米兰体育

Skip to content
NOWCAST 6PM WEEKDAY NEWSCAST
Watch on Demand
Advertisement

Removing fluoride from US water could cost billions in dental care, study estimates

Removing fluoride from US water could cost billions in dental care, study estimates
FROM ANY ONLINE HARM. AND AN ERA OF FLUORIDATED FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE AND MOUTHWASHES. IT MAKES NO SENSE TO HAVE FLUORIDE IN OUR WATER. THE EVIDENCE AGAINST FLUORIDE IS OVERWHELMING. THE HEALTH SECRETARY, ROBERT F KENNEDY JR, CALLING ON MORE STATES TO JOIN UTAH IN BANNING FLUORIDE FROM PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES. KENNEDY SAYS ITS USE CAN LEAD TO IQ LOSS, BONE WEAKNESS, LIVER PROBLEMS. JOINING US RIGHT NOW IS DOCTOR TODD ELLERIN. HE鈥橲 THE VICE CHAIR OF MEDICINE AT SOUTH SHORE. HOW YOU JUST HEARD THE SECRETARY. YES. I MEAN, HE鈥橲 FIRM IN HIS COMMITMENT WITH THIS. RIGHT. AND WRITER, WHETHER WE COULD ARGUE THAT. SO LET鈥橲 TALK ABOUT THAT QUESTION ONE ARGUMENTS AGAINST FLUORIDE IN THE WATER. BUT HERE IN MASSACHUSETTS, WHAT ABOUT 62% OF PEOPLE LIVE IN COMMUNITIES THAT DO HAVE IT? DO YOU THINK THAT THAT THAT THOSE 62% OF THE COMMUNITIES IN THE STATE HAVE SOMETHING TO WORRY ABOUT? DEFINITELY NOT. NOT. WHAT WE鈥橵E SHOWN OVER MANY YEARS, DECADES IS THAT FLUORIDE IN THE WATER LEADS TO BETTER ORAL HEALTH. FLUORIDE HELPS. ESSENTIALLY, THE ENAMEL OF OUR TEETH AND PREVENTS DECAY. SO WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU DON鈥橳 HAVE ENOUGH FLUORIDE IS THAT YOU CAN GET WORSE CAVITIES AND AND BACTERIAL INFECTIONS. BAD ORAL HEALTH. BUT YOU DON鈥橳 WANT TO GET TOO MUCH. YOU DON鈥橳 HAVE TOO MUCH FLUORIDE IN THE WATER. AND BASICALLY THE CURRENT THE GOLDILOCKS NUMBER RIGHT NOW IS 0.7. AND THAT NUMBER WAS REDUCED BACK IN 2015. IT WAS BETWEEN 0.8 AND 1.2. AND SO I THINK THIS STRIKES THE RIGHT BALANCE BETWEEN GOOD ORAL HEALTH AND NOT HAVING TO WORRY ABOUT A REDUCED IQ. AND THAT AND THAT NUMBER YOU鈥橰E TALKING ABOUT IS THE IS THE AMOUNT IN WATER, RIGHT. THAT鈥橲 RIGHT. 0.7 TO 1. THAT鈥橲 RIGHT. BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN STUDIES THAT HAVE SHOWN IF YOU HAVE TOO HIGH OF A DOSE, YOU CAN REDUCE IQ A BIT IN CHILDREN, BUT THAT鈥橲 MORE THAN TWICE THE LEVELS THAT ARE IN THE YOU鈥橰E NOT BUYING THE JUMP TO IQ, RIGHT? I MEAN, YOU DON鈥橳 BELIEVE THAT THIS IS AFFECTING THAT. NOT AT THE CURRENT LEVELS. I GOT YOU. SO LET鈥橲 TALK ABOUT YOUR SPECIALTY INFECTIONS. THERE ARE NEW CONCERNS THIS WEEK ABOUT GROUP A STREP. DO I HAVE THAT RIGHT? GROUP A STREP. IS THAT THE SAME BACTERIA THAT CAUSES STREP THROAT? IT IS. IT鈥橲 THE SAME BACTERIA THAT CAUSES STREP THROAT. BUT IT鈥橲 NOT. THERE WAS A STUDY THAT WAS JUST PUBLISHED TODAY THAT SHOWED THAT FROM 2013 TO 2022, THERE HAS BEEN A DOUBLING OF INVASIVE GROUP B STREP INFECTIONS. THAT鈥橲 NOT JUST STREP THROAT, OKAY. AND AND THIS WAS IN POPULATIONS LIKE OVER 65. YEAH OKAY. AND INJECTION DRUG USERS HOMELESS AND ALASKAN NATIVES AND AMERICAN INDIANS. WHAT ABOUT CHILDREN. INTERESTING. YOU SAY THAT EVEN THOUGH SOME PEDIATRICIANS HAVE SEEN THINK THEY SEE ANECDOTALLY MORE CASES, THIS STUDY DID NOT SHOW AN INCREASE IN INVASIVE GROUP A STREP INFECTIONS IN CHILDREN. AND I WANT TO POINT SOMETHING OUT. IT鈥橲 SCARY TO HEAR ABOUT A DOUBLING, BUT WE鈥橰E TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE 3.6 PER 100,000 PATIENTS IN 2013 TO 8.2 PER 100,000 PATIENTS IN 2022. SO YES, IT鈥橲 A DOUBLING, BUT STILL THE ABSOLUTE RISK IS LOW. IT鈥橲 A DOUBLING, BUT THE NUMBER IS SMALLER IN COMPARISON WITH THE LARGER SCALE. WE ALSO WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE BIG CHANGE AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. THE CDC CLOSES A NATIONAL LAB TO TRACK SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES. DOES THAT HAVE A LOCAL IMPACT? IT DOES. WELL, THE PROBLEM IS WE鈥橰E TALKING ABOUT A LAB AT THE CDC THAT IS ESSENTIALLY LOOKING FOR RESISTANCE IN THINGS LIKE GONORRHEA. AND THE PROBLEM IS, RIGHT NOW, WE ONLY HAVE ONE ANTIBIOTIC LEFT THAT RELIABLY TREATS GONORRHEA. SO WITHOUT THIS LAB, WE CAN鈥橳 MEASURE AND THEN MONITOR TRENDS IN RESISTANCE OF THIS IMPORTANT ORGANISM. AND AND THAT鈥橲 A PROBLEM NOT AND THEY DON鈥橳 JUST MONITOR BUT THEY ALSO HELP WITH GUIDELINES AND HELP WITH TESTING. AND HELP, YOU KNOW, WITH WITH NOVEL THERAPEUTICS. SO IT鈥橲 IT鈥橲 IT鈥橲 A S
Advertisement
Removing fluoride from US water could cost billions in dental care, study estimates
The longstanding public health practice of adding fluoride to public drinking water systems in the United States is facing new challenges and bans in some places, and experts have warned that the change would come with significant costs 鈥� both to the health of children and the health care system.A new modeling study, published Friday in JAMA Health Forum, estimates that removing fluoride from public water in the U.S. would lead to 25.4 million excess decayed teeth in children and adolescents within five years, along with $9.8 billion in health care costs. After 10 years, these impacts would more than double to nearly 54 million excess decayed teeth and $19.4 billion in costs.That translates to one additional decayed tooth for every three children in the U.S. 鈥� but the costs wouldn't be spread evenly, said Dr. Lisa Simon, an internal medicine physician with Brigham and Women's Hospital and co-author of the new study."We know that the people who have the most benefit from fluoride are people who otherwise struggle to access dental care," says Simon, who has been researching dental policy for a decade. "When we think about those 25 million decayed teeth, they're much more likely to appear in the mouths of children who are publicly insured by Medicaid or come from otherwise low-income families."Fluoride is a mineral that can be found naturally in some foods and groundwater. It can help prevent tooth decay by strengthening the protective outer layer of enamel that can be worn away by acids formed by bacteria, plaque and sugars in the mouth. Adding fluoride to public water systems started in the U.S. in 1945 and has been hailed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as one of the 10 greatest health interventions in America in the 20th centuryIn 2022, close to two-thirds of the U.S. population was served by community water systems that had fluoride added to them, according to CDC data. But U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in April that he would tell the CDC to stop recommending that fluoride be added to public drinking water, and lawmakers in two states 鈥� Utah and Florida 鈥� have banned the practice this year.To estimate the effects of removing fluoride from community water, Simon and co-author Dr. Sung Eun Choi from the Harvard School of Dental Medicine assessed clinical oral health data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to create a nationally representative sample of U.S. children.At baseline, the data showed that about 1 in 5 children between the ages of 2 and 5 were estimated to have dental caries, a chronic infectious disease involving tooth decay and cavities, along with more than half of children ages 6 to 12 and more than 57% of teenagers. But removing fluoride would raise those prevalence rates by more than 7 percentage points, the researchers found."This is a huge cost for our country and it's all avoidable. There is no better replacement for the time-tested, doctor trusted use of fluoride in community water programs," Dr. Brett Kessler, president of the American Dental Association, said in a statement. "No amount of political rhetoric or misinformation will change that good oral health depends on proper nutrition, oral hygiene and optimally fluoridated water, or fluoride supplements if community water programs lack fluoride."On the campaign trail last fall, Kennedy called fluoride "industrial waste" and claimed that exposure has resulted in a wide variety of health problems, including cancer 鈥� claims that both the American Cancer Society and the CDC have disagreed with. And in April, HHS and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced that they would study the potential health risks of fluoride in drinking water 鈥� a review centered around a government study from last year concluding that higher levels of fluoride are linked to lowered IQ in children.In the new modeling study, researchers found that only about 1.5% of U.S. children in 2016 had exposure to this excess level of fluoride 鈥� considered to be above 1.5 milligrams per liter 鈥� that posed risk for fluorosis, a condition that leaves streaks or spots on teeth, or other harms. Meanwhile, about 40% of U.S. children had access to optimal fluoride levels that effectively prevent tooth decay 鈥� between 0.6 and 1.5 milligrams per liter 鈥� while about 46% had access to even lower levels.The authors of the new study did not assess the neurocognitive effects of fluoride because "current federal guidance does not find an association" at the levels used in public drinking water. They found that removing fluoride would only help prevent about 200,000 cases of fluorosis over five years.Tooth decay can mean a lot of things, Simon said, but their model was picking up cases that would likely need at least a filling along with severe cavities that could turn into a root canal or a tooth extraction 鈥� the costs of which would be borne by families, insurers and the government."Talking about money, which is really important, is only one way to measure that cost," Simon said. "It's also a cost in terms of children being in pain, children not being able to eat, children missing school or not being able to pay attention in school because their teeth hurt, parents missing work, children losing teeth that are supposed to stay with them for their entire lives, and those children growing into older adults who are more likely to be missing teeth with all of the health consequences that entails."Forecasts in the new modeling study mirror real-life impacts that were measured in other parts of the world after fluoride was removed from drinking water. Calgary, Alberta, stopped putting fluoride in its water in 2011, and a study found that children there had more cavities than those in cities that kept fluoride. Calgary will resume fluoridation this year.Simon worries the effects in the U.S. might be even greater because of health inequities that are especially pronounced in the dental care system."We've had fluoridated water for so long and it's worked so well that we've stopped appreciating the amazing things it's done," she said. "When something has been a success story for 80 years 鈥� you don't know which kid never got a cavity because they were exposed to fluoride, and we don't know which older adults aren't wearing dentures because of that."

The longstanding public health practice of adding fluoride to public drinking water systems in the United States is facing new challenges and bans in some places, and experts have warned that the change would come with significant costs 鈥� both to the health of children and the health care system.

A new , published Friday in JAMA Health Forum, estimates that removing fluoride from public water in the U.S. would lead to 25.4 million excess decayed teeth in children and adolescents within five years, along with $9.8 billion in health care costs. After 10 years, these impacts would more than double to nearly 54 million excess decayed teeth and $19.4 billion in costs.

Advertisement

That translates to one additional decayed tooth for every three children in the U.S. 鈥� but the costs wouldn't be spread evenly, said Dr. Lisa Simon, an internal medicine physician with Brigham and Women's Hospital and co-author of the new study.

"We know that the people who have the most benefit from fluoride are people who otherwise struggle to access dental care," says Simon, who has been researching dental policy for a decade. "When we think about those 25 million decayed teeth, they're much more likely to appear in the mouths of children who are publicly insured by Medicaid or come from otherwise low-income families."

Fluoride is a mineral that can be found naturally in some foods and groundwater. It can help prevent tooth decay by strengthening the protective outer layer of enamel that can be worn away by acids formed by bacteria, plaque and sugars in the mouth. Adding fluoride to public water systems started in the U.S. in 1945 and has been hailed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as in the 20th century

In 2022, close to two-thirds of the U.S. population was served by community water systems that had fluoride added to them, according to CDC . But U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in April that he would tell the CDC to stop recommending that fluoride be added to public drinking water, and lawmakers in two states 鈥� Utah and Florida 鈥� have banned the practice this year.

To estimate the effects of removing fluoride from community water, Simon and co-author Dr. Sung Eun Choi from the Harvard School of Dental Medicine assessed clinical oral health data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to create a nationally representative sample of U.S. children.

At baseline, the data showed that about 1 in 5 children between the ages of 2 and 5 were estimated to have dental caries, a chronic infectious disease involving tooth decay and cavities, along with more than half of children ages 6 to 12 and more than 57% of teenagers. But removing fluoride would raise those prevalence rates by more than 7 percentage points, the researchers found.

"This is a huge cost for our country and it's all avoidable. There is no better replacement for the time-tested, doctor trusted use of fluoride in community water programs," Dr. Brett Kessler, president of the American Dental Association, said in a statement. "No amount of political rhetoric or misinformation will change that good oral health depends on proper nutrition, oral hygiene and optimally fluoridated water, or fluoride supplements if community water programs lack fluoride."

On the campaign trail last fall, Kennedy called fluoride "industrial waste" and claimed that exposure has resulted in a wide variety of health problems, including cancer 鈥� claims that both the and the CDC have with. And in April, HHS and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that they would study the potential health risks of fluoride in drinking water 鈥� a review centered around a government study from last year concluding that higher levels of fluoride are linked to lowered IQ in children.

In the new modeling study, researchers found that only about 1.5% of U.S. children in 2016 had exposure to this excess level of fluoride 鈥� considered to be above 1.5 milligrams per liter 鈥� that posed risk for fluorosis, a condition that leaves streaks or spots on teeth, or other harms. Meanwhile, about 40% of U.S. children had access to optimal fluoride levels that effectively prevent tooth decay 鈥� between 0.6 and 1.5 milligrams per liter 鈥� while about 46% had access to even lower levels.

The authors of the new study did not assess the neurocognitive effects of fluoride because "current federal guidance does not find an association" at the levels used in public drinking water. They found that removing fluoride would only help prevent about 200,000 cases of fluorosis over five years.

Tooth decay can mean a lot of things, Simon said, but their model was picking up cases that would likely need at least a filling along with severe cavities that could turn into a root canal or a tooth extraction 鈥� the costs of which would be borne by families, insurers and the government.

"Talking about money, which is really important, is only one way to measure that cost," Simon said. "It's also a cost in terms of children being in pain, children not being able to eat, children missing school or not being able to pay attention in school because their teeth hurt, parents missing work, children losing teeth that are supposed to stay with them for their entire lives, and those children growing into older adults who are more likely to be missing teeth with all of the health consequences that entails."

Forecasts in the new modeling study mirror real-life impacts that were measured in other parts of the world after fluoride was removed from drinking water. Calgary, Alberta, stopped putting fluoride in its water in 2011, and a study found that children there than those in cities that kept fluoride. Calgary will resume fluoridation this year.

Simon worries the effects in the U.S. might be even greater because of health inequities that are especially pronounced in the dental care system.

"We've had fluoridated water for so long and it's worked so well that we've stopped appreciating the amazing things it's done," she said. "When something has been a success story for 80 years 鈥� you don't know which kid never got a cavity because they were exposed to fluoride, and we don't know which older adults aren't wearing dentures because of that."