Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy has maintained that the target of his war on fluoride is ingested fluoride — specifically that from fluoridated drinking water and oral supplements. But the misinformed policy efforts to ban community water fluoridation and restrict access to fluoride supplements are having spillover effects in dentists’ offices.
Twenty years ago, as a pediatric dental resident in Iowa City Donald Chi had his first encounter with a family that did not want a topical fluoride treatment for their child. At the time, these patients were rare, but not unheard of. Today, in his practice at Odessa Brown Children’s Clinic in Seattle, he estimates that the clinic sees up to six families a day who say no to fluoride.
Some anti-fluoride activists and policymakers have drawn a line between ingested fluoride and the varnishes and gels that are applied by professionals. Topical fluoride usually comes in the form of a quick-drying gel or varnish, and is most often applied by a dental professional or other health care provider. Extensive research shows that it strengthens the enamel of the teeth, prevents tooth decay, and even helps to reverse cavities, especially in high-risk populations like children, who tend to eat sugary diets and brush teeth inconsistently.
That distinction is lost on many lay people. For Chi, the rise of topical fluoride hesitancy can be traced to the unsupported claims about community water fluoridation coming from top policymakers, which has created confusion for parents, sowing the seeds of doubt regarding the safety of fluoride in general.
“That’s all that needed to really create chaos in the system,” Chi said.
