Texas AG opens investigation into toothpaste companies over fluoride exposure. But, dentists say it's safe
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has announced a new investigation into toothpaste makers over fluoride, despite its benefit in helping to fight cavities and being recognized as one of the nation's greatest public health achievements.
Fluoride, a naturally occurring mineral found in the soil and water, is used to strengthen tooth enamel. Ingesting too much can come with side effects, including death. However, negative health impacts are incredibly rare, and toothpaste levels are considered safe when applied as recommended.
But, the Republican is launching an investigation into some of the largest toothpaste makers. He claims Colgate and Proctor & Gamble have 'illegally' marketed their products to parents and children 'in ways that are misleading, deceptive, and dangerous.'
Requests for comment from the companies were not immediately returned to The Independent.
Paxton's inquiry is linked to a National Toxicology Program meta-analysis that previously determined with 'moderate confidence' that there is a link between higher levels of exposure to fluoride and lower IQ scores in children. Notably, the study said that there was 'insufficient data to determine if the low fluoride level of 0.7 mg/L currently recommended for U.S. community water supplies has a negative effect on children's IQ.'
Dentists have criticized the National Toxicology Program for using 'unorthodox research methods, flawed analyses, lack of clarity, failure to follow the norms of peer review, and lack of transparency.' Other studies have found no link between fluoride and IQ – although some Americans are exposed to higher than recommended levels because of natural fluoride contamination.
'The NTP report has important limitations. High fluoride exposure was defined as at least 1.5 milligrams per liter of water, which is double the concentration U.S. officials recommend in community water. The review also was not intended to demonstrate cause and effect,' the American Dental Association said. 'Numerous factors impact IQ, and it is unclear whether IQ data from different studies are accurate, comparable or generalizable, according to American Academy of Pediatrics experts.'
Paxton has alleged that the companies ignored guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and others about usage and 'acute and long-term risks associated with fluoride overdose.' He said that the toothpaste manufacturers flavor their products and 'deceptively market them' in ways that encourage kids to ingest fluoride toothpaste and mislead their parents.
'I will use every tool available to protect our kids from dangerous levels of fluoride exposure and deceptive advertising,' Paxton said.
Long-term ingestion of excess fluoride in infancy and childhood can lead to dental fluorosis, which mostly causes blemishes on the teeth. High doses of fluoride can also cause skeletal fluorosis that results in neurological defects and muscle wasting, although it is extremely rare in the U.S. An acute dose that could cause serious harm to the body would be virtually impossible to achieve from toothpaste or water containing standard levels of added fluoride, according to the National Institutes of Health.
Still, research published last year found that parents tend to 'significantly' overdo toddlers' toothbrushes with fluoridated toothpaste. The Nature study found they tended to overload toothbrushes by a factor of six to seven times the recommended amount, which is a rice-sized squirt for children under the age of two.
Dentist Mary Swift, the Community Water Fluoridation Chair of the Texas Dental Association, told FOX 4 that the recommended dose is not a full brush of toothpaste, but that kids who ingested an entire tube would not have long-term effects – just a 'very upset stomach.'
She also said there were gaps in the research connecting fluoride and lower IQ scores.
"There are seven thousand studies and research papers. This is an important part of peer-reviewed studies, so the toxicology report that the opponents to fluoride quote was never peer-reviewed, and it was very well understood that the toxicology report that linked IQ with fluoride was a very poorly run study," said Swift.
"We've got 75 years of proof that fluoride reduces decay and is safe,' she said.
Paxton's move comes after recent bans on fluoride in drinking water in Utah and Florida. These actions have been applauded by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who plans to scale back fluoride use on a national scale.
This week, he told President Donald Trump that the more of the mineral people receive, 'the stupider you are,' citing the same research as Paxton.
'[EPA Administrator] Lee Zeldin and I are working together to change the federal fluoride regulations, to change the recommendations, and we're looking at the science now,' Kennedy said. 'In August, the national toxicity program... did a meta review of all the science on fluoride and found that there's a direct inverse correlation between fluoride exposure and low IQ in children.'
Despite Kennedy's plan, dentists argue that the benefits of fluoridation outweigh any potential risks. The American Dental Association points out that communities that have stopped fluoridating water have seen an increase in tooth decay.
'As a science- and evidence-based organization, the ADA welcomes continued study and evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation and continues to strongly support community water fluoridation at its current recommended level,' the association said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
How Kennedy's overhaul could make vaccines more expensive
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s moves to upend decades of vaccine policy could hit patients hardest in their wallets, as shifting guidance over shots could make insurance coverage confusing and scattershot. For decades, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) independent advisory panel recommended which shots Americans should get and when. The Affordable Care Act requires all insurance companies to cover, for free, all vaccines the panel recommends. Those recommendations also help states decide which shots should be mandated for schoolchildren. Kennedy's most recent move to purge the entire advisory panel and replace them with his own handpicked members, including several vocal vaccine critics, is throwing that process into doubt. 'If we have a system that has been dismantled — one that allowed for open, evidence-based decisionmaking and that supported transparent and clear dialogue about vaccines — and then we replace it with a process that's driven largely by one person's beliefs, that creates a system that cannot be trusted,' Helen Chu, a newly ousted member of the panel and professor of infectious disease at the University of Washington School of Medicine, said during a press conference. Vaccine prices vary, but without insurance, coronavirus vaccines can cost nearly $150, the MMR shot ranges from $95 to nearly $280, and the HPV vaccine can exceed $300, according to CDC data. Individual pharmacies could charge even more. Candace DeMatteis, policy director at the Partnership to Fight Infectious Disease, said she worries about creating a two-tiered system. 'Out of pocket costs for vaccines become an issue where we could end up with a system where some people can afford vaccinating themselves and their families and others cannot,' DeMatteis said. Prior to enactment of the Affordable Care Act, vaccine coverage varied significantly depending on the type of insurance a person had. If the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) changes recommendations for existing vaccines or doesn't recommend new ones, maintaining access will be difficult. 'It's a seismic shift, if you will, away from facilitating access by removing coverage and cost barriers, to one where there's great uncertainty and coverage and cost issues become barriers,' DeMatteis said. It's not clear what the vetting process was for the eight people Kennedy appointed to the ACIP, or how prepared they will be for their first meeting, which is scheduled to occur in less than two weeks. According to a Federal Register notice, the panel is scheduled to vote on recommendations for COVID-19 vaccines as well as meningococcal, HPV, influenza, and RSV vaccines for adults and maternal and pediatric populations. Health experts said they have serious questions about what direction the new panel will take and whether Americans will still have access to free vaccines, including the coronavirus shot, in time for fall respiratory season. If the ACIP is no longer a reliable, independent authority on vaccines, it 'will be replaced by a patchwork of different policies by different states, and each state will have to make its own decisions,' Chu said. 'Washington state is a place where we have experts and scientists who work together. There are other states where this may not exist, or where they may not choose to recommend vaccines. So that is going to create a lot of chaos,' she added. Some state health officials have already begun taking steps in that direction. The Illinois Department of Health said on social media it will be convening its own vaccine advisory committee and national experts 'to ensure we continue to provide clear, science-backed vaccine guidance for our residents.' When Kennedy unilaterally changed the COVID-19 vaccine guidance earlier this month to remove recommendations for pregnant women and change the open recommendation for children, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services said it would continue to recommend the shots for every person at least 6 months old. 'The recent changes in CDC guidance were not made based on new data, evidence, or scientific or medical studies, nor was the guidance issued following normal processes,' the agency said in a statement. Tina Tan, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said her organization as well as other major medical groups including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics Academy have been speaking with insurance companies to urge them to continue paying for shots, even if the panel changes recommendations. Tan mentioned an initiative launched in April by a group of public health experts called the Vaccine Integrity Project, which is working to create an alternative process to maintain vaccine access. The initiative is funded by a foundation backed by Walmart heiress Christy Walton and led by Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. Federal law is specific that insurance provisions are tied to the ACIP. Specialty organizations may have expertise to make their own recommendations, but they will still require the cooperation of insurance companies. States are also more limited, and they don't have the same power as the federal government to force coverage. 'I think it remains to be seen what the insurers are going to do,' Tan said. 'However, hopefully, with the discussions going on, they can get the insurers to understand that vaccines are extraordinarily safe and effective and are the best tool that we have to protect persons of all ages against serious vaccine preventable diseases.'
Chicago Tribune
5 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
The GOP's big bill would bring changes to Medicaid for millions
WASHINGTON — Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has been clear about his red line as the Senate takes up the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act: no Medicaid cuts. But what, exactly, would be a cut? Hawley and other Republicans acknowledge that the main cost-saving provision in the bill – new work requirements on able-bodied adults who receive health care through the Medicaid program — would cause millions of people to lose their coverage. All told, estimates are 10.9 million fewer people would have health coverage under the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. That includes some 8 million fewer in the Medicaid program, including 5.2 million dropping off because of the new eligibility requirements. 'I know that will reduce the number of people on Medicaid,' Hawley told a small scrum of reporters in the hallways at the Capitol. 'But I'm for that because I want people who are able bodied but not working to work.' Hawley and other Republicans are walking a politically fine line on how to reduce federal spending on Medicaid while also promising to protect a program that serves some 80 million Americans and is popular with the public. As the party pushes ahead on President Donald Trump' s priority package, Republicans insist they are not cutting the vital safety net program but simply rooting out what they call waste, fraud and abuse. Whether that argument lands with voters could go a long way toward determining whether Trump's bill ultimately ends up boosting — or dragging down — Republicans as they campaign for reelection next year. Republicans say that it's wrong to call the reductions in health care coverage 'cuts.' Instead, they've characterized the changes as rules that would purge people who are taking advantage of the system and protect it for the most vulnerable who need it most. House Republicans wrote the bill with instructions to find $880 billion in cuts from programs under the purview of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has a sprawling jurisdiction that includes Medicaid. In the version of the bill that the House passed on a party-line vote last month, the overall cuts ended up exceeding that number. The Kaiser Family Foundation projects that the bill will result in a $793 billion reduction in spending on Medicaid. Additionally, the House Ways & Means Committee, which handles federal tax policy, imposed a freeze on a health care provider tax that many states impose. Critics say the tax improperly boosts federal Medicaid payments to the states, but supporters like Hawley say it's important funding for rural hospitals. 'What we're doing here is an important and, frankly, heroic thing to preserve the program so that it doesn't become insolvent,' Speaker Mike Johnson said on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, meanwhile, has denounced the bill as an 'assault on the healthcare of the American people' and warned years of progress in reducing the number of uninsured people is at risk. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the GOP's proposed changes to federal health programs would result in 10.9 million fewer people having health care coverage. Nearly 8 million fewer people would be enrolled in Medicaid by 2034 under the legislation, the CBO found, including 5.2 million people who would lose coverage due to the proposed work requirements. It said 1.4 million immigrants without legal status would lose coverage in state programs. The new Medicaid requirements would apply to nondisabled adults under age 65 who are not caretakers or parents, with some exceptions. The bill passed by the U.S. House stipulates that those eligible would need to work, take classes, or record community service for 80 hours per month. The Kaiser Family Foundation notes that more than 90% of people enrolled in Medicaid already meet those criteria. The legislation also penalizes states that fund health insurance for immigrants who have not confirmed their immigration status, and the CBO expects that those states will stop funding Medicaid for those immigrants altogether. Republicans have cited what they call the out-of-control spending in federal programs to explain their rationale for the changes proposed in the legislation. 'What we are trying to do in the One Big Beautiful Bill is ensuring that limited resources are protected for pregnant women, for children, for seniors, for individuals with disabilities,' said Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind., in a speech on the House floor. Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso argued that Medicaid recipients who are not working spend their time watching television and playing video games rather than looking for employment. Republicans also criticize the CBO itself, the congressional scorekeeper, questioning whether its projections are accurate. The CBO score for decades has been providing non-partisan analysis of legislation and budgetary matters. Its staff is prohibited from making political contributions and is currently led by a former economic adviser for the George W. Bush administration. While Republicans argue that their signature legislation delivers on Trump's 2024 campaign promises, health care isn't one of the president's strongest issues with Americans. Most U.S. adults, 56%, disapproved of how Trump was handling health care policy in CNN polling from March. And according to AP VoteCast, about 6 in 10 voters in the November election said they wanted the government 'more involved' in ensuring that Americans have health care coverage. Only about 2 in 10 wanted the government less involved in this, and about 2 in 10 said its involvement was about right. Half of American adults said they expected the Trump administration's policies to increase their family's health care costs, according to a May poll from KFF, and about 6 in 10 believed those policies would weaken Medicaid. If the federal government significantly reduced Medicaid spending, about 7 in 10 adults said they worried it would negatively impact nursing homes, hospitals, and other health care providers in their community. For Hawley, the 'bottom lines' are omitting provisions that could cause rural hospitals to close and hardworking citizens to lose their benefits. He and other Republicans are especially concerned about the freeze on the providers' tax in the House's legislation that they warn could hurt rural hospitals. 'Medicaid benefits for people who are working or who are otherwise qualified,' Hawley said. 'I do not want to see them cut.'
Newsweek
5 hours ago
- Newsweek
Americans Warned Not to Drink Coffee in 3 States
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. Americans are being advised to avoid drinking coffee, with forecasters warning of "dangerously hot conditions" across parts of Nevada, California, and Arizona. Why It Matters The National Weather Service (NWS) warns that heat related illnesses increase significantly during extreme heat events. What To Know It is generally recommended to avoid drinking coffee in hot weather due to its diuretic effect, which can lead to dehydration. Caffeine, found in coffee, can increase fluid loss through urination, making it harder for your body to stay hydrated, especially when you are already sweating more in the heat. Some parts of south central Arizona were expected to see temperatures up to 115 degrees Fahrenheit. The agency warned that overexposure to major heat can cause heat cramps and heat exhaustion to develop. Without intervention, it can lead to heat stroke, it added. Triple-digit temperatures were also expected in Lake Mead and its surrounding areas, with the service cautioning the these were dangerously hot conditions for early June. Death Valley National Park could see temperatures up to 120, according to the NWS. Signage warns of extreme heat danger at the salt flats of Badwater Basin inside Death Valley National Park on June 17, 2021, in Inyo County, California. Signage warns of extreme heat danger at the salt flats of Badwater Basin inside Death Valley National Park on June 17, 2021, in Inyo County, California. Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images "Do not leave young children and pets in unattended vehicles," read the extreme heat warning, which also applied to a portion of northwest Arizona, southeast California, and southern Nevada. "Car interiors will reach lethal temperatures in a matter of minutes." A post from the NWS' Las Vegas office advised people in affected areas not to drink alcohol or caffeine, as they speed up dehydration. It also said heavy foods should be avoided, as meals high in protein can also speed up dehydration. The NWS noted that these warnings indicate dangerously hot weather, even by local norms. "Actions should be taken to lessen the impact of the extreme heat," it said. What People Are Saying AccuWeather meteorologist Chad Merrill told Newsweek that the Lake Mead area would see high temperatures between 107-112 degrees Sunday and Monday. "Tuesday's high will be 105-108 degrees. Wednesday will reach 107-115 degrees. Thursday and Friday will reach 105-112 degrees," Merrill said. "Temperatures will then drop several degrees next weekend with a more notable cooling trend Sunday, June 22-Tuesday, June 24." The National Weather Service forecast office, Las Vegas, said on X, formerly Twitter, Saturday: "Above-normal temps continue through the weekend & most of next week. Extreme Heat Warning in effect for Sunday (Father's Day). This heat coupled with very dry conditions will increase fire danger. Be extra cautious if recreating with sparks or flame." The NWS said on X, Wednesday: "During hot and humid weather, your body's ability to cool itself is challenged in ways you may not expect. When your body heats too rapidly, or when too much fluid or salt is lost through dehydration or sweating, you may experience a heat-related illness. Stay weather-ready by learning the symptoms of extreme heat exposure and the appropriate responses." What Happens Next At the time of writing, the latest extreme heat warnings were set to remain in effect until 8 p.m. on Monday.
