RFK Jr. says 'more cavities' under fluoride bans is 'a balance'
"It's a balance. You're going to see probably slightly more cavities," Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said on Fox News.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said on Thursday that nixing fluoride from public drinking water may result in more cavities.
"It's a balance," Kennedy said during interview on Fox News' "The Faulkner Focus" on Thursday, June 26. "You're going to see probably slightly more cavities. Although in Europe, where they ban fluoride, they did not see an uptick in cavities. The issue is parents need to decide because the science is very clear on fluoride."
Fluoridation is not banned in Europe, according to a 2018 fact sheet from the American Dental Association (ADA). However, adding fluoride to drinking water is not as widespread in European countries as in the U.S. Some European countries fluoridate their water, while others do not and the reasoning and result of those actions varies, according to BBC reporting. USA TODAY has reached out to ADA for more information.
Kennedy's response came after anchor Harris Faulkner asked him how removing fluoride from public drinking water would affect children who don't have access to dentists or proper oral healthcare.
Kennedy has been pushing to ban fluoride in public drinking water. In April, during a meeting with President Donald Trump, he said that kids get "stupider" the more fluoride they take in. Kennedy's remarks were met with backlash, as the study he pulled from was criticized for inadequate statistical rigor and other methodological flaws.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately respond for additional comment when contacted by USA TODAY on Friday, June 27.
Fluoride bans: Two states have now passed fluoride bans. These other ones introduced bills.
What is fluoride?
Fluoride is a naturally-occurring mineral found in many foods and water and has been long thought to help prevent tooth decay, according to the Cleveland Clinic.
Throughout the day, the protective outer layer of our teeth, called enamel, breaks down. Natural minerals within the enamel are broken down by bacteria, plaque and sugar. This is called demineralization. To gain these minerals back, people must consume food and water that contains chemicals like fluoride, calcium and phosphate, the Cleveland Clinic states. This is known as remineralization.
The Cleveland Clinic says with too much demineralization and not enough remineralization, tooth decay may begin.
Exclusive: As RFK Jr. targets fluoride, Texas is coming for kids toothpaste
When was fluoride introduced in the US?
Fluoride was first introduced in Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1945, according to the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC).
Where is fluoride banned in the U.S.?
Utah and Florida have banned fluoride from public drinking water – Utah in March and Florida in May. Kennedy has championed these states, and others looking to pass bans, including Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, South Carolina, North Dakota, Arkansas, Tennessee, Montana and New Hampshire.
American Dental Association responds to fluoride bans
After Utah passed its fluoride ban in March, the ADA released a statement saying dentists "see the direct consequences fluoride removal has on our patients."
"It's a real tragedy when policymakers' decisions hurt vulnerable kids and adults in the long term. Blindly calling for a ban on fluoridated water hurts people, costs money and will ultimately harm our economy," ADA President Dr. Brett Kessler said in a news release.
The ADA has also pointed to studies, like one 2024 study conducted by the University of Queensland, which found that children exposed and not exposed to fluoride showed no difference in IQ testing.
Contributing: Natalie Neysa Alund, Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy and Mary Walrath-Holdridge, USA TODAY
Greta Cross is a national trending reporter at USA TODAY. Story idea? Email her at gcross@usatoday.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. Wants Every American To Wear A Health-Tracking Device, And Security Experts Have Serious Concerns
If you don't yet wear a smartwatch or smart ring to monitor your health and fitness, you may soon be encouraged to do so by some of the highest-ranking members of the government. During a House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee hearing, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he'd like all Americans to use wearable health products, such as Fitbits, Apple Watches, Oura Rings, WHOOP and glucose monitors, to 'control' their health and 'take responsibility' for it. According to Poltico, Kennedy said people can use wearables to track 'what food is doing to their glucose levels, their heart rates and a number of other metrics as they eat it, and they can begin to make good judgments about their diet, about their physical activity, about the way that they live their lives.' While this remains just a suggestion and not a mandate, it's been announced that the Department of Health and Human Services will launch a campaign to encourage Americans to wear these devices. Wearables can track your heart rate, menstrual cycle, fitness regimen, blood sugar levels, sleep patterns, location and more. They're a great way to understand your health (for example, the Oura Ring lets you know when it thinks you're getting sick) and to stick to a workout regimen (the Apple Watch is both loved and hated for its 'close your rings' reminders). While they can be helpful for the average person, these devices store lots and lots of our data — is it safe for all of this information to be out there? And what happens if this data ends up in the wrong hands — including the government's? Experts weigh in. First, know that no one has said the government will actually collect this health data. Related: It Turns Out That Most People Wipe Their Butts Completely Wrong, But This Doctor Is Here To Teach Us The Right Way There is a major difference between the government having access to health data and the government simply encouraging folks to use wearables for their own health tracking, said Alex Hamerstone, the advisory solutions director for TrustedSec, an ethical hacking company. 'Those are obviously two very different questions, and there's no indication at this point that they're looking to have the government have access to that data,' he noted. The government does, though, already have access to lots of health data. 'If you look at the percent of people who receive health care through Medicare and Medicaid and state programs, and so on and so forth, they already have a lot of very detailed information,' Hamerstone noted. 'I know there are guardrails around it and things like that, but not to get into any kind of political thing, but a lot of those guardrails seem to be falling down,' he noted. You should also understand that no matter who is privy to it, health data is very valuable. You've probably heard the phrase 'data is the new currency,' meaning your personal data has inherent value to companies. It's how they sell you ads and understand your needs. But 'health data is just kind of a different category of data,' said Hamerstone. Having your credit card hacked is temporarily annoying, but you're not liable, and typically, after some phone calls and logistics, your life will go back to normal. 'But if someone gets access to your private health care data, that's much different. It's a different kind of data,' Hamerstone said. 'So, somebody knowing how many steps you take is one thing, but if you start to get into things like glucose levels or very detailed medical information, those things could start to affect other parts of your life,' he added. This could impact insurance rates and insurance options, Hamerstone said. Some experts are worried about the government's ability to protect health data because of past breaches. Related: Older Women Are Revealing Their Biggest "Life Regrets," And Every Young Person Needs To Hear This Kevin Johnson, the CEO of Secure Ideas, a security testing and consulting company, has concerns about the government's ability to protect any data that is gathered through the use of wearables. For instance, in 2018, there was a major security breach involving the Strava fitness app and the U.S. government in which soldiers' locations at military bases were shared via Strava. 'So, the idea that the government is saying we're going to encourage ... wearing of these when the government had a significant security problem due to this, that's one of the concerns that I just don't understand how we forgot that happened,' said Johnson. Overall, Johnson said, there are 'significant security issues with wearable devices.' 'My company and other companies have tested these devices. We've found vulnerabilities. We have found ways that the wearable technology gives an attacker access to your data because of security lapses in the hardware and software. We've seen multiple cases where attackers are able to gain access to things that are unrelated to the health care data because of security problems,' Johnson said. There have also been privacy violations when data brokers get access to this data, whether they gain access illegitimately or legitimately, Johnson said. (And the companies collecting the data from wearables do often sell your data to data brokers, Johnson noted.) You may not care if someone has your heart rate data from your smartwatch, but it's so much more than 'just' that. 'There are always security concerns when it comes to connected technology,' said Dave Chronister, the CEO of Parameter Security. And your wearable device is most likely connected to your smartphone — meaning it has access to lots of your personal data, according to Johnson. 'No device or platform is completely secure,' Chronister noted. 'Attackers often target the backend systems, such as cloud servers, via compromised employee credentials or software vulnerabilities.' 'Devices that rely on Bluetooth or Wi-Fi can also be exploited, and if the device supports messaging or sync features, phishing or spoofing attacks are possible,' noted Chronister. These devices can also get stolen or lost, which also puts your data at risk, Chronister added. Johnson said he's often heard people say things like, 'Oh, it's just my heart rate data, that's not a big deal,' but it's actually so much more than that. 'The issue is, we're not just talking about heartbeat. We're not just talking about your sleep schedule. We're talking about your location. We're talking about most of these apps tie into your contacts so that you can invite friends,' said Johnson. More, it also may include your reproductive health data, glucose levels or heart irregularities, Chronister said. 'These can paint a sensitive, personal portrait of someone's health and behavior,' Chronister added. Health data from wearables isn't protected like your medical records. 'It's important to understand that data from wearables is not protected under HIPAA like your medical records are,' said Chronister. HIPAA protects patient health records from things like doctor's appointments. 'Instead, it is governed by the company's terms of service ... which often include loopholes that allow for data sharing or sale, especially in the event of a merger or acquisition,' Chronister explained. This is true even if the company says they'll never sell your data. 'That promise can be overridden by fine print or future policy changes,' he added. 'Consumers should be aware that once their data is out there, they may lose control over how it is used,' Chronister said. What can you do to protect your security if you use wearables? 'Almost all of these types of devices have some level of privacy controls in them that you're able to select what data you give,' said Johnson. If you decide to get a wearable, make sure you check your privacy settings and adjust them accordingly, he noted. 'And this is very important — regularly go in and validate that the privacy settings are still set the way you want them to be,' Johnson added. This is really the most you can do to protect your data, and it certainly won't totally protect you from data breaches or data brokers. 'Unfortunately, individual users have very limited control. You are largely at the mercy of the device manufacturer and app provider,' Chronister noted. While you can follow privacy precautions, such as by 'turning off unnecessary Bluetooth connections, using strong account passwords, and checking app permissions ... those measures only go so far,' Chronister said. 'The real issue is how companies store, share and protect your data behind the scenes,' Chronister noted. Chronister stressed that 'it's critical to understand the long-term implications of voluntarily handing over personal health data to private companies. This information can be sold to marketers, shared with third parties, or exposed in a breach.' He voiced specific concern about how this data can be combined via different apps and companies over time to build 'incredibly detailed personal health profiles.' So while it may not be a big deal if one company has your sleep data and another has your activity levels, these companies can be acquired, or data can be combined to create a fuller picture of your private health information. 'And AI is really a wild card. Going forward, it will increasingly be able to draw conclusions and make predictions about your current and future health. This raises serious questions about how such insights could affect things like insurance eligibility, premium rates, or even creditworthiness,' Chronister said. When it comes to health data (and data of any sort), 'the risks are inherent even with the government not involved,' Hamerstone said. Once that data exists, it's at risk of being lost or stolen by bad actors, he added. Keep that in mind before you start using wearable health technology, and if you're already a user, it's important to be aware of the risks so you can make informed decisions and do what you can to protect your article originally appeared on HuffPost. Also in Goodful: This Woman Is Going Viral For Begging Women Not To Get Married Right Now, And Personally, I Couldn't Agree More Also in Goodful: People Are Sharing Their Biggest "How Doesn't Everyone Know This?" Facts, And I'm Honestly Embarrassed I Never Realized Some Of These Also in Goodful: "I Can't Wait For This To Go Out Of Style": People Are Sharing Popular Modern Trends That Are Actually Pretty Toxic
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court rejects conservative challenge to Obamacare health coverage
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on June 27 rejected the latest conservative challenge to the 2010 Affordable Care Act, an attack on free access to cancer screenings, drugs that prevent HIV, cholesterol-lowering medication and other preventive health care services. Two Christian-owned businesses and some people in Texas argued that the experts recommending some of the services health insurance must cover are so powerful that they must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court disagreed, meaning a task force proposing these Obamacare services can continue to do so. But their ruling could give more power to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to decide which services must be available without copays or deductibles. "While today's ruling allows many Americans to breathe a sigh of relief, coverage for this vital care remains at risk," Zachary Baron and Andrew Twinamatsiko, directors of the Center for Health Policy and the Law, said in a statement. "All eyes will turn to the Trump administration to see if Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. directs the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to revisit or issue new recommendations that could erode access to preventive care.' The benefit is one of the most popular provisions of the Affordable Care Act − commonly referred to as Obamacare − which has largely survived more than 2,000 lawsuits and multiple trips to the Supreme Court. The latest challenge came from Texans who objected to the requirement that insurers cover the HIV-prevention drug PrEP. They raised religious objections to the drug, saying it encourages same-sex relationships. A federal judge ruled the Christian businesses do not have to include PrEP in their insurance plans. But the judge also said the makeup of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which recommended coverage of PrEP and other preventive services, violates the Constitution's appointments clause. The clause requires presidential appointment and Senate confirmation for officials in significant positions of authority – such as cabinet secretaries and other top agency officials. The Justice Department – both under the Biden and Trump administrations – fought back. The government argued it's the Health and Human Services secretary, and not the task force, that has the 'ultimate responsibility' for whether the experts' recommendations become final. The secretary can fire task force members, review their recommendations and prevent recommendations from taking effect, the Justice Department said during April's oral arguments. The attorney for the Christian businesses said the secretary doesn't have complete control over the task force. Under the law, he noted, tasks force members are supposed to be 'independent and, to the extent practicable, not subject to political pressure.' The government said that independence requirement merely means the task force is supposed to make recommendations based on their impartial medical and public-health judgments. The task force typically updates its recommendations every five years to account for medical advances or reflect new evidence of risk. For example, in 2021, the task force extended recommendations for colon cancer screening to people 45 and older, instead of 50 and up, because of increased diagnoses in younger people. Other services recommended since the ACA was passed include medications like statins to prevent heart disease, lung cancer screenings for certain adults, physical therapy for older people at risk of falling, and testing for hepatitis. Before Obamacare, Americans used preventive services at only about half the recommended rate, according to the federal government. Other services, such as vaccines, that are recommended by different experts, are in dispute under another aspect of the case that is still in the lower courts. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court rejects conservative challenge to Obamacare
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What the Supreme Court Obamacare decision means for RFK Jr.
The U.S. Supreme Court preserved a key element of the Affordable Care Act that helps guarantee that health insurers cover preventive care at no cost to patients. The justices reversed a lower court's ruling that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which under the 2010 law has a major role in choosing what services will be covered, is composed of members who were not validly appointed. The suit started in Texas, where two Christian-owned businesses and individuals argued that health insurance plans they buy shouldn't have to cover medical tests and drugs they object to on religious grounds, such as the HIV-prevention drug PrEP. But the legal question at the heart of the Supreme Court case was whether the task force is so powerful that, under the Constitution, its members must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the 6-3 majority that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. can remove task force members at will and can review their recommendations before they take effect. 'The Task Force members are removable at will by the Secretary of HHS, and their recommendations are reviewable by the Secretary before they take effect,' he wrote. 'So Task Force members are supervised and directed by the Secretary, who in turn answers to the President preserving the chain of command.' The Health and Human Services secretary has always appointed task force members and ratified their recommendations, said MaryBeth Musumeci, teaching associate professor of health policy and management at George Washington University's Milken Institute School of Public Health. But the ruling expanded on that authority by clarifying that the secretary also could remove members and block recommendations, she said. Given that Kennedy had recently fired all 17 original members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, another expert panel that issues health recommendations, Musumeci said 'there is reason to be worried.' The secretary has never removed access to preventive services that have been proven to help people stay healthy, nor has the secretary "sought to shape the membership of our expert panel in any way," task force chair Dr. Michael Silverstein said in a statement emailed to USA TODAY. 'While the HHS Secretary has long had authority over the USPSTF, historically they have only acted to increase access to preventive care, occasionally going beyond the evidence to secure enhanced coverage for preventive services," he said. "Given our shared focus on preventing cancer and chronic disease, we certainly hope that the Secretary will allow our current work to continue unimpeded, as it has thus far.' Surprise move? RFK Jr.'s vaccine committee votes to recommend RSV shot for infants Katherine Hempstead, senior policy officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a health nonprofit, praised the high court's decision because it meant that millions of Americans still have access to preventive care such as mental health screenings, cancer screenings, STI testing and important medications. But she also called the ruling both an 'ending and a beginning.' 'It's the ending of the challenge, but now it's the beginning of something that's going to unfold where we're going to see someone exercise control over this expert panel that has very strong opinions about … many aspects of medical care,' she said. More details: Supreme Court rejects conservative challenge to Obamacare health coverage If Kennedy plans to target the preventive services task force, it's unclear what preventive services could be at risk, Musumeci said. But insurance companies ultimately have the final decision. Even if the secretary vetoes a new recommendation or revokes an existing one, insurance companies can still decide to cover the preventive service. America's Health Insurance Plans, a trade association representing health insurance companies, plans to closely monitor the legal process but affirms that the court's ruling will not affect any existing coverage, according to an emailed statement sent to USA TODAY. Contributing: Maureen Groppe and Bart Jansen, USA TODAY; Reuters. Adrianna Rodriguez can be reached at adrodriguez@ This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Obamacare Supreme Court decision: What it means for RFK Jr.
