Wow - NZ really doesn't want to acknowledge that the lowest threshold level for safety for fluoride is not known.
U.S. regions moving ahead - Will the Ministry of Health lose its political license as parents find out that the government has buried its head in the sand?
The fluoride dogma is slowly dissipating as government officials struggle to deflect the boiling hot potatoes that keep being thrown their way: For babies in-utero and primary school age children - total fluoride exposures from their daily diet, from brushing teeth twice a day, and from fluoride in drinking water, may add up to a neurodevelopmental risk. I.e. it is looking increasingly like fluoride is toxic to brains, a neurodevelopmental toxicant.
The scientific literature isn’t changing course any time soon.
In 2024 a U.S. court found that the U.S. EPA forgot to follow its own guidelines, including consider the lowest safe threshold for fluoride. The U.S. EPA have since appealed that decision - but apparently, on a technicality rather than the merits of the case.
The Anglo countries seem to be the most confident that fluoridated drinking water is a public health benefit, even if the scientists who conduct the Cochrane review are now a little dubious on the benefit. (Our government quoted earlier Cochrane reviews but forgot to refer to the 2024 one when officials were ‘updating’ their fluoride facts). Most of Europe do not fluoridate drinking water.
As Prof Philippe Grandjean noted to PSGR, low, environmentally relevant levels of fluoride may be something that populations adapted to millennia ago, but this doesn’t mean these levels were beneficial. Years ago, when governments were establishing the safe levels of fluoride, the toxic risk was based on dental and skeletal fluorosis.
Brain risk is a much more serious risk, but officials can’t seem to weigh the enormity of the ethical issues at stake.
Many studies now contradict the ‘fluoride is safe’ position.
The big problem? Governments really don’t know the lowest safe level.
These are the threshold levels that regulatory agencies normally formalise to ensure absolutely that there is no risk.
Instead, governments and regulators say there is not enough evidence of risk (and harm) to make a ruling. What if there is enough evidence to say that this is a great public health concern, that we know enough to make a ruling?
The European Food Safety Authority recently acknowledged the ethical tightrope in recent recommendations to plug the knowledge gap:
7 | RECOMMENDATIONS The Scientific Committee identified the following recommendations.
Additional evidence to be generated to determine the biological activity of fluoride on molecular and cellular targets in order to support mode(s) of action of fluoride relevant to the endpoints assessed and assist in the interpretation of the biological relevance of the effects reported in human and animal studies.
Additional well- conducted prospective studies at exposures lower than those associated with a drinking water concentration of 1.5 mg/L to strengthen the current evidence of adverse effects in the CNS during pre- and postnatal development.
Studies designed to evaluate the kinetics of fluoride in different age groups, including disposition to and from the bone and distribution to the brain under chronic exposure conditions, particularly to the fetus during pregnancy and infants during lactation.
Did you see that?: ‘Strengthen the current evidence of adverse effects in the CNS during pre- and postnatal development.’
They know that there is existing evidence for risk.
Unfortunately, when the New Zealand public attempts to get the government to ‘pause’ fluoridation of drinking water, the courts prefer to consider technicalities, and so they often find in favour of the Crown. This is not ethical. Ultimately, the judges are not looking at the evidence for possible risk to brains - but the judges could be taking steps to ask if this is a serious health concern and pause policy. This is really important because prevention of harm to the brain during prenatal periods, in infancy and childhood is critical, because the adverse effects can reverberate for a life time.
Recently Howard Hu, MD, MPH, ScD from the Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, the University of Southern California, and Linda Birnbaum, PhD, from the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences called for officials and researchers to step up consider the potential for consensus on harm, particularly during prenatal periods and early childhood:
In terms of biological plausibility, recent toxicological research indicates that the mechanism of fluoride’s neurotoxicity may be exerted through impacts on oxidative stress, synaptic and neurotransmission dysfunction, disruption of mitochondrial and energy metabolism, and calcium channel dysregulation.19 Another mechanism that may be at play relates to observations made in epidemiological studies that fluoride exposure is associated with reductions in maternal thyroid hormone levels20 as well as clinical hypothyroidism, which, in turn, are well-known risk factors for adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes.
It is key we work out what we agree on, because there is a lot at stake.
Warring is going on in the scientific literature, for example, a recent paper claiming the benefits of fluoridated drinking water was challenged by doctors/scientists who called for that papers’ retraction.
In PSGR’s recent interview with Prof Bruce Lanphear, we discussed the potential iodine/thyroid pathway that may be impacted by fluoride (six min short):
Our fantastic full length video with Prof Lanphear is available here.
The iodine/thyroid risk suggests a very important problem - the harm may be occurring at hormonally relevant levels, the levels the neuroendocrine system works at. Is fluoride disrupting brains (by modifying iodine status) at parts per billion or per trillion? We don’t know.
Gender differences are important but not recognised. For example, in the YouTube clip above, Prof Bruce Lanphear discusses that research he was involved in suggested that boys living in fluoridated drinking water regions were more likely to have a greater risk of autism, while girls did not appear to have the same autism risk association. Fluoridated drinking water regions may also correlate with increased risk for hypothyroidism, with women more likely to be diagnosed.
It seems that even one of NZ’s most prominent fluoride researchers may be starting to be a little more hesitant about fluoride’s claimed benefits.
X is all a-flutter with details of the latest Council or region in the U.S. to debate or vote to discontinue fluoridating drinking water as Councillors and officials learn that frankly …
… government officials do not know
the lowest safe threshold level for pregnant mothers, babies & children
What is also key, but ignored, is that generally regulators set a ‘safety factor’. E.g. if a chemical is found to be harmful at .1 mg/kg intake by bodyweight (as the lowest safe threshold level), the regulators will say that instead, a 10x lower safety factor is appropriate - that a .01 mg/kg by bodyweight will be established. This is because babies, children and adults all have different vulnerabilities that make them differently at risk.
But with fluoride (and its rather dodgy slurry chemical formulation fluorosilicic acid, also known as hydrofluorosilicic acid [HFS]) that is dosed in drinking water, there is neither a lowest safe threshold level nor a built in safety factor.
U.S. regions are enacting bans (e.g. Tennessee and Los Angeles), while statewide bans are also being enacted (Florida and Utah). In April 2025, the Associated Press reported:
An Associated Press analysis of CDC data for 36 states shows that many communities have halted fluoridation in recent years.
Over the last six years, at least 734 water systems that consistently reported their data in those states have stopped fluoridating water, according to the AP’s analysis.
Many people in NZ have been working for a long time to draw attention to fluoride’s risk. The Fluoride Free NZ people have been central to NZ’s effort.
PSGR have pointed out to NZ councils (videos here and here) that NZ children have higher levels of fluoride than adults - and that the NZ government, including the Ministry of Health have consistently failed to consider the implications of this NZ study that shows that children have higher levels of fluoride in their urine.
There is another problem that officials keep ignoring. Even though fluoride is emitted day and night from NZ’s waste-water treatment plants - there’s never, ever, been an assessment of risk from these persistent emissions into the surrounding environment. PSGR advised the BOP regional council of this fact. But, because it’s not regulated, it’s not their responsibility. There is no requirement to undertake a resource consent, so no requirement to provide evidence of safety.
The NZ EPA stepped away a long time ago. This is why the U.S. ruling is so important - while NZ tends to follow the U.S. - somehow it’s normal to ‘forget’ to properly risk assess and regulate the toxin fluoride - and the toxic chemical slurry injected into drinking water.
No, fluoride is not an essential micronutrient. The only reason fluoride effects the teeth is it appears to harden the dentin, the super thin enamel on the outside of the teeth. The problem is, there is increasing evidence that ingested fluoride also hardens bone and makes it brittle, which is why fractures seem to increase in fluoridated drinking water regions, including for children.
Bone that is hardened appears to extend to risk to the pineal gland. The NZ government have not examined the relationship between fluoride intake and the impact on pineal gland function, and the capacity of the pineal gland to release melatonin and support healthy sleep. Children have higher levels of fluoride in their body, yet sleep is crucial for growth and development, so perhaps this is an important, and a very relevant consideration.
Yet the Courts keep finding in favour of the Crown. In the High Court in May 2024 Judge La Hood dismissed the 9 April 2024 Fluoride Free New Zealand and NZDSOS urgent injunction to halt the introduction of fluoride to the urban water supply of Hastings. In July 2024 Judge La Hood awarded costs against Fluoride Free and NZDSOS. Conventionally, for judicial review if the case is in the public interest, costs will not be awarded to the applicants (costs in the Conclusion). Judge La Hood ruled there was no ‘public interest’ case to be made.
In an appeal, July 2025 Judges Thomas, Fitzgerald and Eaton determined that the
‘High Court did not err in finding that the proceeding did not meet the public interest test.
Not in the public interest.
Please search Fluoride Free NZ and NZDSOS for more on this issue and to support these organisation. When very small organisations are saddled with very big costs, the judges implicitly recognise that the pecuniary nature of a finding can send a very big chill into civil society organisations and their membership base.
The NZ legislation that gives the Ministry of Health their powers to fluoridate drinking water, only requires a marginal reduction in dental caries, and the risk to be considered is based on cost-benefit not risks including brain and bone health.
There’s a lot at stake indeed, but the obligation to consider health and environmentally-based risks seems to have been drafted out of the legislation.
The scientific evidence for neurodevelopmental risk is not going to go away.
No matter the name of the organisation, ultimately and always it is the people:
Kupu Māori (nāu i tuku mai):
Unuhia te rito o te harakeke, kei hea te kōmako e kō?
Ui mai ki ahau, ‘He aha te mea nui o te Ao?’
Māku e kī atu,
‘He tangata, he tangata, he tangata.’
Translation (English):
If you pluck out the centre shoot of the flax bush, where will the bellbird sing?
If you ask me, ‘What is the most important thing in the world?’
I will reply,
‘It is people, it is people, it is people.’
The pā harakeke (flax bush) is a metaphor for the whānau (family, kin group).
The rito (centre shoot) represents the child.
The awhi rito (surrounding leaves) represent the parents.
The outer leaves are the grandparents and extended whānau.
If the rito is taken, the bush cannot survive, just as the wellbeing of children ensures the survival of the people.
As always wonderfully written. Thank you.
POISONOUS FLURIDE HAS BEEN USED TO DUMB DOWN ADOLECENTS FOR DECADES, IT'S MUCH EASIER TO CONTROL LOW IQ THAN HIGH AND THIS WORKS IN FAVOUR OF THE GLOBALISTS.