Controversial fluoride analysis published after years of failed reviews
“Taking these many important concerns together, readers are advised to be very cautious in drawing conclusions about possible associations of fluoride exposures with lower IQ,” Levy concluded. “This is especially true for lower water fluoride levels.”
Another controversial study
But, the debate on water fluoridation is unlikely to recede any time soon. In a second editorial published alongside the NTP study, other researchers praised the analysis, calling for health organizations and regulators to reassess fluoridation.
“The absence of a statistically significant association of water fluoride less than 1.5 mg/L and children’s IQ scores in the dose-response meta-analysis does not exonerate fluoride as a potential risk for lower IQ scores at levels found in fluoridated communities,” the authors argue, noting there are additional sources of fluoride, such as toothpaste and foods.
The EPA estimates that 40 to 70 percent of people’s fluoride exposure comes from water.
Two of the three authors of the second editorial—Christine Till and Bruce Lanphear—were authors of a highly controversial 2019 study out of Canada suggesting that fluoride intake during pregnancy could reduce children’s IQ. The authors even suggested that pregnant people should reduce their fluoride intake. But, the study, also published in JAMA Pediatrics, only found a link between maternal fluoride levels and IQ in male children. There was no association in females.
The study drew heavy backlash, with blistering responses published in JAMA Pediatrics. In one response, UK researchers essentially accused Till and colleagues of a statistical fishing expedition to find a link.
“[T]here was no significant IQ difference between children from fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities and no overall association with maternal urinary fluoride (MUFSG). The authors did not mention this and instead emphasized the significant sex interaction, where the association appeared for boys but not girls. No theoretical rationale for this test was provided; in the absence of a study preregistration, we cannot know whether it was planned a priori. If not, the false-positive probability increases because there are many potential subgroups that might show the result by chance.”
Other researchers criticized the study’s statistics, lack of data transparency, the use of maternal urine sampling, and the test they used to assess the IQ of children ages 3 and 4.
