Fluoride exposure linked to ‘detrimental effects' on health of pregnant women, infants
Fluoride has long been used as a dental health tool as a means of preventing cavities and fighting tooth decay — but now a new meta-analysis suggests it could have "detrimental effects" on the health of pregnant women and infants.
Researchers analyzed various studies, concluding that exposure to fluoride "offers little benefit to the fetus and young infant."
Systemic fluoride exposure can have a harmful impact on bone strength, thyroid function and cognitive development, according to the findings, which were published in the Annual Review of Public Health.
"Community-wide administration of systemic fluoride may pose an unfavorable risk–benefit ratio for the pregnant woman, fetus and infant," reads the meta-analysis.
Philippe Grandjean, a researcher on the study and professor of environmental medicine at the University of Southern Denmark, told Fox News Digital that "fluoride is toxic to early brain development."
"It is not dependent on the source of the fluoride," Grandjean. "In addition to fluoridated drinking water, we need to limit ingestion of fluoridated toothpaste, which by itself is great for dental health, but don't swallow it."
He recommended avoiding consumption of certain kinds of black tea – "especially those that are grown in fluoride-rich soils (e.g., East Africa and certain parts of China and India)."
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear.
The review noted that with growing access to fluoride over the years, fluoride's beneficial effect is predominantly topical, citing that there is no need for widespread community fluoridation.
During an appearance last week on "The Story With Martha MacCallum." HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said that "exposure to fluoride is dose-related."
"In other words, the more fluoride you get, the lower your IQ is going to be … the benefits of fluoride are topical," Kennedy added.
"It was originally thought that when we put it in the water back in the 1940s that they were systemic," he went on. "In other words, if you drank it, it would do something to your body to prevent growth of cavities. But that's not how it works."
The HHS secretary added that fluoride is associated with "with extreme losses in bone density."
More than 200 million Americans, or about 75% of the population, currently drink fluoridated water.
"The entire benefit of it comes from topical application ... there's really no reason to have it in the water supply in this era where we have toothpaste and mouthwashes," Kennedy concluded.
Kennedy said he plans to tell the CDC to stop recommending the addition of fluoride to drinking water, the Associated Press reported.
Utah recently became the first state to pass legislation banning fluoride in public drinking water.
Governor Spencer Cox signed the bill into law last month, a move that was applauded by those supporting the "Make America Healthy Again" movement.
For more Health articles, visit www.foxnews.com/health
Lawmakers in other states, including Ohio, South Carolina and Florida, have also submitted proposals to restrict local governments or water system operators from adding fluoride to water.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
26 minutes ago
- Fox News
Mind-controlled prosthetic arms are now becoming a reality
If you've ever wondered what's next for prosthetic technology, you're not alone. For many people living with limb loss, finding a prosthetic that feels natural and works seamlessly with their body has always been a challenge. Now, a California startup called Atom Bodies is making headlines for its groundbreaking approach to prosthetic technology. By combining artificial intelligence, machine learning and advanced sensor systems, Atom Bodies is developing mind-controlled robotic arms that could soon make highly advanced prosthetics accessible to thousands of amputees. Atom Bodies' flagship product, Atom Touch, is setting a new standard in prosthetic arms. Unlike traditional prosthetics, which often offer only basic movement and can be uncomfortable to wear, Atom Touch uses EMG (electromyography) sensors placed on the user's skin to detect muscle activity. These signals are then interpreted by machine-learning algorithms, allowing users to control individual fingers, the wrist and the elbow with remarkable precision just by thinking about the movement they want to make. The arm is powered by the Atom A1, an AI neural interface that can be trained in minutes for intuitive, natural control. The design also includes a load-balanced harness, which distributes weight across the torso, making the device lighter and more comfortable for all-day use. Atom Touch stands out for several reasons. It is the first prosthetic arm to offer true individual finger movement, which means users can perform tasks like typing, gripping and delicate manipulation with much greater ease. The device uses the Atom A1 AI neural interface, which learns from the user's muscle signals to provide seamless, natural movement. Dozens of sensors in the hand generate haptic feedback, so users can better gauge grip strength and control. With more than 10 motors in the hand alone, Atom Touch offers a near-human range of motion and dexterity. The load-balanced harness system also makes the arm lighter than a human arm and comfortable enough for extended wear, addressing a challenge that many current prosthetics have yet to solve. For the more than 2 million Americans living with limb loss, current prosthetic options are often expensive, uncomfortable and limited in capability. Jason Morris, who lost his arm due to a work accident and is Atom Bodies' lead test user, notes that most prosthetics can only be worn for about two hours due to discomfort. Atom Touch is designed for initial wear of four to six hours, with the goal of achieving all-day use. Atom Bodies has already attracted significant interest, with over 11,000 people on its wait list and plans to begin clinical trials within the next year, pending FDA approval. One of the most transformative aspects of Atom Touch is its price point. While state-of-the-art myoelectric arms can cost around $200,000, Atom Bodies plans to offer Atom Touch for approximately $25,000. This brings the cost in line with basic hook prosthetics, making advanced bionic limbs accessible to a much larger population. Seeing Atom Bodies bring this level of innovation to prosthetics feels like a real turning point for people with limb loss. With technology that's both advanced and affordable, Atom Touch could help many regain abilities and comfort that have been out of reach for years. As the company moves closer to launching, there is a sense of real possibility for a future where high-quality prosthetics are available to many more people who need them. If you or someone you know could benefit from this technology, what would be the most important factor in choosing a prosthetic arm? Let us know by writing us at For more of my tech tips and security alerts, subscribe to my free CyberGuy Report Newsletter by heading to Follow Kurt on his social channels: Answers to the most-asked CyberGuy questions: New from Kurt: Copyright 2025 All rights reserved.
Newsweek
29 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Three States Ban Junk Food From SNAP Benefits: What to Know
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Junk food purchases using SNAP benefits have been banned in three more states, taking the national total to six. Arkansas, Idaho and Utah have all had waivers approved that will ban unhealthy purchases from being made using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced on Tuesday. They join three states who had their waiver requests approved in May: Indiana, Iowa and Nebraska. Why It Matters Across Arkansas, Idaho and Utah, about 540,000 people collect SNAP benefits to help them pay for groceries. Several other Republican states are considering limitations on what SNAP recipients can buy using their benefits as part of the Make America Healthy Again movement. What To Know A waiver grants flexibility by modifying specific USDA program rules, enabling states to administer the SNAP program in different ways. Various states currently have SNAP waivers in place, and they were widely implemented during the coronavirus pandemic to enhance access to food benefits. According to the USDA press release, each waiver will come into force in 2026. In Arkansas and Idaho, the ban covers soft drinks and candy purchases. In Utah, the ban is only for soft drinks. Stock image/file photo: A woman looks at shelves stocked with soft drinks in a grocery store. Stock image/file photo: A woman looks at shelves stocked with soft drinks in a grocery store. GETTY Governors have cited concerns over obesity and the pressure poor health puts on other taxpayer-funded programs like Medicaid. According to Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, 23 percent of food stamps—$27 billion annually—spent by recipients goes toward soft drinks, unhealthy snacks, candy and desserts. Critics of the purchase limitations have said such policies are paternalistic and fail to address the fact that many low-income communities face disparities in accessing healthy, affordable food options. What People Are Saying Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said in a statement sent to Newsweek: "States have always been the greatest laboratories of democracy, and I am confident the best ideas will come from them. Whether demonstration pilots on allowable purchases, or newfound ways to connect work-capable adults to jobs, or even new ways to get food to communities, I will continue to encourage states to be bold and enact change." Idaho Governor Brad Little: "Idaho proudly welcomes the MAHA movement because it is all about looking for new ways to improve nutrition, increase exercise, and take better care of ourselves and one another, especially our children. We are excited to partner with the Trump administration in bringing common sense to the government's food assistance program with the approval of our SNAP waiver." Kavelle Christie, a health policy and advocacy expert, told Newsweek: "The issue isn't about individuals misusing their benefits, but their limited choices. In many rural areas and food deserts, convenience stores and fast-food chains are often the only available options. For many families, fresh produce and healthy meals are luxuries that are unattainable, not because they do not want these foods, but because they are unavailable or too expensive." Valerie Imbruce, director of the Center for Environment and Society at Washington College, previously told Newsweek: "Controlling how the poor eat is a paternalistic response to a problem that is not based in SNAP recipients' inability to make good decisions about healthy foods, it is a problem of the price differential in choosing healthy or junk foods. Soda and candy are much cheaper and more calorie dense than 100 percent fruit juices or prebiotic non-artificially sweetened carbonated beverages, thanks to price supports and subsidies by the federal government to support a U.S. sugar industry." What Happens Next Lawmakers in several other states—Arizona, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Texas, and West Virginia—are all considering making similar bans. Some have submitted waiver requests to the USDA while others are considering bills.
Vox
29 minutes ago
- Vox
RFK Jr.‘s mass firing of the government's vaccine experts, explained
covers health for Vox, guiding readers through the emerging opportunities and challenges in improving our health. He has reported on health policy for more than 10 years, writing for Governing magazine, Talking Points Memo, and STAT before joining Vox in 2017. For the past 60 years, a committee of independent experts has advised the federal government on vaccine policy, providing guidance on which shots people should get and when. Government public health officials have almost always followed the panel's recommendations, all but making it the final word on public health policy in the US for most of its existence. And over those decades, the United States has made tremendous health gains over that time through mass vaccination campaigns. But on Monday, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired every sitting member of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a move that stunned doctors and scientists across the country. And it means that the CDC's days as the clear and unchallenged authority on US vaccine policy appear numbered. 'Up until today, ACIP recommendations were the gold standard for what insurers should pay for, what providers should recommend, and what the public should look to,' Noel Brewer, a health behavior professor at the University of North Carolina, who was a member of the panel until this week, told the Associated Press. 'It's unclear what the future holds.' Today, Explained Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day, compiled by news editor Sean Collins. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. New committee members will be announced at some point, but as of Tuesday morning, even top US senators did not know who the replacements would be. The panel is supposed to hold one of its periodic public meetings in late June to discuss the Covid-19 vaccine, as well as shots for RSV and HPV, among others. This is a watershed moment in US public health, one that seems sure to sow confusion among patients and health care providers. The deepening divide between Kennedy's Make American Healthy Again (MAHA) movement and mainstream medicine could make it harder for people who want vaccines to get them, while encouraging more doubt about the value and safety of shots among the general public. Here's what you need to know. Why is Kennedy doing this? The vaccine advisory committee was first convened by the surgeon general in 1964, but it is not enshrined in federal law. That means that Kennedy — as the top official at the US Department of Health and Human Services, which contains the CDC — can change its membership or dissolve the panel entirely if he so desires. Kennedy framed his decision to clear out the members as necessary to restore public trust in the government's vaccine recommendations. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Kennedy asserted the committee 'has been plagued with persistent conflicts of interest and has become little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine.' As health secretary, he has made overhauling vaccine policy a centerpiece of his agenda, both through his rhetoric and policy. Over the past few months, while the worst measles outbreak in 30 years has spread through the US, Kennedy has equivocated in public comments on the value of the measles vaccine, which doctors say is far and away the best tool to combat the disease. He directed an anti-vaccine researcher to scour federal data for evidence of a vaccine-autism link. His department's recent MAHA report on childhood chronic disease named vaccines as one example of how the US overmedicalizes its children and exposes them to artificial agents that could do harm to their body. Then in late May, Kennedy oversaw a revision of the federal government's Covid-19 vaccine guidance, limiting the shots to elderly people and those who are immunocompromised. He ended the recommendation that pregnant women and kids get a Covid vaccine shot, even though studies have shown they help confer immunity to infants, who are at a higher risk from the virus and cannot be vaccinated until they are 6 months old. The move plainly circumvented ACIP's accepted role in setting vaccine policy, presaging this week's mass firing. Whatever his intentions, Kennedy's gutting of the federal vaccine committee seems likely to sow even more distrust — and certainly more confusion. People are reasonably left to wonder whether they can trust forthcoming CDC guidance on vaccines, and just what vaccines they'll be able to get. How will I know which vaccines to get? In the past, ACIP would typically meet a few times a year to discuss any additions or changes to the country's vaccine schedule. Their recommendations have usually been adopted without alterations by the CDC director, and then became the standard for state and local health departments across the country. Importantly, most health plans are required to cover any shots that the committee recommends. Now there is far more uncertainty. Will doctors follow the CDC guidance, even if it changes under a new advisory panel staffed by Kennedy loyalists, or will they stick with the earlier vaccine schedule? Will health insurance plans cover the cost of a vaccine that professional medical organizations support but the CDC does not? Once-unthinkable questions could soon be something doctors and patients must deal with every day. Some doctors already believed, before the firings at ACIP, that the CDC was no longer trustworthy under Kennedy's leadership; his unilateral change to the Covid vaccine guidance in May was enough to convince them. In a media call last week, experts from the Infectious Disease Society of America urged patients and providers in the short term to consult with professional medical societies — not the CDC — on vaccine recommendations. They considered those groups, as well as guidance from European health authorities, the best substitutes we currently have for information on vaccines if the CDC's recommendations can no longer be taken at face value. 'It's been a confusing several days, confusing last two weeks, and I'm not sure that confusion is going to be abated in the near future,' John Lynch, an infectious disease doctor at the University of Washington, said on the call. 'These are evidence-based guidelines developed by experts in the field using transparent methods and published publicly,' Lynch said. Kennedy, in explaining his change to the Covid vaccine guidelines, said he wanted to encourage shared decision-making between providers and their patients. The CDC guidance would be only one consideration in the decision whether to vaccinate, rather than a firm recommendation. The doctors from the IDSA said that such conversations are already to be considered best practice among physicians — and noted Kennedy's undermining of trust in the federal vaccine policy would now make them more important. 'I would just emphasize the need to have a good source of information when this situation occurs. If indeed shared decision making is going to occur, we always do our research,' Dr. Flor Muñoz-Rivas at Baylor College of Medicine said. 'But go to the proper sources.' What are the long-term risks? There is a lot we don't know right now: Who will be named to the new panel? Will they change existing vaccine recommendations? Will they approve new ones? But the experts warned that Kennedy's rhetoric alone risks undermining people's confidence in vaccinations. 'All health care decisions are shared decision-making; this is not a special concept that's only rolled out for conversations like vaccination,' Lynch said on the IDSA call. 'As an infectious disease doctor, when I talk to a patient about treatment or diagnostics, it is a conversation. It is shared decision-making.' Kennedy has quickly disrupted decades of public health consensus. Anyone who watched the sometimes contentious ACIP meetings during the pandemic saw the members grappling with genuinely vexing questions about who should be prioritized for vaccination in a public health emergency. The pandemic featured rare examples of Biden CDC director Rochelle Walensky overruling the panel in certain cases in which the experts actually recommended against more vaccinations. (Walensky said she overrode the guidance to align the CDC with a separate recommendation from the FDA's advisory committee, and cited the narrow 9-6 vote against the recommendation.) Those scenes should have helped dispel the notion that they were acting as a rubber-stamp for any new shot Big Pharma produced. But the nation's top health official is now telling Americans that they should never have trusted the ACIP, which risks pushing more people to skip routine immunization. Shortly after the country declared measles eradicated in 2000, 94 percent of adults said childhood immunizations were extremely or very important. But that consensus has since weakened: 69 percent of Americans said the same in 2024. If changing opinion leads to declining vaccination rates, diseases that we successfully stamped out through vaccines to rebound — which is exactly what we are seeing now with measles. The US is experiencing its highest number of measles cases since the 1990s, nearing 1,200 as of this writing. One outbreak that accounts for most of those cases took off in a small Texas community where vaccination rates had fallen far below the 95-percent threshold that is considered necessary to stop the virus's spread. Other knock on effects could hurt Americans who still want to get vaccinated. Pharma companies, the target of so much of Kennedy's criticism, could decide to stop pursuing new vaccines if they believe the federal government will limit access as much as possible, shrinking the world's biggest pharmaceutical market. Vaccines are not big moneymakers for drug companies, and they have often relied on the US government's support to develop new ones. Kennedy, however, has canceled major vaccine development contracts during his first few months as health secretary, including a $700 million contract with Moderna, one of two companies that produced the mRNA Covid vaccines, to work on a universal flu shot. Kennedy has quickly disrupted decades of public health consensus. For now, the best reaction is, oddly enough, for patients and providers to take him at his word when he says people should not take medical advice from him — and make their own decisions in collaboration with their doctors.
