© 2025 American Dental Association l 103
Fluoridation Facts
Innuendo: The statement, “Fifty years ago physicians and dentists posed for cigarette ads,” is
an example of innuendo or, more specifically, guilt by association. Even though fluoridation is not
mentioned, individuals are expected to make the connection that the medical community changed its
position on smoking, so it is possible health professionals are wrong about fluoridation, too.
Outdated Studies and Statements from “Experts”: Opposition websites often offer a list of
“respected medical professionals and scientists” who have spoken out against fluoridation. One of
those often quoted is Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, who is noted as a past president of the AMA. What is
not disclosed is the source of the quote or that Dr. Heyd was president of the AMA in 1936–almost
10 years before water fluoridation trials began. His decades-old quote certainly does not represent the
current or previous decades of AMA support for water fluoridation and is characteristic of fluoridation
opponents’ use of items that are out of date. Additionally, fluoridation opponents have claimed that
14 Nobel Prize winners have “opposed or expressed reservations about fluoridation.” It should be noted
that the vast majority of these individuals were awarded their prizes from 1929 through 1958.
Statements Out of Context: One of the most repeated fluoridation opposition statements is
“Fluoride is a toxic chemical. Don’t let them put it in our water.” This statement ignores the scientific
principle that toxicity is related to dosage and not just to any exposure to a substance. Examples of
other substances that can be harmful in the wrong amounts but beneficial in the correct amounts
are salt, vitamins A and D, iron, iodine, aspirin, and even water itself.
Conspiracy Theories: Hardly a fluoridation campaign goes by without those opposed to fluoridation
bringing up any number of conspiracy theories about it. Whether it is the claim that scientists from the
original atomic bomb program secretly shaped and guided the early Newburgh, New York, fluoridation
trial or that chemtrails are a government plot to spread fluoride, these claims have no basis in fact. Even
the belief that fluoridation was a Communist plot to destroy America was famously parodied in the 1964
movie Dr. Strangelove. Over the decades, those opposed to fluoridation have used propaganda schemes
and conspiracy theories that reflected the social and political environment of the times. Today, “follow the
money” is a common theme as the opposition claims that the beverage industry, the companies supplying
fluoride additives, and others are financially backing researchers, as well as dental and medical groups
who are promoting fluoridation. None of these claims has a basis in fact.
Treating Correlation as Causation: Many people have heard the phrase that “correlation does
not imply causation.” In other words, just because two events seem to fluctuate in tandem does not
prove that they are meaningfully related to one another. For example, statistics show that sales of ice
cream increase in warm summer months. Statistics also show that crime goes up in large cities in the
summer. However, it would be ludicrous to draw the conclusion that ice cream causes an increase in
crime. Yet this is exactly the type of logic exercised in some arguments and studies promoted by those
opposed to fluoridation. For example, the opposition often points to Kentucky as having a large portion
of the population on public water supplies receiving fluoridated water. And that’s correct. In 2020,
Kentucky was ranked the most widely fluoridated state, with 99.9% of its population on public water
systems receiving fluoridated water. But the opposition also points to the fact that Kentucky suffers
from a large number of people who have lost their teeth. They draw the conclusion that this proves
fluoridation does not work—without looking at other factors that influence this outcome. For example,
while there is a large number of public water systems that are fluoridated, Kentucky has a large
rural population that does not have access to public water supplies. Additionally, and perhaps most
importantly, Kentucky’s population has a high rate of tobacco use, which is known to be a risk factor
for periodontal (gum) disease, which can lead to the loss of teeth.
Fluoridation Facts
Innuendo: The statement, “Fifty years ago physicians and dentists posed for cigarette ads,” is
an example of innuendo or, more specifically, guilt by association. Even though fluoridation is not
mentioned, individuals are expected to make the connection that the medical community changed its
position on smoking, so it is possible health professionals are wrong about fluoridation, too.
Outdated Studies and Statements from “Experts”: Opposition websites often offer a list of
“respected medical professionals and scientists” who have spoken out against fluoridation. One of
those often quoted is Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, who is noted as a past president of the AMA. What is
not disclosed is the source of the quote or that Dr. Heyd was president of the AMA in 1936–almost
10 years before water fluoridation trials began. His decades-old quote certainly does not represent the
current or previous decades of AMA support for water fluoridation and is characteristic of fluoridation
opponents’ use of items that are out of date. Additionally, fluoridation opponents have claimed that
14 Nobel Prize winners have “opposed or expressed reservations about fluoridation.” It should be noted
that the vast majority of these individuals were awarded their prizes from 1929 through 1958.
Statements Out of Context: One of the most repeated fluoridation opposition statements is
“Fluoride is a toxic chemical. Don’t let them put it in our water.” This statement ignores the scientific
principle that toxicity is related to dosage and not just to any exposure to a substance. Examples of
other substances that can be harmful in the wrong amounts but beneficial in the correct amounts
are salt, vitamins A and D, iron, iodine, aspirin, and even water itself.
Conspiracy Theories: Hardly a fluoridation campaign goes by without those opposed to fluoridation
bringing up any number of conspiracy theories about it. Whether it is the claim that scientists from the
original atomic bomb program secretly shaped and guided the early Newburgh, New York, fluoridation
trial or that chemtrails are a government plot to spread fluoride, these claims have no basis in fact. Even
the belief that fluoridation was a Communist plot to destroy America was famously parodied in the 1964
movie Dr. Strangelove. Over the decades, those opposed to fluoridation have used propaganda schemes
and conspiracy theories that reflected the social and political environment of the times. Today, “follow the
money” is a common theme as the opposition claims that the beverage industry, the companies supplying
fluoride additives, and others are financially backing researchers, as well as dental and medical groups
who are promoting fluoridation. None of these claims has a basis in fact.
Treating Correlation as Causation: Many people have heard the phrase that “correlation does
not imply causation.” In other words, just because two events seem to fluctuate in tandem does not
prove that they are meaningfully related to one another. For example, statistics show that sales of ice
cream increase in warm summer months. Statistics also show that crime goes up in large cities in the
summer. However, it would be ludicrous to draw the conclusion that ice cream causes an increase in
crime. Yet this is exactly the type of logic exercised in some arguments and studies promoted by those
opposed to fluoridation. For example, the opposition often points to Kentucky as having a large portion
of the population on public water supplies receiving fluoridated water. And that’s correct. In 2020,
Kentucky was ranked the most widely fluoridated state, with 99.9% of its population on public water
systems receiving fluoridated water. But the opposition also points to the fact that Kentucky suffers
from a large number of people who have lost their teeth. They draw the conclusion that this proves
fluoridation does not work—without looking at other factors that influence this outcome. For example,
while there is a large number of public water systems that are fluoridated, Kentucky has a large
rural population that does not have access to public water supplies. Additionally, and perhaps most
importantly, Kentucky’s population has a high rate of tobacco use, which is known to be a risk factor
for periodontal (gum) disease, which can lead to the loss of teeth.
