© 2025 American Dental Association l 101
Fluoridation Facts
63. What are the tactics fluoridation opponents use to provoke opposition
to water fluoridation?
Answer
Fluoridation opponents use numerous tactics to evoke fear and disseminate misinformation about
water fluoridation. Opponents frequently use scare techniques,450 present half-truths, downplay
the significance of science-based evidence, and use selective reporting of results and studies to
support their false allegations.435 They also use regulatory processes to question the safety of
community water fluoridation.
Fact
While many of the arguments against fluoridation have remained relatively constant over the years,
fluoridation opponents also have used different emphases and approaches that play upon the popular
concerns of the public at the time.444 For example, in the 1950s, fluoridation was said to be a Communist
plot. With America’s growing concern for environmental issues in the 1960s, fluoridation was called
pollution. After the Vietnam War in the 1970s, fluoridation opponents capitalized on the popularity of
conspiracy theories by portraying fluoridation as a conspiracy among the US government, the dental-
medical establishment, and industry. As the population became more concerned about their health in
the 1980s, fluoridation opponents claimed fluoridation caused AIDS and Alzheimer’s disease. In the
1990s, claims of hip fractures and cancer were designed to resonate with middle-aged baby boomers.
With the new millennium, overexposure and toxicity, in association with lead poisoning, surfaced as
common themes. Since the economic crisis of 2008, discussions about the cost of fluoridation are more
commonplace. In the 2010s, neurotoxicity became a constant theme, with charges of lower IQ and
autism. Over the years, none of these emphases has ever really disappeared, but instead fluoridation
opponents often recycle their message to produce the greatest effect on the intended audience.444
The Internet breathed new life into fluoridation opponents’ efforts, bringing their messages into voters’
homes.451,456 With just a click of the mouse, search engines can locate a large number of websites
denouncing fluoridation, which can give the impression that this is a one-sided argument. Individuals who
look to the Internet as a source of valid and reliable information often fail to recognize that these sites
frequently contain personal opinion rather than scientific fact. Newspaper stories, press releases, and
letters to the editor are often posted as documentation of the “science” behind claims from fluoridation
opponents. All too often, the public accepts this type of information as true simply because it is in
print. Videos are available from organizations that oppose fluoridation and are shared at no cost via online
video platforms, making it possible for every campaign to bring fluoride opponents into their community.
Social media is used to spread opposition messaging to the public and to assist in organizing local efforts.
These venues have allowed the small faction of fluoride opponents to be linked across the country and
around the world to promote their messages quickly, repeatedly, and economically.
Spreading misinformation impacts public policy and costs society in immeasurable ways. The opponents’
claims and opinions can escalate to emotional arguments that, in the end, can delay or prevent the
introduction of a water fluoridation program or stop an existing program.453 More people, especially
those involved in policy decisions, need to be better informed about these tactics. In making decisions
that affect the health of the community, it is important to distinguish between someone’s personal
opinion disguised as science and information based on the best available scientific evidence. It is
perfectly acceptable for individuals to have their own opinion, but it is unacceptable for them to
have “their own facts” derived from something less than reputable science.
Fluoridation Facts
63. What are the tactics fluoridation opponents use to provoke opposition
to water fluoridation?
Answer
Fluoridation opponents use numerous tactics to evoke fear and disseminate misinformation about
water fluoridation. Opponents frequently use scare techniques,450 present half-truths, downplay
the significance of science-based evidence, and use selective reporting of results and studies to
support their false allegations.435 They also use regulatory processes to question the safety of
community water fluoridation.
Fact
While many of the arguments against fluoridation have remained relatively constant over the years,
fluoridation opponents also have used different emphases and approaches that play upon the popular
concerns of the public at the time.444 For example, in the 1950s, fluoridation was said to be a Communist
plot. With America’s growing concern for environmental issues in the 1960s, fluoridation was called
pollution. After the Vietnam War in the 1970s, fluoridation opponents capitalized on the popularity of
conspiracy theories by portraying fluoridation as a conspiracy among the US government, the dental-
medical establishment, and industry. As the population became more concerned about their health in
the 1980s, fluoridation opponents claimed fluoridation caused AIDS and Alzheimer’s disease. In the
1990s, claims of hip fractures and cancer were designed to resonate with middle-aged baby boomers.
With the new millennium, overexposure and toxicity, in association with lead poisoning, surfaced as
common themes. Since the economic crisis of 2008, discussions about the cost of fluoridation are more
commonplace. In the 2010s, neurotoxicity became a constant theme, with charges of lower IQ and
autism. Over the years, none of these emphases has ever really disappeared, but instead fluoridation
opponents often recycle their message to produce the greatest effect on the intended audience.444
The Internet breathed new life into fluoridation opponents’ efforts, bringing their messages into voters’
homes.451,456 With just a click of the mouse, search engines can locate a large number of websites
denouncing fluoridation, which can give the impression that this is a one-sided argument. Individuals who
look to the Internet as a source of valid and reliable information often fail to recognize that these sites
frequently contain personal opinion rather than scientific fact. Newspaper stories, press releases, and
letters to the editor are often posted as documentation of the “science” behind claims from fluoridation
opponents. All too often, the public accepts this type of information as true simply because it is in
print. Videos are available from organizations that oppose fluoridation and are shared at no cost via online
video platforms, making it possible for every campaign to bring fluoride opponents into their community.
Social media is used to spread opposition messaging to the public and to assist in organizing local efforts.
These venues have allowed the small faction of fluoride opponents to be linked across the country and
around the world to promote their messages quickly, repeatedly, and economically.
Spreading misinformation impacts public policy and costs society in immeasurable ways. The opponents’
claims and opinions can escalate to emotional arguments that, in the end, can delay or prevent the
introduction of a water fluoridation program or stop an existing program.453 More people, especially
those involved in policy decisions, need to be better informed about these tactics. In making decisions
that affect the health of the community, it is important to distinguish between someone’s personal
opinion disguised as science and information based on the best available scientific evidence. It is
perfectly acceptable for individuals to have their own opinion, but it is unacceptable for them to
have “their own facts” derived from something less than reputable science.
