelsen, the current president of the Surfrider Foundation, said he was first drawn into Caughlan’s orbit in 2010 when Surfrider got involved with a lawsuit pertaining to a beach in San Mateo County. Silicon Valley venture capitalist Vinod Khosla purchased 53 acres of Northern California coastline for $32.5 million and closed off access to the public — including a popular stretch known as Martin’s Beach — so Surfrider sued.
Nelsen said that although Caughlan had left the organization about 20 years before, he reappeared with a “sort of unbridled enthusiasm and commitment to the cause,” and the organization ultimately prevailed — the public can once again access the beach “thanks to ‘Birdlegs.’”
Birdlegs was Caughlan’s nickname, and according to Nelsen, it was probably coined in the 1970s by his fellow surfers.
“He had notoriously spindly legs, I guess,” Nelsen said.
Robert Willis Caughlan was born in Alliance, Ohio, on Feb. 27, 1943. His father, who was a parachute instructor with the U.S. Army, died when Caughlan was 4. In 1950, Caughlan moved with his mother and younger brother to San Mateo, where he saw the ocean for the first time.
He rode his his first wave in 1959, at the age of 16, from the breakwater at Half Moon Bay.
-
Illinois6 days agoIllinois school closings tomorrow: How to check if your school is closed due to extreme cold
-
Pittsburg, PA1 week agoSean McDermott Should Be Steelers Next Head Coach
-
Pennsylvania2 days agoRare ‘avalanche’ blocks Pennsylvania road during major snowstorm
-
Lifestyle1 week agoNick Fuentes & Andrew Tate Party to Kanye’s Banned ‘Heil Hitler’
-
Sports1 week agoMiami star throws punch at Indiana player after national championship loss
-
Cleveland, OH1 week agoNortheast Ohio cities dealing with rock salt shortage during peak of winter season
-
Technology6 days agoRing claims it’s not giving ICE access to its cameras
-
Science1 week agoContributor: New food pyramid is a recipe for health disasters