“Fluoride for cavity prevention linked to lower IQ in children, U.S. to impose regulations – reported by major U.S. media.”

“[Latest International News] Regarding the Court Ruling in the U.S. on September 24, 2024”

CNN News
Fluoride in drinking water poses enough risk to merit new EPA action, judge says
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/25/health/epa-fluoride-drinking-water/index.html
By Associated Press Published 3:38 PM EDT, Wed September 25, 2024
NEW YORK (AP) USA
https://apnews.com/article/fluoride-ruling-drinking-water-ccdfa11138600ab0838ebf979cbaead2
BY MIKE STOBBE　Updated 2:07 PM GMT-7, September 25, 2024


CNN News (U.S.)
Associated Press, New York
September 25, 2024

Federal Judge Rules EPA Must Act on Fluoride Risks in Drinking Water

A federal judge has determined that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must take further action to regulate fluoride levels in drinking water, citing potential risks to children’s intellectual development.edition.cnn.com+3apnews.com+3washingtonpost.com+3

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen acknowledged that while it’s not certain that the fluoride levels typically added to drinking water are causing lower IQs in children, existing research indicates a significant risk. Consequently, he ordered the EPA to implement measures to mitigate this risk, though he did not specify what those measures should be.edition.cnn.com+5apnews.com+5edition.cnn.com+5edition.cnn.com+4washingtonpost.com+4usnews.com+4

This ruling challenges a practice long regarded as a major public health achievement: the fluoridation of drinking water to prevent tooth decay. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has endorsed this practice, stating that fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replenishing minerals lost during normal wear and tear.edition.cnn.com+7apnews.com+7usnews.com+7washingtonpost.com+5apnews.com+5edition.cnn.com+5

In August, the National Toxicology Program released a report expressing “moderate confidence” that higher fluoride exposure is linked to lower IQ in children. This conclusion was based on studies involving fluoride levels approximately twice the recommended limit for drinking water.adanews.ada.org+7apnews.com+7wsfa.com+7washingtonpost.com+5apnews.com+5edition.cnn.com+5

The EPA, a defendant in the lawsuit, argued that the impact of lower fluoride exposure levels is unclear. However, Judge Chen emphasized that the agency must ensure a sufficient margin between hazard levels and exposure levels, stating that without such a margin, the chemical poses a risk. He concluded that the health risk at current exposure levels in U.S. drinking water is sufficiently high to warrant regulatory action under federal law.usnews.com+5wsfa.com+5apnews.com+5edition.cnn.com+6apnews.com+6usnews.com+6

An EPA spokesperson stated that the agency is reviewing the decision but declined to comment further.edition.cnn.com+4wsfa.com+4apnews.com+4

The case, initiated in 2017, was led by the nonprofit environmental advocacy organization Food & Water Watch. The proceedings were paused in 2020 to await the National Toxicology Program’s report, and arguments resumed earlier this year.apnews.com+2apnews.com+2edition.cnn.com+2edition.cnn.com+6wsfa.com+6washingtonpost.com+6

Michael Connett, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, stated, “In our view, the only effective way to eliminate the risk from adding fluoride chemicals to water is to stop adding them.”wsfa.com+3apnews.com+3washingtonpost.com+3

The American Dental Association (ADA) maintains its support for community water fluoridation, asserting that it is safe and effective in preventing tooth decay. The ADA noted that the judge’s ruling does not ban or limit the addition of fluoride to public drinking water supplies.adanews.ada.org+1apnews.com+1

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

REUTERS
EPA must address fluoridated water’s risk to children’s IQs, US judge rules
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/epa-must-address-fluoridated-waters-risk-childrens-iqs-us-judge-rules-2024-09-25/
By Nate Raymond
September 25, 20249:37 AM PDT USA

Reuters U.S.
September 25, 2024
U.S. EPA Must Address IQ Risks from Fluoridated Water, Judge Rules
By Nate Raymond – 9:37 AM, September 25, 2024

(Reuters, Sept. 25, 2024) – A federal judge in California has ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to strengthen regulations on fluoride in drinking water, ruling that current nationwide levels may pose an unreasonable potential risk to children.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the San Francisco federal court ruled on Tuesday that the common practice of adding fluoride to drinking water for cavity prevention presents an undue risk to children’s brain development, siding with several advocacy groups and offering a new legal perspective.

Judge Chen stated that the advocacy groups had successfully demonstrated in a non-jury trial that fluoride poses an unreasonable risk of harm under the Toxic Substances Control Act, warranting regulatory action by the EPA.

“The scientific literature on record demonstrates with a high degree of certainty that a hazard exists. Fluoride is associated with reduced IQ,” he wrote.

However, he emphasized that he was not definitively concluding that fluoridated water poses a public health hazard.

The ruling was welcomed by Food & Water Watch, an environmental advocacy group that led the coalition which sued the EPA in 2017. The lawsuit challenged the agency’s rejection of a citizens’ petition calling for a ban on fluoridation chemicals in public drinking water.

“This historic ruling should pave the way toward better, safer fluoride standards for everyone,” said Michael Connett, an attorney for the advocacy groups, in a statement on Wednesday. The EPA said it is currently reviewing the decision.

Fluoridation of water in the U.S. began in 1945, but recommended levels have since been lowered to address potential risks such as tooth damage and other health concerns.

Today, more than 200 million Americans—about 75% of the population—consume fluoridated drinking water. The recommended concentration is 0.7 milligrams per liter (0.7 PPM or 0.00007%).

Local governments in the U.S. voluntarily add fluoride to their water supplies. Fluoride toothpaste is also recommended to protect children’s developing teeth, even those not yet erupted. This contrasts with many European countries, where fluoridated drinking water is rare.

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

CBS News HEALTHWATCH
Federal court rules against EPA in lawsuit over fluoride in water
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/EPA-fluoride-drinking-water-federal-court-ruling/
By Alexander Tin　Edited By Allison Elyse Gualtieri
September 25, 2024 / 11:46 AM EDT / CBS News USA

CBS News (USA)
September 25, 2024
Federal Court Rules Against EPA in Water Fluoridation Case
By Alexander Tin | Edited by Allison Elyse Gualtieri
September 25, 2024 / 11:46 AM EDT / CBS News America

A federal court in California issued a ruling late Tuesday against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), ordering the agency to act on concerns about potential health risks from the currently recommended fluoride levels in U.S. drinking water supplies.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen deals a blow to public health organizations and businesses that have supported fluoridation for cavity prevention, as debate continues over whether the benefits of continuing water fluoridation outweigh its risks.

Environmental advocacy groups including Food & Water Watch and the Fluoride Action Network have been engaged in a nearly decade-long legal battle with the EPA, after the agency rejected a petition to stop local water utilities from adding fluoride to public drinking water.

While Judge Chen cautiously noted that the ruling does not definitively conclude fluoridated water is harmful to public health, he stated that the existing evidence of its potential risks is strong enough to require EPA action.

“There is scientifically credible evidence demonstrating that fluoride poses a health risk. It is associated with lower IQ in children and is hazardous at doses very close to fluoride levels present in U.S. drinking water,” Judge Chen wrote in his ruling.

The judge cited recent findings from a National Institutes of Health toxicology program, which concluded that “high concentrations” of fluoride were linked to lowered IQ in children.

The American Academy of Pediatrics responded by highlighting that other studies have drawn different conclusions on fluoride’s risks and benefits, and expressed concerns about the NIH report’s validity. The Academy continues to support the combined use of fluoridated toothpaste and water as a means to prevent tooth decay.

The CDC has long praised community water fluoridation as one of the 20th century’s greatest public health achievements. It has led to the development of modern dental products like fluoride toothpaste and mouth rinses that reduce cavities.

While Judge Chen acknowledged that further research on low-level fluoride exposure in U.S. drinking water is needed, he ruled that the existing level is “not sufficiently safe.”

He also referenced earlier studies suggesting that pregnant mothers may be particularly vulnerable to fluoride exposure. EPA experts argued in court that these elevated fluoride levels may also result from other sources like food and dental products, not just drinking water.

Judge Chen noted, “Not only is there insufficient safety margin between hazardous levels and current exposure levels — in fact, many people’s exposure levels exceed those hazardous thresholds.”

Experts opposing water fluoridation argue that the near-universal use of fluoride-containing toothpaste and other dental products makes adding the chemical to water unnecessary. Other countries have reported success in reducing cavities without fluoridated water.

Still, the CDC maintains that community water fluoridation remains “the most cost-effective way to deliver fluoride to all members of a community, regardless of age, education, or income level.”

Judge Chen noted that the EPA has many possible paths forward in light of the ruling — ranging from warning labels about fluoride risks to stricter regulation of fluoride levels in drinking water.

“But what the EPA may not do in the face of this court’s ruling,” he wrote, “is ignore the risk.”

Michael Connett, the lead attorney for the plaintiff groups and a partner at the firm Siri & Glimstad, said the law now obligates the EPA to take steps to mitigate fluoride-related risks.

“In our view, the clear way to eliminate the risk from adding fluoride chemicals to drinking water is to stop adding them,” Connett told CBS News.

This ruling stems from a lawsuit initiated under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, passed by Congress in 2016. The law granted citizens the right to challenge EPA decisions in court when the agency rejects a petition.

Unlike the now-overturned “Chevron deference” principle — which once required courts to defer to agency expertise — the 2016 law gave Judge Chen authority to decide for himself whether the evidence suggested an “unreasonable risk” from fluoride.

Connett said this is the first successful case where citizen groups used the law to take their petition before a judge.

“The length of time it took the court to reach a ruling shows it was not rushed,” he said. “The court took time to consider extensive testimony and evidence — so this was anything but a hasty judgment.”

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

Fox News USA

Federal judge orders EPA further regulate fluoride in drinking water due to concerns over lowered IQ in kids
https://www.foxnews.com/health/federal-judge-orders-epa-further-regulate-fluoride-drinking-water-due-concerns-over-lowered-iq-kid
Municipalities have been adding fluoride to water supplies for decades to prevent tooth decay but critics have long questioned its potential side effects
By Michael Dorgan 　Published September 26, 2024 8:40am EDT

Fox News USA
September 26, 2024
Federal Judge Orders EPA to Further Regulate Fluoride in Drinking Water Due to Concerns Over Lowered IQ in Kids
Municipalities have been adding fluoride to water supplies for decades to prevent tooth decay, but critics have long questioned its potential side effects.
By Michael Dorgan, Published September 26, 2024, 8:40 AM EDT

Fluoride has been added to U.S. water supplies for decades, but a California federal judge has ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to strengthen fluoride regulations, citing that high levels of fluoride may pose an “unreasonable risk” to children’s intellectual development.

U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen in California ruled on Tuesday that scientific evidence regarding the health risks of fluoride at current regulatory levels necessitates stricter oversight under the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The TSCA provides a legal avenue for citizens to petition the EPA to evaluate whether industrial chemicals pose health risks.

In an 80-page ruling, Judge Chen stated that whether fluoride is definitively harmful is “not without debate” but ordered the EPA to take measures to reduce the risk, without specifying what those measures should be.

“In fact, EPA’s own experts agree that fluoride is hazardous at some level of exposure,” the judge wrote. “And there is sufficient evidence to show that maternal exposure to fluoride is associated with IQ decrements in children.”

Fluoride in Water Linked to Cognitive Impairment
“From 1981 to 1984, it was contested that fluoride was associated with adverse effects such as skeletal fluorosis, dental fluorosis, and psychological and behavioral problems,” Chen noted.

At the same time, he emphasized that the court’s ruling “does not definitively conclude that fluoridated water is injurious to public health.” Rather, as required by the amended TSCA, the court found an unreasonable risk of such harm exists, sufficient to obligate the EPA to take regulatory action.

“This order does not precisely dictate what that response must be. The amended TSCA leaves primary decision-making to the EPA. However, one thing the EPA cannot do in the face of this court’s ruling is ignore that risk,” Judge Chen added.

“If the court again finds that the chemical in question presents an unreasonable risk, it will order the EPA to engage in rulemaking for that chemical,” he stated. “The EPA is granted primary authority to respond. Regulatory actions can range from merely requiring warning labels to banning the chemical outright.”

EPA spokesperson Jeff Landis told the Associated Press that the agency is reviewing the decision but declined further comment.

Ashley Malin, a researcher at the University of Florida studying the effects of elevated fluoride levels in pregnant women, said this is the first time a federal judge has ruled on the neurodevelopmental risks of the recommended U.S. water fluoridation level.

Malin called it “the most historic ruling in the U.S. fluoridation debate that I have ever seen.”

Photo
Currently, over 200 million Americans, or about 75% of the population, drink fluoridated water.
Close-up photo of an open toothpaste tube, cap, and toothbrush against a blue background. Many toothpaste brands contain fluoride.

Does Fluoride in Drinking Water Harm the Brain?
In 1950, federal authorities approved water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and continued to promote it after fluoride-containing toothpaste brands emerged a few years later. In 1945, Grand Rapids, Michigan, became the first city in the world to fluoridate its water supply.

Experts have long maintained that brushing with fluoride outweighs the risks of ingesting it, the latter of which can cause harmful neurotoxic effects.

Since 2015, federal health authorities have recommended a fluoridation level of 0.7 milligrams per liter (0.7 PPM, 0.00007%). For the previous 50 years, the upper limit was 1.2 PPM (0.00012%). “Experimental evidence has increasingly established fluoride’s association with side effects such as severe dental fluorosis, fracture risk, and potential skeletal fluorosis,” the judge noted. Skeletal fluorosis is a condition that can weaken bones, cause stiffness, and lead to pain.

The World Health Organization has set a safe limit for fluoride in drinking water at 1.5 PPM. Separately, the EPA has long required water systems to contain no more than 4 milligrams per liter (4 PPM, 0.0004%) of fluoride to prevent skeletal fluorosis.

The lawsuit was initiated by the citizen advocacy group Food & Water Watch, which petitioned the EPA to investigate claims that fluoride causes IQ reductions in children. The EPA rejected the group’s 2016 petition to ban or restrict water fluoridation.

Food & Water Watch, along with several co-petitioners, subsequently sued to compel EPA action, citing mounting scientific evidence of fluoride’s toxicity.

“Today’s ruling is a significant acknowledgment of the large and growing body of scientific evidence showing serious human health risks associated with fluoridated drinking water,” the group said in a statement.

Photo
Water utility supervisor at a plant adding fluoride to drinking water in Healdsburg, California. (Michael Macor/San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images)

“The court reviewed the science and acted accordingly. Now, the EPA must respond by implementing new regulations to adequately protect all Americans, especially our most vulnerable infants, from this known health threat.”

Tuesday’s ruling cited a review of 72 human epidemiological studies and available literature by the U.S. National Toxicology Program, which concluded that fluoride is associated with IQ reductions in children.

“Despite the EPA’s experts acknowledging fluoride’s hazards, the EPA has pointed to technical issues at various stages of risk evaluation and concluded that fluoride does not present an unreasonable risk,” Judge Chen wrote. “The EPA primarily argues that the precise relationship between hazardous levels and dose-response at lower exposure levels is not fully clear. However, the EPA’s claim that fluoridation has no impact on children’s IQ reductions lacks persuasiveness,” he ruled.

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

Food & Water Watch
Court Requires EPA to Strengthen Regulations on Fluoride in Drinking Water
https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/2024/09/26/fluoride-drinking-water-lawsuit-victory/
Research shows that adding fluoride to drinking water may pose an unreasonable risk to public health. Our lawsuit now compels the EPA to address this threat.
By Mitch Jones Published Sep 26, 2024

Food & Water Watch
Court Requires EPA to Strengthen Regulations on Fluoride in Drinking Water
Research shows that adding fluoride to drinking water may pose an unreasonable risk to public health. Our lawsuit now compels the EPA to address this threat.
By Mitch Jones, Published September 26, 2024

For decades, municipalities have followed federal recommendations to add fluoride to drinking water. Public water systems provide fluoridated water to over 207 million Americans to promote dental health. However, mounting scientific evidence indicates that high levels of fluoride can cause harmful neurotoxic effects in children. Now, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must consider these risks and revise regulations on fluoride in drinking water.

When Food & Water Watch became aware of these risks, we knew we had to act. In 2016, alongside allied citizen groups, we submitted a petition to the EPA requesting restrictions or a ban on water fluoridation. After the EPA rejected our petition, we filed a lawsuit. This September, after reviewing extensive scientific evidence, a federal court ruled in our favor.

As the court stated, we proved that “fluoridation of drinking water at the optimal level of 0.7 mg/L, as designated in the United States, presents a risk of injury to health or the environment without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors.” As a result, this risk can no longer be ignored, and regulations must be strengthened.

Fluoride Poses Neurotoxic Risks to Children
Fluoridation of drinking water is associated with ADHD, reduced average IQ in children, and cognitive impairment in older adults. Neurotoxic effects are particularly pronounced in formula-fed infants, African Americans, and those with nutritional deficiencies.

These risks have been identified in an overwhelming majority of credible studies worldwide. For instance, recent studies in Canada and Mexico found correlations between maternal fluoride levels and children’s health issues, including IQ reduction, increased risk of ADHD, and inattention.

Another Canadian study showed that formula-fed infants in fluoridated areas had lower nonverbal intelligence scores compared to those in non-fluoridated areas. Formula-fed infants consume more water than breastfed infants, leading to higher fluoride exposure in fluoridated regions.

This is a matter of justice, as low-income and minority families are more likely to use formula. For example, one study found that low-income Hispanic immigrant women are significantly more likely to use formula early.

Currently, the U.S. limits fluoride to 4 milligrams per liter (4 PPM, 0.0004%), but scientists have observed average IQ reductions at levels below this threshold. Even at the “optimal” concentration of 0.7 mg/L (0.7 PPM, 0.00007%) recommended by the Public Health Service, formula-fed infants may experience adverse IQ effects.

A Precautionary Approach to Fluoride in Drinking Water Is Needed
Outside the U.S., fluoridation is less common. In Western Europe, 97% of the population drinks non-fluoridated water, and these countries have seen cavity rates decline similarly to the U.S.

Water fluoridation became widespread decades ago when scientists believed the opposite was true. However, science has advanced significantly since then, revealing that ingesting fluoride poses substantial health risks.

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the foundational U.S. law regulating hazardous substances, the EPA has authority to regulate chemicals that pose an “unreasonable risk” to the general public or “susceptible populations.” This includes groups like older adults, pregnant women, and infants, who may be more vulnerable to the adverse health effects of hazardous chemicals. As the court noted, over 2 million women and infants are affected by fluoridation.

The court ruled that the risks of fluoridation are unreasonable and that action must be taken to strengthen regulations. This ruling represents a significant acknowledgment of the large and growing body of science indicating serious human health risks associated with fluoridated drinking water. The court reviewed the science and acted accordingly. Now, the EPA must respond by implementing new regulations to adequately protect all Americans, especially our most vulnerable infants, from this known health threat.

Food & Water Watch
Mitch Jones, September 26, 2024

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

The Fluoride Action Network
Federal Court Rules That Water Fluoridation Poses an “Unreasonable Risk” to Children
https://fluoridealert.org/content/federal-court-rules-that-water-fluoridation-poses-an-unreasonable-risk-to-children/
The ruling requires the EPA to take regulatory action to eliminate the risk, in a decision that could end the use of water fluoridation chemicals throughout the U.S.
September 26, 2024 | Stuart Cooper

The Fluoride Action Network
Federal Court Rules That Water Fluoridation Poses an “Unreasonable Risk” to Children
The ruling requires the EPA to take regulatory action to eliminate the risk, in a decision that could end the use of water fluoridation chemicals throughout the U.S.
September 26, 2024 | Stuart Cooper

Following a precedent-setting seven-year legal battle, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a historic ruling, ordering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take regulatory action to eliminate the “unreasonable risk” to children’s health posed by water fluoridation.

This ruling is a significant blow to the EPA and fluoridation proponents, including the American Dental Association and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as the court determined that safety claims asserted for over 75 years lack evidential support.

Senior Judge Edward Chen wrote:

“The Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (‘mg/L,’ 0.7 PPM, 0.00007%), the level presently considered ‘optimal’ in the United States, poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children. The Court finds there is an unreasonable risk of such injury, a risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage in regulatory response.”

“Taken together, there is substantial and scientifically credible evidence establishing that fluoride poses a risk to human health. Fluoride is associated with reduced IQ in children, and at dosages very close to the levels present in U.S. drinking water, it is hazardous. Reduced IQ results in serious harm. Studies show that a reduction in IQ by even 1–2 points can lead to, for instance, lower educational attainment, employment status, productivity, and wages.”

While the ruling does not specify the exact measures the EPA must take, under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), if a court finds a chemical presents an unreasonable risk, the EPA is legally obligated to restrict or eliminate that risk.

Judge Chen discussed various options for regulating fluoridation, including a potential ban, stating:

“One thing the EPA cannot do in the face of this Court’s ruling is ignore that risk.”

Full Ruling (English)
https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Court-Ruling.pdf

Notable excerpts from the ruling include, from page 5: “Pooled benchmark dose analysis concluded that a 1-point decrease in a child’s IQ is predicted for each 0.28 mg/L (0.28 PPM) of fluoride in the urine of pregnant mothers. This is highly concerning.”

This is because “the urinary fluoride concentration in pregnant mothers in the U.S. ranges from a median of 0.8 mg/L (0.8 PPM) to 1.89 mg/L (1.89 PPM) depending on the extent of exposure. Not only is there an insufficient margin of safety between hazardous and exposure levels, but in many cases, exposure levels exceed the hazardous level of 0.28 mg/L (0.28 PPM).”

In this case, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) submitted a citizen petition under Section 21 of TSCA in November 2016, requesting a ban on the addition of fluoridation chemicals to water. When the EPA denied the petition, FAN filed a lawsuit in federal court in 2017, joined by consumer advocacy groups, Food & Water Watch, Moms Against Fluoridation, the Public Health Association, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, and individuals representing themselves or their children.

After a two-week hearing via Zoom in June 2020, proceedings were paused as the court awaited the final results of the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) systematic review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity.

However, in 2022, pressure from fluoridation proponents’ interest groups led to the NTP report being blocked from release by senior officials at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The plaintiffs submitted documents exposing this interference, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, to the court. This discovery resulted in a legal agreement mandating the report’s release, and Chen ruled that the court should proceed using the NTP’s draft report.

The second and final phase of the trial took place over several weeks in the winter of 2024. Last month, the NTP finally released the first part of its report, finding “a large body” of evidence that fluoride exposure is “consistently associated with reduced IQ in children.” The accompanying NTP meta-analysis is slated for publication in a peer-reviewed journal soon.

This marks the first time a citizen petition has been litigated in the U.S. and the first time a citizen group has won under Section 21 of TSCA. It is also the first case where citizen groups successfully secured a comprehensive, objective scientific review of fluoridation in court under TSCA’s provisions for a level playing field, with experts testifying under oath.

Early Media Coverage
Major media outlets have quickly covered the news, including the following:

• Bloomberg Law: Court Says EPA Must Reduce Fluoride’s Risks to Children’s IQ
  https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/epa-must-reduce-fluorides-risks-to-childrens-iq-court-says
• The Defender: Federal Court Rules Fluoride in Water Poses ‘Unreasonable Risk’ to Kids
  https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fluoridation-risk-kids-landmark-decision/
• DrBicuspid: U.S. Court: Fluoride in Water Risky, Must Be Addressed
  https://www.drbicuspid.com/dental-practice/legal-issues/article/15684672/us-court-fluoride-in-water-risky-must-be-addressed
• The Hill: Judge Orders EPA to Address Fluoride’s Potential Impact on IQ in Drinking Water
  https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4898893-epa-ordered-address-fluoride-drinking-water-iq/
• Politico: Fluoride Ruling Pushes EPA for Regulatory Action
  https://www.eenews.net/articles/fluoride-ruling-pushes-epa-for-regulatory-action/

Next Steps
The court has ordered the initiation of a rulemaking process to develop new regulations to limit or eliminate the risks fluoridation chemicals pose to developing brains.

Cavities can be filled, but damage to a child’s brain is permanent, with lifelong consequences. When it comes to brain development disorders, there is no second chance.

September 26, 2024 | Stuart Cooper

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

The Final Resolution to the Decades-Long Fluoride Debate on Dental Caries Prevention in the United States
To prevent tooth decay in children, lactic acid bacteria antibacterial peptide “Neonisin e” is a new green technology other than fluoride, which has the risk of lowering IQ.
DTC world newest green technology and investment opportunity from Japan 2024 09

The Final Resolution to the Decades-Long Fluoride Debate on Dental Caries Prevention in the United States
To prevent tooth decay in children, lactic acid bacteria antibacterial peptide “Neonisin-e” is a new green technology other than fluoride, which has the risk of lowering IQ.
DTC world newest green technology and investment opportunity from Japan, September 2024

A 70-year debate over fluoride use in caries prevention in the United States culminated in a historic ruling after a seven-year legal battle.

From 2025 onward, children’s caries prevention is expected to see a surge in green technology alternatives to fluoride.

Since the 1950s, the U.S. has implemented water fluoridation as a public health measure, oxidizing tooth surfaces with fluoride chemicals to prevent caries (tooth decay caused by bacterial acid erosion). However, in the 21st century, increasing research, evidence, and scientific studies have pointed to the risk of reduced IQ in children as a neurological side effect of fluoride ingestion. The culmination of a seven-year court case in late 2024 brought significant progress to this 70-year controversy over fluoride use.

Court Ruling: September 24, 2024
https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Court-Ruling.pdf

In the September 2024 trial, the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) released a report linking fluoride levels in drinking water to reduced IQ in children. This report reviewed over 500 studies, suggesting that high fluoride exposure may adversely affect neurodevelopment.

U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) Systematic Review on the Current State of Scientific Findings Regarding Fluoride Exposure, Neurodevelopment, and Cognition: August 2024
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/publications/monographs/mgraph08

 

Could Even 1 Milligram of Fluoride Face Regulation?

In this trial, the federal judge suggested that water fluoridation at 0.7 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”), the level currently considered “optimal” in the United States, poses an unreasonable risk of lowering children’s IQ.

The fluoride concentration of “0.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L)” is equivalent to 0.7 ppm (parts per million). PPM and mg/L are units that hold the same meaning for one liter of water, so 0.7 mg/L = 0.7 ppm. When expressed as a percentage, this becomes 0.00007%, indicating that the impact on children’s brains has been highlighted at an extremely trace level.

Regarding the risk intake, it is said that a person consumes 2 to 3 liters of water per day (slightly less than 1 liter for infants). When calculated based on tap water with a fluoride concentration of 0.7 ppm, the ingestion of approximately 1 mg of fluoride—a very small amount—has been noted in this ruling as potentially affecting the developing brains of infants and young children.

 

Is the WHO’s Safety Standard Outdated? The Risk of IQ Reduction at Ultra-Low Concentrations Below Acute and Chronic Toxicity Levels Identified in the 21st Century

This ruling highlights the need for caution regarding the significant discrepancy between the fluoride risk thresholds previously deemed safe and the fluoride intake levels now linked to brain damage and IQ reduction in children, as revealed by the latest scientific research.

In the absence of prior studies on fluoride’s impact on children’s brains, guidance on the upper limit of fluoride intake was based on the scientific knowledge available to humanity, primarily focusing on amounts that visibly manifest as toxic, namely “acute toxicity (nausea and vomiting)” and “chronic toxicity (dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis).”

Regarding acute toxicity (nausea and vomiting):
The toxic dose was set at 2 mg of fluoride per kilogram of body weight (equivalent to 3.7 mg of sodium fluoride). For a 4–5-year-old child (with a standard body weight of 20 kg), the estimated toxic dose would be 40 mg of fluoride. In the case of toothpaste with a fluoride concentration of 900 ppm, this would correspond to swallowing approximately 45 g at once, an amount considered unlikely to occur accidentally and thus deemed safe.

Regarding chronic toxicity (dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis):
In the United States, fluoride in drinking water has been restricted to 4 mg per liter (4 ppm, 0.0004%) or less, a level considered safe as it does not cause damage to bones or teeth.

However, the latest court ruling suggests effects that were previously undetectable by human science and are not outwardly visible.

 

Fluoride Concentration of 0.7 ppm May Adversely Affect Infants’ IQ

Scientists have observed reductions in children’s average IQ at levels far below previous restrictions. This ruling highlights that even at the “optimal” concentration of 0.7 mg/L (0.7 ppm, 0.00007%) recommended by the Public Health Service, there is a potential for adverse effects on the IQ of formula-fed infants.

Until now, human science has focused on acute and chronic toxicities such as vomiting, dental fluorosis, and skeletal fluorosis, which present clear symptoms and have been carefully monitored. However, the impact on the brain, such as IQ reduction in infants and children, was not outwardly visible.

The accumulation of scientific evidence over the past 20 years has led to the first-ever recognition of this risk in human history in September 2024, marking it as groundbreaking news for protecting future generations of children.

Fluoride Is Present in Foods Historically Consumed by Humanity, but at Safe Concentrations

Fluoride is widely distributed in nature, found in higher amounts in foods like black tea and seaweed, in trace amounts in Japanese green tea, and in even smaller amounts in other foods.

Natural fluoride is present in salt, tea, foods, and even the human body, leading some to claim that “fluoride is completely safe.” Others argue that “since salt can be toxic at high concentrations, fluoride is safe in moderation.” However, the fluoride concentration in toothpaste and mouthwash is approximately 1,000 times higher than the levels found in nature’s biocompatible environment.

Thus, compared to salt, the exposure levels and human health impacts of fluoride concentrations are vastly different.

Moreover, inorganic fluorides used for caries prevention, such as fluoride compounds, cannot be produced by collecting them from natural sources like plants, animals, or seawater. These are chemical substances refined from the mineral fluorite (CaF₂), which contains high concentrations of fluoride, and their fluoride concentration levels are entirely distinct from those in foods derived from natural plants or animals.

Among foods, black tea has the highest fluoride concentration. Tea leaves, in addition to their primary stimulant component, caffeine (200–400 mg/L, or 200–400 ppm), which enhances alertness and focus, may contain fluoride absorbed from soil or water depending on the production region, sometimes at high concentrations.

• Black tea: 1.0–4.0 mg/L (1.0–4.0 ppm; Indian black tea, often grown in fluoride-rich soils, is common, and strong brews may have even higher concentrations)
• Japanese green tea: 0.3–0.6 mg/L (0.3–0.6 ppm; standard brewing strength)
• Coffee: 0.1–0.6 mg/L (0.1–0.6 ppm; standard brewing strength)

Seaweed absorbs components from seawater (containing approximately 1.3 ppm fluoride), resulting in relatively high fluoride content.

Fish, when consumed with bones, can have higher fluoride concentrations, with a tendency for greater accumulation in bones and roe.

Infants, children, those trying to conceive, pregnant women, and breastfeeding mothers should exercise caution to avoid excessive consumption of alcohol, caffeine, multiple liters of coffee or green tea, multiple cups of strong black tea, or kilograms of fish bones, seaweed, miso, or salt.

Unlike refined table salt, sea salt and rock salt contain minerals essential for human vitality, including trace amounts of fluoride. Seawater contains about 1.35 ppm of fluoride, and sea salt is assumed to have a similar fluoride concentration. For example, at a concentration of 3 ppm, one tablespoon of sea salt (approximately 18 g) contains about 0.054 mg of fluoride. This amount is within the safe range for a normal diet.

Historically, fluoride exposure from natural foods consumed by humanity has been safe at typical dietary intake levels. The trace amounts of fluoride found in organisms and plants outside of high-fluoride-contaminated areas are considered safe for organisms, plants, and humans based on historical evidence.

On the other hand, high-concentration fluoride exposure is noted to carry a “significantly higher exposure risk and quantity from toothpaste.”

Over 1,000 Times Higher Fluoride Exposure Risk in a Single Instance: Toothpaste and Mouthwash with Over 1,000 ppm Far Exceed Intake Compared to Tap Water or Foods at Around 1 ppm – Caution Needed for Dermal Absorption

Compared to U.S. fluoridated tap water (typically 0.7 ppm), green tea (generally 0.3–0.6 ppm), sea salt (approximately 0.05 ppm per tablespoon), and other foods or drinking water with less than 1 ppm, products like toothpaste containing over 1,000 ppm of fluoride pose a significantly higher fluoride exposure risk—over 1,000 times greater—through accidental ingestion or dermal absorption. The reasons for this are outlined below:

1. Difference in Fluoride Concentration
   The fluoride concentration in tap water or foods is around 1 ppm, an extremely low level, where small amounts of fluoride are gradually introduced into the body when consumed as drinking water. Additionally, it is difficult to consume 2–3 liters of water at once, so fluoride levels are unlikely to increase dramatically, providing a sense of safety.

   In contrast, toothpaste typically contains fluoride at concentrations of 100 ppm or higher, reaching up to 1,500 ppm in products for adults. As a result, even leaving toothpaste residue in the mouth or accidentally swallowing just a small portion can lead to a single instance of intake that is hundreds to thousands of times higher than that from tap water.

2. Risk of Residual Fluoride Even After Spitting Out
   Toothpaste tends to remain in the mouth even with normal use, and children or infants, in particular, struggle to spit it out completely, increasing the risk of fluoride mixing with saliva and being absorbed.

   From the perspective of dermal toxicity, the oral mucosa has an absorption rate 10–20 times higher than skin on areas like the arm. Therefore, even small amounts of fluoride remaining in the mouth are likely to be absorbed into the body at a high rate.

The risk of fluoride being absorbed into the body is significantly higher from the use of high-concentration, high-absorption-rate products like toothpaste and mouthwash through oral exposure or dermal absorption compared to daily consumption of fluoridated tap water. Consequently, careful consideration is necessary when using high-concentration fluoride products, especially for infants and children.

 

Past World Health Organization (WHO) Guidance on Preventing Accidental Ingestion of High-Concentration Fluoride Products

In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued the following guidelines regarding the use of fluoride-containing toothpaste:

Fluoride Concentration: A fluoride concentration of 1,000–1,500 ppm is recommended for toothpaste, regardless of age. However, for children (especially those under 6 years old), managing the amount used and parental supervision are critical to prevent excessive intake or accidental ingestion.

• Under 3 years old: Use a rice-grain-sized amount (0.1 g) and strictly prevent ingestion.
• 3–6 years old: Use a pea-sized amount (0.25 g) and supervise to ensure it is not swallowed.
• 6 years old and above, adults: Use 1 g appropriately, with minimal rinsing.

These recommendations are outlined in the WHO’s official document, “Fluoride Toothpaste 1. Summary Statement of the Proposal for Inclusion,” published on December 24, 2020.

Assumed Fluoride Intake from a Single Brushing Based on Past WHO Standards (1,000 ppm to 1,450 ppm)

As shown above, even in 2020, the WHO emphasized caution and thorough supervision for fluoride intake in infants and children under 6 years old. Additionally, pregnant mothers brushing twice daily as recommended may approach the latest risk intake levels for infants identified in 2024, necessitating caution.

Furthermore, the WHO does not recommend fluoride mouth rinsing for children under 6 years old (WHO’s 1994 Technical Report, “Fluorides and Oral Health,” Technical Report Series No. 846).

Due to the risks of fluoride exposure in infants, the WHO advises that children under 3 years use a rice-grain-sized amount with strict measures to prevent ingestion, and children aged 3–6 years use a pea-sized amount under supervision to ensure it is not swallowed, emphasizing that fluoride should “never be swallowed.”

Additionally, this report explains the WHO’s reasons for not recommending fluoride mouth rinsing for children under 6 years, citing risks of accidental ingestion and concerns about dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis.

 

Background of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Fluoride Recommendations for Caries Prevention and Future Regulations

The background behind the World Health Organization’s (WHO) endorsement of fluoride (fluoride compounds) for caries prevention is heavily influenced by water fluoridation initiatives in the United States. In 1945, Grand Rapids, Michigan, became the first city in the world to implement water fluoridation, a practice subsequently supported by the American Dental Association (ADA) and the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) at the time.

By the 1950s, influenced by the U.S., the WHO began advocating for fluoridation, officially endorsing it in 1969. Since the 1980s, the WHO has continued to release reports affirming the efficacy of fluoride in caries prevention, encouraging its adoption worldwide.

However, in recent years, numerous global studies have raised concerns that even low levels of fluoride intake may adversely affect children’s cognitive development, potentially leading to IQ reduction and developmental disorders. In response, a court case in the United States in September 2024 resulted in the initiation of regulations on fluoride use for caries prevention.

Furthermore, the United States has moved toward withdrawing from the WHO, announcing its exit on January 20, 2025, with Argentina following suit on February 5, 2025, indicating a rapidly evolving situation. As a result, the WHO’s fluoride endorsement policies are losing evidence-based safety support and are expected to shift toward regulation.

In 2025, the world is undergoing significant changes. The background, truth, and proponents of past fluoride policies for caries prevention are being revealed with transparency. The fluoride caries prevention policy, promoted for 70 years alongside the U.S. new energy industry during the Cold War era of the 1950s, which has been linked to adverse effects on the brain, is now approaching its end for humanity.

Exposure Levels Based on Fluoride Concentrations in High-Concentration Fluoride Products

The latest ruling has highlighted the risk of IQ reduction in children at a fluoride concentration of 0.7 ppm = 0.00007% = 0.7 mg/L in tap water. Therefore, caution is needed regarding the risk of brain impact from fluoride intake through oral mucosa due to accidental ingestion or dermal absorption from toothpaste with higher fluoride concentrations, considering the frequency of daily brushing and the duration of continuous use.

The risk levels based on fluoride concentrations in fluoride-containing products are summarized as follows. Using the 0.7 ppm risk level identified in the ruling as a baseline, toothpaste containing high fluoride concentrations is considered to increase the risk due to accidental ingestion or dermal absorption.

 

Fluoride Concentration (ppm)	% Notation	mg/L	Risk Level (Times Higher Than Tap Water)	Equivalent Risk Tap Water Volume	Fluoride Amount per 1 g of Product (mg)	Fluoride Amount per 0.1 g of Product (mg)
0.7 ppm	0.00007%	0.7	Baseline Risk Level	–	–	–
10 ppm	0.001%	10	Approx. 14 times	Approx. 14 L	0.01	0.001
100 ppm	0.01%	100	Approx. 143 times	Approx. 143 L	0.1	0.01
500 ppm	0.05%	500	Approx. 714 times	Approx. 714 L	0.5	0.05
1000 ppm	0.1%	1000	Approx. 1,429 times	Approx. 1,429 L	1	0.1
1450 ppm	0.145%	1450	Approx. 2,071 times	Approx. 2,071 L (2 tons)	1.45	0.145

As these figures indicate, the higher the fluoride concentration, the greater the risk from accidental ingestion or mucosal absorption.

Some commercially available fluoride-containing toothpastes for babies and children are sold without clearly stating the fluoride content (ppm value), leaving women and infants exposed to the risk of fluoride intake exceeding safety standards from these unclearly labeled products.

Moreover, adult toothpaste with high fluoride concentrations of 1,500 ppm contains 150 mg of fluoride per 100 g, raising concerns about the risk of excessive fluoride intake for pregnant mothers, expectant mothers, and babies.

Additionally, toxins entering through the mouth are referred to as “oral toxins,” while those absorbed through the skin, including the oral mucosa, are called “dermal toxins.” The absorption rate of “dermal toxins” through the oral mucosa is estimated to be 10–20 times higher than through the skin of the arm (assuming arm skin absorption as 1). In reality, far more fluoride than expected remains in the mouth, leading to exposure through the oral mucosa to babies, infants, children, pregnant mothers, and fetuses.

 

Why Do Europeans Tend to Avoid Fluoride? The Discovery of Fluorine Originated in France

The discovery of fluorine (its successful isolation) can be attributed to France in Europe, with the renowned French scientist Henri Moissan achieving its isolation in 1886, earning the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1906. Thanks to this groundbreaking nuclear technology, France continues to maintain a prominent global position today.

In Europe, fluorite (CaF₂), the raw material for fluorine, has long been used as a flux in industries such as ironmaking. In 1530, German mineralogist Georgius Agricola noted in his work Bermannus, sive de re metallica dialogus that heating and melting fluorite in fire makes it suitable as a flux.

In 1670, German glassworker Heinrich Schwanhard discovered that the acid-dissolved product of fluorite could etch glass. The “hydrofluoric acid” produced by adding sulfuric acid to fluorite was discovered in 1771 by Swedish scientist Carl Wilhelm Scheele. French scientist André-Marie Ampère named the undiscovered element “fluorine,” recognizing its potential presence in fluorite.

However, even with the collective knowledge of the world at the time, fluorine could not be isolated. Ultimately, Henri Moissan succeeded in 1886 by using platinum-iridium electrodes, employing fluorite as a container for fluorine collection, and conducting electrolysis at a low temperature of −50°C, which were key to his success. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1906. Source: Wikipedia.

In the 20th century, Europe played a pioneering role in the invention and application of chemistry, hydrofluoric acid, and fluorine compounds. Numerous fluorine-related products, including nuclear technology, refrigerants (freon gas), Teflon, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals, were developed, leading the world.

However, entering the 21st century, from the 2000s onward, due to resource depletion and the international competition driven by manufacturing labor costs, the production of fluorite and fluorine-related products gradually shifted to other regions, particularly Asia (notably China and India). Europe, in response, adopted policies to advance environmental regulations.

Today, the production hub for hydrofluoric acid and fluorine compounds lies in Asian countries, led by China. These nations, backed by abundant reserves of fluorite—the raw material for hydrofluoric acid and fluorine compounds—and low-cost production environments, have become the world’s primary producers of fluorine raw materials and related products.

Meanwhile, Europe maintains its status as a major consumer of fluorine-related products, with high demand for advanced fluorine materials in industries such as automotive, aviation, and healthcare. While Germany and France have divergent energy policies, the European Union as a whole is currently focusing on environmental regulations for PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances).

 

Health Risk Concerns Regarding Fluoride Among Europeans, Advanced by a Leading Region in Fluoride Research

In 21st-century Europe, the widespread reluctance to accept water fluoridation stems from historical context, concerns about health risks including chronic toxicity (such as dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis), and differing public health policies. The main factors contributing to this stance are outlined below:

Historical Context and Cautious Policy
As a leading region in fluoride research, Europe did not adopt water fluoridation as aggressively as the United States, even during periods when its use was expanding. Many researchers and governments expressed cautious views on fluoride’s effectiveness and safety for caries prevention, leading to limited adoption as a policy. Consequently, water fluoridation has been regarded as an exceptional measure in Europe, with the prevailing belief that caries prevention is achievable without directly adding fluoride to drinking water.

Concerns About Fluoride’s Health Risks
As scientific research accumulated on fluoride’s effects on the nervous system and bones, opinions in Europe increasingly leaned toward avoiding fluoride. Particularly in recent years, as studies reported fluoride’s neurotoxicity and risks of IQ reduction, some regions have reassessed or outright banned water fluoridation.

Stringent European Union (EU) Regulations
The EU enforces strict regulations on environmental and health matters, adopting a precautionary approach to suppress fluoride use as soon as risks are suspected. Compliance with EU regulations has led most member states to forgo fluoridated water, opting for alternative methods to achieve caries prevention.

Widespread Alternatives and Education
In Europe, non-fluoride-dependent caries prevention strategies, such as regular dental care, dietary improvements, and widespread toothbrushing practices, are thoroughly implemented. Additionally, alternative ingredients and technologies effective as substitutes for fluoride have been researched and adopted, with fluoride-free toothpaste becoming commonplace.

Consumer Health Consciousness
European consumers exhibit a strong preference for natural and organic products, making them sensitive to additives like fluoride. They tend to exercise caution toward ingredients with even minimal suggested health risks, favoring safer and more natural products when alternatives are available.

Approximately 40 years ago, in the late 1980s to early 1990s, before research on fluoride’s brain effects intensified, researchers at the University of Gothenburg in Northern Europe proposed the “Gothenburg Technique” to enhance caries prevention by retaining fluoride on teeth longer after brushing. This method involves using toothpaste with fluoride concentrations of 1,000–1,450 ppm, spitting lightly after brushing, and avoiding rinsing with water.

However, due to the need for appropriate fluoride use, the Gothenburg Technique is not recommended for children under 12 years old. Furthermore, Sweden has not implemented water fluoridation to this day.

These factors have resulted in Europe, unlike the United States and other countries, largely discouraging water fluoridation, with consumers continuing to avoid fluoride intake. On the policy front, Europe is advancing environmental regulations for fluorine-related substances, such as freon gases and PFAS.

 

Where Is the Raw Material for Fluoride Used in Caries Prevention Imported From?

In Japan, the primary raw material for fluoride (Fluorine, F) used in caries prevention is fluorite (also known as fluorspar or CaF₂), which is mainly imported from China.

Acid-grade fluorite (fluorite with a CaF₂ content of 97% or higher) is a high-purity form of fluorite primarily used in the production of hydrofluoric acid. It is widely utilized in caries prevention, such as in the addition to toothpaste and mouthwash.

Over the past 30 years, China has been the main source of Japan’s acid-grade fluorite imports:

• 1990s: China accounted for approximately 50% of Japan’s imports, making it the largest supplier.
• 2000s onward: With increased production, China’s share rose to about 67%.
• Present: China maintains a share of approximately 60–70% of Japan’s acid-grade fluorite supply.

Manufacturing Process of Fluorides Used for Caries Prevention

Inorganic fluorides, widely used for caries prevention, are produced through industrial methods. The raw material for this process is fluorite (also known as fluorspar or CaF₂), a naturally occurring mineral. This mineral, containing calcium fluoride (CaF₂), is mined, crushed, and then used in chemical reactions.

Although fluorine is a naturally occurring element, there is no established technology to collect it from low-concentration, safe sources such as seawater, plants, or organisms in the terrestrial natural environment. Fluorides used for caries prevention, such as sodium fluoride, are chemical substances produced through chemical reactions based on fluorite mined from underground.

First, calcium fluoride is reacted with sulfuric acid (H₂SO₄) to produce hydrofluoric acid (HF). This chemical reaction yields calcium sulfate (CaSO₄) as a byproduct. The resulting hydrofluoric acid serves as a critical intermediate for producing inorganic fluorides.

Next, hydrofluoric acid is processed through neutralization reactions or other methods to produce inorganic fluorides tailored to specific applications. For example, sodium fluoride (NaF) is created by reacting hydrofluoric acid with sodium hydroxide (NaOH). Similarly, stannous fluoride (SnF₂) is obtained through the chemical reaction of hydrofluoric acid with tin oxide (SnO₂).

The resulting inorganic fluorides are purified to enhance their purity. They are then processed into forms such as powders or liquids, depending on their intended use, and incorporated into products like toothpaste or used in water fluoridation treatments.

Industrially Important Products Derived from Fluorite

Fluorite (also known as fluorspar or CaF₂) is a critical mineral widely utilized across various industries, notably as a raw material for hydrofluoric acid (HF), which is essential in the nuclear industry.

Fluorite is a fluorescent mineral that contributed to the discovery of fluorescent lamps, known in English as fluorescent lamps or fluorescent lights.

Hydrofluoric acid serves as a foundation for the nuclear industry, aluminum production, the manufacture of refrigerants (such as freon gases, HFCs, and HFOs), and fluorine-based chemical products like fluoropolymers (e.g., PFAS). It also plays an indispensable role in glass processing and metal refining. Additionally, high-purity fluorite is used in the production of specialty glass and optical equipment (e.g., camera lenses and telescopes), where its ability to reduce chromatic aberration is highly valued.

In the steel and aluminum industries, fluorite is employed as a flux material, aiding in the removal of impurities and the formation of slag, playing a vital role in these processes. Furthermore, fluorine-based chemical products produced alongside hydrofluoric acid from fluorite are essential in everyday life and cutting-edge technologies, including toothpaste, water treatment, electrolytes for lithium batteries, and semiconductor manufacturing.

Consequently, shortages in fluorite supply or price fluctuations have significant impacts on entire industries, with environmental regulations and export restrictions posing ongoing challenges.

Mining and Health Impacts of Fluorite, and Its History in Japan

Fluorite (also known as fluorspar or CaF₂) is a beautiful mineral primarily used as a raw material for hydrofluoric acid in energy production, other fluorine compounds, and as an industrial solvent.

Globally, the following regions are recognized as major fluorite production areas:

• China: The world’s largest fluorite producer, with key mining regions in Hebei, Inner Mongolia, Zhejiang, Sichuan, and Hunan provinces, accounting for approximately 60% of global fluorite reserves.
• Mexico: Numerous mines in Jalisco and Coahuila states, with significant exports to the United States.
• South Africa: Major production areas in Limpopo province, exporting high-quality fluorite.
• Mongolia: An important supplier to the Chinese market.
• Spain: Castilla y León region serves as a significant production area in Europe.

In the past, fluorite mining was also conducted in Japan, with the following regions known for their mining activities:

• Fukushima Prefecture: Areas around Mount Adatara.
• Gifu Prefecture: Multiple mines existed, but they are now closed.
• Hokkaido: Some areas were mined.

However, fluorite mining in Japan declined after the 1960s due to resource depletion and lack of international competitiveness, leading to the closure of many mines. Currently, no domestic fluorite mining takes place in Japan, and the country relies on imports from China.

Projected Trends in Fluorite Production by Country (Unit: Thousand Tons)

 

Year	China	United States	Russia	India	Brazil	Others
1900	10	100	50	5	10	200
1950	50	300	150	20	30	400
2000	300	150	100	100	60	200
2025	1000	100	60	150	100	90

In China, Fluoride Is Considered Toxic: A Social Issue Affecting Over 100 Million People with Excessive Fluoride Exposure and Poisoning

In regions like China and India, where fluorite, fluorine compounds, and fluorides are produced, people suffer from severe health damage due to fluoride poisoning, manifesting as dental fluorosis (mottled teeth) and skeletal fluorosis.

In China, water fluoridation was trialed in parts of Guangdong Province during the 1980s. Specifically, it was implemented for 18 years in Guangzhou’s Fangcun District and for 11 years in Wancheng Town. In Fangcun, fluoridation significantly reduced the DMFT (Decayed, Missing, and Filled Teeth) index for permanent teeth and the dft index for primary teeth, but temporary over-fluoridation led to issues with dental fluorosis. In contrast, Wancheng Town maintained an appropriate fluoride concentration of 0.6 ppm, avoiding dental fluorosis problems. Source: J-STAGE.

As a country holding about 60% of the world’s fluorite reserves, China faced high fluoride levels in well water even before water fluoridation, resulting in many residents suffering from fluoride poisoning due to environmental fluoride exposure. The challenge lies in reducing fluoride poisoning from drinking water, food, and atmospheric sources.

A 2003 Japan-China collaborative study categorized fluoride-contaminated areas into two types: regions where groundwater used for drinking is contaminated with fluoride, and areas where indoor fluoride pollution occurs due to the use of fluoride-rich coal or soil, leading to exposure through combustion. In these regions, fluoride contamination causes chronic fluoride poisoning, resulting in abnormal tooth formation (dental fluorosis: mottled teeth) and skeletal fluorosis.

In China, with a population of 1.3 billion, residents in specific areas across 31 of the 32 provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities (excluding Shanghai)—effectively nearly the entire country—are exposed to fluoride contamination. As a result, approximately 100 million people, roughly equivalent to Japan’s population, live in areas at risk of fluoride contamination, with a reported total of about 43 million dental fluorosis patients.

Additionally, according to surveys by the National Institute for Environmental Studies, China has achieved rapid economic growth by relying on abundant domestic coal reserves. Among these, “indoor pollution” caused by fluorides from coal combustion (inhalation exposure to fluorite/fluoride in coal used indoors) has been reported in 14 provinces. Fluorosis occurs through direct inhalation of fluoride and indirect exposure via contaminated food.

In certain areas, such as Sichuan and Guizhou provinces, some regions use processed coal with fluoride content exceeding 500 mg/kg (500 ppm) for heating or cooking in coal stoves, generating high fluoride concentrations through combustion and exacerbating indoor pollution. According to a 1997 report by the Chinese Ministry of Health, fluorosis patients resulting from coal combustion include 18.17 million with dental fluorosis and 1.46 million with skeletal fluorosis.

For these reasons, in China, “fluoride is considered a toxin,” and for human health, it is deemed better to avoid proximity to fluoride. Protecting over 100 million citizens in fluoride-contaminated areas and removing fluoride from naturally contaminated groundwater are critical issues. The toxicity of fluoride in toothpaste (acute and chronic poisoning, as well as neurotoxicity) is also believed to be well-recognized historically.

Dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis caused by fluoride poisoning cannot be cured, only prevented. In China, a major fluorite-producing region with significant fluoride contamination, efforts to protect many people from fluoride exposure and poisoning through air, drinking water, food, and indoor coal use have led to various domestic regulations on fluorides. These measures are believed to be reducing fluoride poisoning among the population.

 

Differences Between Regulated Organic Fluorine Compounds (PFAS) and Inorganic Fluorine Compounds (Fluorine, Fluorides)

Fluorine (Fluorine, F) is a global topic, but some argue that in Japan, where two types of fluorine are currently discussed, differentiation is necessary.

Fluorine (Fluorine, F), derived from the mineral fluorite (a halogenated mineral), is a non-metallic element belonging to Group 17 (halogens) of the periodic table, with an atomic number of 9 and the chemical symbol F. It is the most electronegative element in nature, possessing a strong ability to attract electrons from other substances. This property makes fluorine a highly reactive oxidizing agent.

Elemental fluorine (F₂) exists as a pale yellow, toxic gas at room temperature, reacting vigorously with many substances. In nature, it does not exist in its elemental form but is primarily found as inorganic fluorine compounds (compounds containing fluoride ions) within fluorite.

Fluorine is widely used in industrial applications, including hydrofluoric acid essential for nuclear technology, freon gases critical for refrigeration, and organic fluorine compounds (e.g., PFAS) such as semiconductor materials and heat-resistant polymers.

A compound is a substance formed by the chemical bonding of two or more different elements.

• Organic compounds are primarily composed of carbon (Carbon), containing carbon-carbon or carbon-hydrogen bonds.
• Inorganic compounds are those not primarily composed of carbon or specific carbon compounds.

 

What Are Organic Fluorine Compounds (PFAS)? Fluorine-Infused Carbon That Persists Indefinitely in the Environment Without Dissolving in Water

Organic fluorine compounds (PFAS) are “compounds where fluorine (Fluorine, F) is bonded with carbon (Carbon),” encompassing over 10,000 chemical substances, including PFOS and PFOA, which are currently considered hazardous. Known for their water- and oil-repellent properties and heat resistance, PFAS have been widely used in fluoropolymer-coated frying pans, semiconductors, refrigerants, packaging paper, waterproof clothing, and fire extinguishers. Simply put, they are carbon infused with gaseous fluorine.

PFAS are highly durable and known as “forever chemicals,” raising concerns about their accumulation in the environment and the human body, as well as their health impacts. In Europe and the United States, they were major production countries until the 1980s, but their harmful effects began drawing attention in the 1990s. In the U.S., a company manufacturing PFOS voluntarily ceased production in 2000, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) strengthened regulations. The European Union (EU) began regulating PFOS in 2006, extending regulations to PFOA and other PFAS from 2010 onward. In Japan, contamination of tap water and water sources nationwide has become a significant issue.

In the U.S., PFAS are linked to side effects such as “impaired growth in infants and fetuses,” “dyslipidemia (increased bad cholesterol or triglycerides),” and “kidney cancer.” In Japan, the Food Safety Commission has identified risks including “miscarriage and preterm birth,” “reduced immune function,” and “cancer.”

What Are Inorganic Fluorine Compounds (Fluorine, Fluorides)? Fluorine-Infused Salts That Dissolve in Water and Persist Indefinitely in the Environment

In contrast, inorganic fluorine compounds (fluorine, fluorides) used for caries prevention are “compounds where fluorine (Fluorine, F) is bonded with elements other than carbon (Carbon), such as sodium (Na) or calcium (CaF₂),” encompassing chemical substances like sodium fluoride (NaF) and stannous fluoride (SnF₂). These highly corrosive substances, also generated during processes like aluminum or uranium production, have been added to drinking water and toothpaste in the United States for approximately 70 years since 1950 for caries prevention. Simply put, they are salts infused with gaseous fluorine.

The labeling names for inorganic fluorine compounds (fluorine, fluorides) used in Japanese toothpaste include the following:

• “Sodium Fluoride (NaF)”: A fluoride compound primarily used for its caries prevention effects, commonly found in many toothpaste products.
• “Sodium Monofluorophosphate (MFP)”: Another fluoride compound with caries prevention effects, but with milder characteristics.
• “Stannous Fluoride (SnF₂)”: Said to promote tooth remineralization and support gum health, though it is less common in Japan.

In a landmark U.S. ruling in September 2024, inorganic fluorine compounds (fluorine, fluorides) were found to pose a risk of cognitive impairment in children at the current fluoridation level of 0.7 ppm in drinking water—below the levels causing acute or chronic toxicity (dental fluorosis or skeletal fluorosis)—used by 330 million Americans, making national headlines.

Furthermore, there is no established technology to extract fluorides used for caries prevention from naturally occurring low concentrations in seawater or plants. Fluorides, such as sodium fluoride, are produced by creating hydrofluoric acid from fluorite (CaF₂) and are generated during its utilization.

In other words, organic fluorine compounds and inorganic fluorides are not entirely distinct; both are fluorides derived from the same fluorite source.

Fluoride and PFAS as “Forever Substances”: Industrial Impacts of Regulations

Both fluoride and PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are noted for their characteristics as “forever substances.” However, there are significant differences in their properties, environmental impacts, and the backgrounds of their regulations. Understanding these differences allows us to examine their commonalities, distinctions, and the impacts of their respective regulations on industries and society.

Fluorine is an element widely present in nature, found in forms such as fluorite (fluorspar, CaF₂) and groundwater. Fluorides (F⁻) are highly water-soluble and exist stably in the natural environment. This stability is one of the factors contributing to the impression of being a “forever substance.” Fluorides are artificially extracted from fluorite.

On the other hand, PFAS are synthetic chemical substances characterized by extremely strong carbon-fluorine bonds. These bonds are resistant to degradation in nature, allowing PFAS to persist in the environment for extended periods. As a result, PFAS are called “forever chemicals,” with particular concerns about their adverse effects on human health and the environment (such as carcinogenicity and endocrine disruption). PFAS have been widely used in products requiring water repellency and heat resistance, such as fluoropolymer-coated frying pans, waterproof fabrics, and fire extinguishing agents, but their toxicity has led to advancing regulations.

Thus, while both fluorides and PFAS share the characteristic of being “difficult to decompose,” they differ in several aspects. Fluorides are substances artificially extracted, whereas PFAS are chemically designed synthetic substances.

Furthermore, the perspective that “PFAS environmental regulations may constitute resource regulations” is intriguing but fundamentally addresses a different issue. The purpose of PFAS environmental regulations is to minimize the environmental and health risks posed by artificially created resistant chemical substances. In contrast, naturally occurring fluorine itself, being widely present in nature, is not subject to regulation.

However, the long-term accumulation and environmental impact of fluoride use (e.g., water fluoridation policies) share similarities with PFAS discussions.

PFAS play a critical role in semiconductor manufacturing, particularly in photolithography processes, where they are essential chemical substances. Their heat and chemical resistance provide unique functions that are difficult to replace with other substances. However, as PFAS environmental regulations become stricter, redesigning manufacturing processes or developing alternative substances will be required, significantly impacting the aerospace and advanced technology industries as a whole.

While PFAS environmental regulations profoundly affect advanced industries, fluoride health regulations can also be considered related to industrial regulations. Fluorides play a significant role in the new energy industry. Additionally, in the global competition for developing next-generation fluoride-ion batteries, which are driving innovation in the automotive industry, Japan is at the forefront. However, increased environmental exposure to fluorides poses risks to local environments and residents’ health, necessitating strict regulations. Fluoride health regulations are said to play a crucial role in managing the sustainability of industries as a whole.

These environmental and health regulations for fluorides affect different industries, but their common focus is on emphasizing “sustainability” and “safety.” These discussions represent a critical theme for humanity, where scientific and technological progress intersects with environmental protection and ethical perspectives.

 

Environmental Pollution Risk from Imported High-Concentration Fluoride? Are PFAS Regulations and the Discontinuation of Water Fluoridation Effectively a Broad Fluorine Regulation?

Fluorine, whether in inorganic or organic forms, persists in nature either by dissolving in water or remaining insoluble. Fluorine does not evaporate or disappear from the Earth. It continues to accumulate and concentrate in the environment at varying levels.

Inorganic fluorides are highly water-soluble and tend to dissolve and disperse in the environment. They are substances that remain dissolved in water. Organic fluorine compounds, on the other hand, are hydrophobic and resistant to degradation, with a tendency to bioaccumulate in living organisms.

In other words, organic fluorine compounds and inorganic fluorides are not entirely distinct entities; both are fluorides derived from the same fluorite (fluorspar, CaF₂) and are substances that persist in the environment.

Fluorides used for caries prevention (inorganic fluorides) can also contribute to environmental pollution. Fluorine accumulated in soil, groundwater, or well water can contaminate drinking water and crops.

For reference, the regulated amount of organic fluorine compounds (PFAS) in the United States is an extremely minute 4 ng/L (0.000004 ppm). In contrast, the previously recommended fluoride concentration in drinking water for inorganic fluorides is 0.7 ppm (700,000 ng/L). Comparing these, inorganic fluorides are approximately 175,000 times the regulated concentration of PFAS.

Fluorine is an element widely present in nature, typically found as fluorides (in compound form). While chemically stable, it can be toxic at high concentrations, affecting ecosystems and human health. If fluoridation is not properly managed, it can accumulate in rivers, lakes, and groundwater through wastewater or water fluoridation, posing risks. High concentrations of fluorides are harmful to aquatic life, adversely affecting the survival of fish and plants.

Moreover, long-term consumption of water with high fluoride concentrations can lead to chronic fluoride poisoning, resulting in abnormal tooth formation (dental fluorosis: mottled teeth) and skeletal fluorosis. When fluorides accumulate in soil, they negatively impact microorganisms and plants, leading to reduced agricultural productivity and inhibited plant growth. Additionally, when fluorides are released into the atmosphere through industrial activities, they can cause health damage to downwind residents, contribute to acid rain, or be absorbed by plant leaves, reducing growth and crop yields.

Industrial fluoride emissions are strictly regulated in many countries, with stringent standards set for fluoride concentrations in wastewater, for example. In Japan, the fluoride concentration in drinking water is regulated to be below 0.8 ppm, and fluoride-containing waste is treated as “specially controlled industrial waste” at specialized facilities.

High-concentration emissions into the environment can impact ecosystems and human health, with particular concerns about toxicity to aquatic organisms and soil accumulation. Therefore, the use and disposal of fluorine-containing products require proper management and environmental consideration. Prolonged, large-scale use leading to concentrated accumulation underground poses risks of water pollution, soil contamination, air pollution, and ecosystem destruction.

Furthermore, if the environment around your home is free from fluoride contamination and boasts a pristine natural setting, it is preferable to avoid discharging imported high-concentration fluoride products into nearby pristine rivers or seas through sewage, which could contaminate drinking water, aquatic products, crops, and soil. If groundwater used for drinking water in your area reaches fluoride levels exceeding the 0.7 ppm risk threshold identified in this ruling, caution is warranted.

The notion that importing high-concentration fluoride, originally concentrated deep underground on another continent, and releasing it into local natural environments—where its toxicity is assumed to dilute safely in the ocean—may seem harmless. However, if this continues, the fluoride content in local groundwater, tap water, crops, and aquatic products could increase, mirroring high-concentration areas. This could lead to regional fluoride poisoning, causing dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis, rendering precious water and crops undrinkable and inedible.

If you are fortunate to live in a beautiful, natural environment free from high-concentration fluoride pollution, continuously discharging externally introduced chemical substances into this environment and advancing local contamination should be avoided. This is essential to preserve the future of local drinking water, air, living environments, crops, fish, and shellfish, as well as to maintain the asset value of such pristine land.

 

Recycling and Disposal Methods for Fluorides

The recycling and disposal of inorganic fluorides require advanced technologies to ensure safety while minimizing environmental impact. First, recycling technologies include the wet regeneration process, which treats fluorides in an aqueous solution to separate impurities and restore them to a reusable form. Additionally, the dry process, which involves high-temperature treatment to produce pure fluorides, is employed to generate high-purity fluorides used in semiconductor and glass industries. Furthermore, technologies are being developed to chemically convert used fluorides into other chemical substances for reuse in different applications.

In filtration and collection technologies, methods to efficiently capture fluorides in water or dust are particularly important. Reverse osmosis membrane technology is an effective method for removing fluorides from water and is widely used in drinking water and industrial wastewater treatment. The ion exchange method, which uses ion exchange resins to capture fluoride ions, demonstrates high selectivity in industrial wastewater treatment. Additionally, coagulation-precipitation techniques are employed, where fluorides are reacted with aluminum or calcium to form insoluble precipitates for removal. Moreover, electrodialysis, utilizing electrolysis for fluoride removal, is gaining attention as an advanced treatment method.

The disposal of used fluorides requires safe handling. In stabilization and solidification methods, fluorides are mixed with materials like cement for safe disposal in landfills. Chemical treatment involves reacting fluorides with acids or bases to neutralize them, such as converting fluorides into stable solids like calcium fluoride through reactions with calcium salts. High-temperature incineration processes fluorides in high-temperature furnaces to render them harmless, but exhaust gas treatment systems are necessary to prevent secondary pollution. Additionally, disposal in dedicated landfills requires liner systems and monitoring devices to prevent leakage.

Why Should the Things Humans Consume and the Earth’s Environment Be Free of Chemicals?

Chemical substances are compounds derived from fossil raw materials. Fossil raw materials are substances such as living organisms or organic matter on Earth that have been concentrated into stones, oil, or gas, forming minerals, coal, rare metals, petroleum, or other fossilized materials extracted from deep underground, as well as minerals contained in meteorites that fall from space.

Chemistry, often described as the science of transformation, involves these stones, oils, or gases undergoing chemical reactions, transforming, burning, or exploding to produce remarkable energy, bactericidal or preservative effects that kill organisms, and enable low-cost production. However, these are toxic to plants, animals, humans, and the environment. Therefore, while essential for human industrial development, reducing their use, developing safer and more environmentally friendly technologies, or advancing chemical development in space—where environmental concerns are negligible—are considered wise choices for the future of Earth and humanity.

On Earth and in our local communities, to preserve the beauty of limited rivers and seas, it is necessary to avoid chemical substances that poison the environment and health, increase natural, chemical-free, safe alternatives, and maintain chemical-free drinking water, air, and food. This is believed to create a more comfortable existence for us.

Let us imagine a scenario filled with fossil raw materials, devoid of nature or living organisms—a world resembling the aftermath of a volcanic eruption. Magma erupts from underground through chemical reactions, incinerating plants and animals, evaporating water, and covering the land in scorched stone. Dangerous chemical substances and fossil raw materials, concentrated underground and inherently toxic, kill all plants and organisms. It took billions of years for Earth’s scorched surface and seawater to become safe enough for life to emerge. In other words, extracting petroleum or minerals concentrated and stabilized underground is toxic to the living organisms on Earth’s surface today. Thus, further development of Earth’s subsurface resources is believed to have reached a level that impacts human survival, including the destruction of the ozone layer.

Conversely, a post-volcanic world resembles the stars in space. Rich in rare earth resources, with no ozone layer, air, or water, and radiation levels hundreds of times higher than on Earth, space has no living organisms and thus no environmental regulations. Rather than continuing to destroy the finite natural world of our green planet through subsurface resource extraction, accelerating space resource development—which is nearly within reach—is a wiser choice. For the health and prosperity of humanity in the 21st century, the things humans consume and the living environment on Earth should be free of chemical substances and chemical-free.

 

Caries Prevention Without Relying on Fluoride: Traditional and Safe Human Caries Prevention Methods Up to 70 Years Ago Before Fluoride Use Began

How were caries prevented from ancient times until 70 years ago, before the introduction of fluoride? Below, we explain the caries prevention methods used from antiquity to 70 years ago.

1. Methods Using Plants and Natural Materials
   Ancient people utilized resources from nature to keep their teeth clean.

   Toothbrushing with Twigs (Chewing Sticks)
   In ancient Egypt and India, twigs such as miswak or neem were used. These twigs had antibacterial properties, and brushing teeth with them was expected to suppress the bacteria causing caries.

   Use of Medicinal Herbs
   In ancient Rome and Greece, chewing or gargling with boiled mint or sage kept the mouth clean. In Ayurveda (Indian traditional medicine), chewing neem leaves or cloves was practiced for caries prevention.

2. Gargling Habits
   In ancient China, gargling with saltwater was widespread. Salt has antibacterial properties and was believed to help prevent caries and periodontal disease. In Japan, it is said there was a custom of rinsing the mouth with liquid boiled from tea leaves.

3. Consumption of Specific Foods
   Dietary Ingenuity
   In ancient times, sugar consumption was low, and diets centered on natural foods, reducing the risk of caries. In ancient Egypt and Rome, consuming cheese and dairy products was favored, strengthening teeth through calcium intake.

4. Toothbrushing with Ash or Charcoal
   In ancient Rome and Greece, powdered bone or seashell ash was used as a substitute for toothpaste. These acted as abrasives, removing plaque. In Japan, there was a custom of using crushed charcoal or burnt eggshells for toothbrushing.

5. Oral Care Through Chewing
   Chewing hard foods (grains or nuts) prevented plaque buildup and naturally cleaned teeth. Compared to modern times, the lack of processed foods meant hard foods contributed to dental cleaning.

6. Religious and Mystical Prevention
   In ancient Egypt, caries were believed to be caused by “worms,” and rituals using amulets or incantations were performed to ward them off. In ancient China and Japan, there were cultural practices of offering prayers at temples for dental health.

7. Caries Prevention in Ancient Japan
   In Japan, before the Heian period, there was a habit of rinsing the mouth after meals. During the Edo period, “tooth sticks” (hagi), processed from wooden twigs, were used to remove food debris by rubbing teeth after meals, a practice that became widespread.

8. About Ohaguro (Tooth Blackening)
   Ohaguro is a traditional Japanese practice of dyeing teeth black, widely performed for over 1,000 years from the Heian period (about 1,200 years ago) to the mid-Meiji era. Beyond its aesthetic and social status symbolism, this custom had practical benefits in protecting teeth and gum health. Its origins are believed to lie in ancient China or Southeast Asia, and in Japan, it was widely adopted among aristocrats and married women.

   Ohaguro used a black liquid made by mixing iron vinegar (produced by soaking iron nails in vinegar) with gallnuts from the sumac tree (nurude). This liquid contained inorganic and organic components, with the antibacterial properties of iron ions and tannins suppressing the growth of caries-causing bacteria (Streptococcus mutans). Additionally, the black film covering the tooth surface acted as a physical barrier, protecting teeth from acid and caries bacteria.

   Unlike modern fluorite-derived fluorides, the iron vinegar and gallnuts used in ohaguro were characterized by high safety. The concept of coating and protecting tooth surfaces aligns with preventive dentistry and is considered a unique and innovative caries prevention method not seen in the West.

   Ohaguro was abolished under the guidance of the Meiji government due to Westernization policies in the Meiji era. At the time, the rapid regulation of ohaguro, which had been widespread for 1,000 years, due to Western influence—while differing from safety regulations—likely caused significant disruption for its proponents and the ohaguro industry, far surpassing the confusion caused by today’s Western-driven rapid fluoride regulations in Japan, which have lasted only about 30 years.

   Unlike fluorides, which have side effects, ohaguro, made with iron and tannins, was a safe caries prevention method without adverse effects. Having been cherished by the Japanese for over 1,000 years, ohaguro can be considered a pioneering example of sustainable oral care that prioritizes environmental and health considerations for humanity.

Until the widespread use of sugar and the introduction of fluoride for caries prevention 70 years ago, humanity thrived with the above oral care practices.

 

Caries as a Side Effect of Consuming Sweet, Delicious “Sugar”: Safe Oral Care to Control Caries-Causing Bacteria and Sugar

Caries, often considered a modern chronic disease stemming from the widespread consumption of sweet, delicious sugary treats, occur when caries-causing bacteria (Streptococcus mutans) in the oral cavity feed on “sugar” to produce acid, which dissolves the enamel of teeth. Refined sugars in foods and beverages, in particular, accelerate this process.

Caries-causing bacteria are naturally present as part of the oral flora, playing a certain role in the oral ecosystem. However, excessive intake of refined “sugar” activates these bacteria, leading to the production of large amounts of acid. This acid damages enamel, causing caries.

Foods and Beverages That Increase Caries Risk

• Soft Drinks
  Carbonated beverages and sports drinks contain high concentrations of sugar, which serve as food for caries-causing bacteria, producing acid that dissolves enamel.
• Sweet Confections
  Sticky candies and gummies adhere to teeth for extended periods, creating an environment conducive to bacterial activity.
• Baked Goods and Cookies
  Cookies and pastries contain refined flour and sugar, which feed caries-causing bacteria.
• Processed Foods
  Cakes and white breads contain large amounts of refined sugar and flour, supplying sugar to the oral cavity.
• Sweetened Beverages
  Fruit juices and sweetened milk teas contain both natural fructose and added sugars, increasing caries risk.
• Other
  Sugary yogurts, ice cream, and jams are high in sugar and tend to linger on teeth, posing a caries risk.

Ingredient Names on Labels:
“Fructose,” “glucose,” “high-fructose corn syrup,” “sucrose,” “sugar,” “flour,” etc.

To prevent caries, it is essential to rinse the mouth and brush teeth after consuming or drinking these delicious items. Thorough brushing and the use of safe antibacterial agents that can be swallowed are effective in maintaining a balanced oral microbiome. In particular, natural-derived products like ORALPEACE support oral hydration and saliva function while helping to control caries-causing bacteria.

By adopting a tooth-brushing habit that ensures no sugar or carbohydrates remain in the mouth after enjoying favorite sweets, a healthy, caries-free oral environment can be achieved. Relying on proper oral care without chemicals or pharmaceuticals to preserve the inherent functions of the oral cavity is a safe choice for your child and a wise decision for their well-being.

 

Debates on Social Media in the U.S. Between Fluoride Advocates (“Pro-Fluoride Industry”) and Those Labeled “Anti-Fluoride” by Advocates, Primarily Parents Seeking to Avoid Risks to Their Children

Following the September 2024 court ruling, lively discussions are unfolding on American social media platforms among fluoride advocates, opponents, and many others.

Fluoride advocates in the U.S. are considered to include public health and medical organizations that have promoted fluoride since the 1950s, proponents of the energy industry requiring hydrofluoric acid, advocates of the fluorite (fluorspar) raw material industry, and supporters of fluorine compound-related product industries, as well as public health and research organizations receiving support from these industries.

On the other hand, those labeled “anti-fluoride” who seek to avoid fluoride’s health risks are primarily citizens, with a strong impression that they are often parents of young children.

Currently, the following debates are taking place in the U.S. between “fluoride advocates (organizations, companies, and businesses)” and those labeled “anti-fluoride” by advocates, mainly parents of young children.

1. Fluoride Is a Major Public Health Success Story

   Claims by Fluoride Advocacy Groups, Companies, and Businesses:

   • Fluoridation is recognized as one of the ten greatest public health achievements of the 20th century, dramatically reducing caries in many people.
   • Authoritative institutions like the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) have supported the safety and effectiveness of fluoride.
   • Many European countries do not fluoridate water, but their robust alternative measures (e.g., diet and toothbrushing habits) make direct comparisons inappropriate.

   Rebuttals by Anti-Fluoride Citizens:

   • Past successes should be acknowledged, but policies need reevaluation based on current scientific evidence. For example, the decline in caries rates may be attributed not only to fluoridation but also to advancements in dental care technology and oral hygiene education.
   • The CDC’s fluoride endorsement relies on older studies, overlooking recent research on neurotoxicity and IQ reduction.
   • The WHO’s past perspectives may not reflect the latest global health information.
   • As highlighted in the latest ruling, the balance of benefits and risks for one’s child needs careful reconsideration.

2. Fluoride Concentrations Are Extremely Low and Safe

   Claims by Fluoride Advocacy Groups, Companies, and Businesses:

   • Fluoride concentrations in drinking water, such as 0.7 ppm, are very low, posing virtually no risk.
   • The CDC has not identified risks below acute or chronic toxicity levels.
   • Harmful effects are limited to high-concentration fluoride products, not drinking water.

   Rebuttals by Anti-Fluoride Citizens:

   • The latest U.S. court ruling indicates that even low concentrations like 0.7 ppm may adversely affect children’s IQ.
   • Even at low concentrations, cumulative exposure increases through daily consumption of food, beverages, and toothpaste, which is a key concern.
   • Toxicity depends not only on concentration but also on accumulation in the body and exposure pathways. Infants, with lower excretory capacity, are particularly vulnerable.

3. Scientific Evidence Is Still Insufficient and Biased Toward Certain Studies

   Claims by Fluoride Advocacy Groups, Companies, and Businesses:

   • Studies suggesting fluoride affects children’s IQ are limited, and scientific consensus has not been reached.
   • Even when compiled in meta-analyses, these studies are criticized for sample bias and unclear causality.

   Rebuttals by Anti-Fluoride Citizens:

   • The September 24, 2024, federal court ruling and the comprehensive review by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), which served as its basis, support the potential neurotoxicity of fluoride. This represents the largest-scale scientific validation to date, with high reliability.
   • Changing policies based on past safety claims takes time, but that is not a reason to ignore new scientific evidence.
   • Scientific discussions always yield new insights, but the precautionary principle demands that when risks are present, measures should be taken “until proven safe.”

4. Discontinuing Fluoride Will Increase Caries

   Claims by Fluoride Advocacy Groups, Companies, and Businesses:

   • There are examples of increased caries in countries or regions that discontinued fluoridation (e.g., Calgary, Canada).
   • For low-income communities, fluoridation is a cost-effective means of caries prevention.

   Rebuttals by Anti-Fluoride Citizens:

   • Many countries, such as those in Europe and Cuba, have reduced caries rates without relying on fluoride.
   • Dental care costs continue to rise even in fluoridated areas.
   • Modern alternatives, such as new antibacterial technologies or remineralization-promoting ingredients, are gaining traction.
   • Treating caries is straightforward, but brain damage is permanent, and developmental disorders pose significant risks to a child’s life and family’s future.
   • Parents prefer to prevent caries for their children through proper diet and brushing education without fluoride risks and do not want to be coerced.
   • Fluorite, the raw material for fluoride, is projected to be depleted from the Earth in decades. With no scientific technology to produce fluorides from seawater or nature, how will raw materials be secured to continue promoting fluorides for caries prevention in the future? Fluoride-based caries prevention is a 20th-century legacy technology with no sustainability. To prevent caries, efforts should shift early to sustainable, safe, and environmentally friendly caries prevention technologies in the 21st century.
   • Only 1% of tap water is used for drinking, and high-concentration fluoride products are available at nearby stores for as little as $1. There is no need to add fluoride to tap water, which also affects cooking taste. Adding fluoride to drinking water is unnecessarily redundant, and for those prone to caries, fluoride intake through toothpaste is a more reasonable choice in modern times, allowing individual selection.
   • Promoting industry-academia-government collaboration to enhance technologies for processing surplus fluoride is desirable for the future.

5. Prejudice from Fluoride Advocates That Opposing Fluoride Is “Scientifically Ignorant,” “Conspiracy Theorist,” “Information-Poor,” or “Pseudoscientific”

   Claims by Fluoride Advocacy Groups, Companies, and Businesses:

   • Many anti-fluoride advocates engage in conspiratorial claims or exaggerations, which are not scientific discussions.

   Rebuttals by Anti-Fluoride Citizens:

   • The latest ruling and scientific studies are not conspiracy theories but are based on reliable data.
   • Actions are grounded in scientific evidence, supported by the NTP report and the federal court ruling.
   • Raising scientific questions is necessary for progress, and labeling it “anti-science” distorts the core issue.
   • Advocates themselves have not independently verified safety but rely on studies taught by other brain science experts. They lack the qualifications or expertise in brain science or medicine to make independent judgments.
   • Continuing to blindly trust past textbooks or exam content without reexamining new scientific information and promoting fluoride intake to other infants disregards potential risks to patients and future accountability.
   • Vulnerable children are exposed to risks in professional disputes.
   • Whether something is a conspiracy theory should be researched through various sources, including books.
   • The term “conspiracy theorist” is a derogatory label used to avoid difficult questions about those in power with vested interests.
   • All citizens should be reminded that blind faith in authority is a characteristic of religion or authoritarian politics, not science or democracy.

6. Claims That Anti-Fluoride Choices or Advocacy Are Profit-Driven

   Claims by Fluoride Advocacy Groups, Companies, and Businesses:

   • Anti-fluoride groups or individuals profit from selling fluoride-free products.
   • Some organizations are accused of stoking fear to generate funding through product sales.

   Rebuttals by Anti-Fluoride Citizens:

   • Fluoride advocacy groups and businesses also profit directly from selling fluoride-related products, promoting regular visits for fluoride applications, securing repeat customers, and increasing medical reimbursement income, making profit motives mutual.
   • Business activities based on individual positions are free, but the desire to protect one’s child from risks is not profit-driven.
   • It is alarming that advocates push for high-concentration fluoride in everyone’s tap water and most toothpaste, as well as fluoride applications to teeth and mass fluoride mouth rinsing, relentlessly promoting fluoride intake in children and people. Why are they so obsessed with promoting fluoride intake? The true reasons should be disclosed.
   • Fluoride advocates should take responsibility under their real names for their judgments and guarantee accountability for the risks arising from their advocacy activities toward citizens.
   • If fluoride use is regulated in the future, potential increases in caries could lead to more dental clinic visits, enhancing the importance of local dental clinics as healthcare leaders and boosting income for dentists and dental hygienists. Global trends cannot be reversed. Wise dentists and dental hygienists should not cling to fluoride advocacy but prepare early for the transition to a new era.

In the U.S., many citizens are anti-fluoride, with parents seeking to avoid risks to their children forming the mainstream. Voting results in various municipalities also show a trend toward defluoridation. On social media, many individuals are actively discussing this court case out of concern for their own health.

Moving forward, attention is focused on how discussions about fluoride for caries prevention will unfold in the U.S., how democratic choices and votes in municipalities will shape the future, and the direction of these developments.

American Consumer Choices and Responses to Fluoride

In the San Francisco Bay Area, known for its education-focused residents, both parents of young children and healthcare professionals express a nuanced stance on water fluoridation. While they generally support public health initiatives for caries prevention and reducing medical costs, many parents, informed by the latest court ruling highlighting IQ reduction risks, choose not to use fluoridated tap water for their babies’ formula, children’s drinking water, or cooking. Instead, they opt for purified water from water filters or purchase mineral water to eliminate fluoride for formula, drinking, and cooking purposes. The water purifier and mineral water industries in the U.S. are substantial, and, like the sugar industry, they hold a vested interest in opposing the discontinuation of water fluoridation.

Additionally, these parents avoid fluoride-containing toothpaste for their children due to the potential risks of ingestion. They prefer purchasing “Fluoride-Free” labeled toothpaste selected by professional buyers at trusted retailers, such as department stores or organic supermarkets like Whole Foods Market. These products, priced around $10—over ten times the cost of $1 fluoride toothpaste sold at drugstores—reflect a growing trend in the U.S. toward high-value, fluoride-free oral care products with enhanced safety and added benefits. These parents also decline fluoride treatments at dental clinics and choose organic or natural foods for themselves and their children, avoiding pesticides and chemical additives.

In a society that values individual freedom, personal choice, and responsibility, the U.S. is characterized by diversity, with people from various racial, religious, and cultural backgrounds often clustering in areas based on shared values or income levels. In this individualistic American society, parents make decisions they believe are best for their children based on the latest information available. These choices—ranging from health and education investments, residential areas and school districts, opting for free public schools or paid private schools, pursuing higher education or employment, or choosing corporate jobs versus entrepreneurship—are rarely imposed on others with differing intelligence levels, values, social status, income levels, professions, or vested interests.

Notable figures, such as Major League Baseball players and successful entrepreneurs who achieved success through their own efforts, often exhibit strong health consciousness. They challenge conventional norms by adopting unique diets, health practices, training methods, or work approaches to maximize their abilities and break records. Innovators in this group increasingly research and trust new, healthy lifestyles practiced by successful individuals rather than adhering to general public norms.

Moreover, U.S. healthcare institutions face non-negligible litigation risks from patients, fostering a tendency to provide personalized medical services tailored to individual constitutions and needs. They respect clients’ preferences, avoiding actions that cause anxiety or involve unwanted consumption of medications or chemicals. Rather than adhering to collectivism, they prioritize fairness and diversity in society, treating patients as equals. Healthcare providers, including doctors and medical staff, often refrain from criticizing or imposing fluoride use on clients who do not want it for their children, acknowledging parents’ concerns about protecting their children from risks.

In American society, opinions on fluoride intake and its risks following this ruling vary widely. Those interested engage deeply with the topic, while others remain indifferent. Parents who perceive fluoride as dangerous and wish to avoid it for their children do so, while those who still believe fluoride is safe or advocate for its use choose to consume it themselves or allow their families, children, or grandchildren to do so without concern. This reflects a society where individual choice and responsibility are paramount, and personal decisions or values are not typically imposed on others.

Attention is now focused on how American consumer innovator groups will shift their consumption behaviors and the resulting market trends in the future.

 

The History and Future of Fluorine: Advancing Space Development and Green Technology (Seeking Gold in the Galaxy, Keeping Earth a Masterpiece for Life)

As previously mentioned, fluorine does not exist in its elemental form in nature and is primarily mined as fluorite (fluorspar, CaF₂). Fluorite has been used as a flux to aid in the melting of iron ore since the 16th century. Isolating fluorine was a challenging task, achieved for the first time in 1886 by French chemist Henri Moissan, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1905.

Entering the 20th century, hydrofluoric acid derived from fluorite became essential for new energy production, aluminum smelting, and the manufacture of freons, leading to a sharp increase in fluorite demand. Between 1950 and 1970, global fluorite production surged rapidly. Inorganic fluorides, such as sodium fluoride used for caries prevention, were generated in large quantities as byproducts alongside the promotion of the energy industry in the United States at the time. To find applications for these byproducts, claims were made about fluorine’s biocompatibility and utility, emphasizing its safety. Positioned as a new, clean, and safe industry—so safe it could be consumed—starting around 1950, the U.S. adopted a policy of adding these fluoride byproducts to public drinking water for caries prevention, promoted in collaboration with public health organizations.

Post-1970, the depletion of easily accessible fluorite deposits led to a decline in production. However, fluorite remains an indispensable mineral resource for energy and freon production in modern times, and its supply significantly impacts global industries. While related industries, which began with research in Europe in the early 1900s and spread globally, particularly through Western countries in the 20th century, are now undergoing structural changes in the 21st century due to the depletion of fluorite mines worldwide. Currently, China accounts for over 65% of global fluorite production and more than 70% of hydrofluoric acid and freon production derived from fluorite, used in semiconductor cleaning and refrigerants.

China’s fluorite reserves are estimated at approximately 200 million tons (50% of global reserves), and at the current mining rate, they could be depleted by 2035–2040, roughly 10–15 years from now. Other countries and companies are advancing recycling technologies and securing new supply sources. A sustainable fluorine chemical industry requires new technologies and international cooperation. Sources: International Mineral Resources Association (IMA), China National Bureau of Statistics, World Mining Review (2023 Edition).

Notably, in the dental field, China is also the world’s largest producer of apatite (phosphorite), the raw material for hydroxyapatite—an alternative to fluorite—holding about 35% of the global market share with abundant apatite deposits.

Fluorite is a critical resource for energy and industrial products, making discussions about its supply significant. Prices have also risen; while fluorite cost around $100 per ton (approximately ¥10,000) in the 2000s, China’s export restrictions in 2010 drove prices to $350–500 per ton in the 2020s, posing challenges due to rising costs for fluorine-related raw materials and products.

Moreover, the depletion of fluorite, the raw material for fluorides, is projected within a few decades.

There are also human health concerns. According to a 1997 report from the Chinese Ministry of Health, residents in specific areas across nearly all of China are exposed to high-concentration fluoride contamination in groundwater or drinking water, with approximately 140 million people living in fluoride-contaminated risk areas. The total number of dental fluorosis (mottled teeth) patients is reported at around 43 million. In some regions, processed coal with fluoride content exceeding 500 mg/kg (500 ppm) is used for heating or cooking in coal stoves, exacerbating “indoor fluoride pollution.” Fluorosis patients from coal combustion include 18.17 million with dental fluorosis and 1.46 million with skeletal fluorosis, making fluoride poisoning a significant social issue.

Earth’s beautiful, clean nature, enveloped by an ozone layer, is unique and must be protected. In contrast, other stars in the vast galaxy lack Earth’s natural environment, serving as sources of rare metal minerals with radiation levels hundreds of times higher than Earth’s. These stars offer a vast frontier for large-scale energy experiments and research, facilitating humanity’s expansion into space.

For the sake of global peace, the world is shifting from the competition over Earth’s limited fossil resources—new terrestrial mining explorations that are scarce, geopolitically contentious, harmful to health, and environmentally destructive—toward space development, where infinite fossil resources exist (Earth’s minerals primarily originate from meteorites and other space materials, which are abundant in outer space). This diversification of supply sources, driven by collaborative teams uniting brilliant minds, aims to contribute to beautiful nature and global human peace by accelerating humanity’s transition to distant space resource development at unprecedented speed.

Meanwhile, on our shared Earth, efforts are underway to supply oral care products that avoid reliance on finite fossil raw materials and chemical substances that harm the environment. These products, made from water and plants, prioritize high sustainability (sustainability) and are gentle to humans, other living organisms, plants, and the environment, contributing to beautiful nature and global human peace.

Currently, global investment is converging on the vast potential of space industries with infinite resource development possibilities and sustainable green technology industries on Earth’s finite landscape.

 

Protecting Japan’s Beautiful Nature: Will Japan’s Water Become Undrinkable in a Few Hundred Years?

Beyond industrial waste, a significant concern for high-level fluoride pollution in Japan’s beautiful natural environment is the discharge of high-concentration fluoride from toothpaste and mouthwash, which has been promoted for approximately 30 years since the 1990s.

Fluorides used in high-concentration fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash are discharged into sewage systems after use but are often not adequately removed by standard wastewater treatment processes. Fluorides are highly water-soluble and stable, making them difficult to remove through sedimentation or filtration. While some fluorides react with calcium or aluminum to form precipitates and are collected as sludge, this sludge may be re-released into the environment during incineration or pyrolysis.

Fluorides discharged untreated into rivers or seas disperse and dilute in water. However, in areas with high discharge volumes or low water flow, there is a risk of increased fluoride concentrations. Additionally, some fluorides are adsorbed onto soil, but in highly permeable geological layers, they can infiltrate groundwater, potentially leading to contamination.

The estimated annual consumption of toothpaste in Japan is approximately 40,000 tons, while mouthwash consumption is reported at about 32,450 tons. Combined, the total consumption of toothpaste and mouthwash amounts to approximately 72,450 tons per year.

Assuming all these products contain fluoride at 1450 ppm (0.145%) and that 100% of the fluoride used is discharged into the environment, the maximum annual fluoride intake can be calculated as follows:

72,450 tons × 0.145% = approximately 105 tons/year

Thus, the use and discharge of fluoride-containing oral care products could result in up to approximately 105 tons of fluorides being released into the environment annually.

To maintain Japan’s drinking water safety standard of 0.8 ppm or below with an annual discharge of 105 tons of inorganic fluorides, the required water volume for dilution is approximately 131.25 million cubic meters (kiloliters).

This water volume is equivalent to:

• The annual tap water consumption of approximately 486,000 households (based on the average water usage per person in Japan).
• Approximately 5.25 times the storage capacity of the Tonogawa Dam (approximately 25 million cubic meters).
• About 2.19% of Tokyo’s total groundwater volume (approximately 6 billion cubic meters).

If this accumulates over 10 years, the total fluoride discharge would reach approximately 1,050 tons, requiring about 1.3125 billion cubic meters of water to dilute it to the safety standard of 0.8 ppm. This equates to:

• The annual tap water consumption of approximately 4.86 million households.
• About 52.5 times the storage capacity of the Tonogawa Dam.
• Approximately 21.9% of Tokyo’s total groundwater volume, meaning 20% of Tokyo’s groundwater could be contaminated with fluoride levels exceeding 0.8 ppm, rendering it undrinkable.

If inorganic fluorides continue to be discharged into the environment at this rate (though not all is discharged, some flows to the sea, and population decline may occur, assuming the current pace and 100% impact on source water for dilution), Japan’s entire water supply (approximately 15 billion cubic meters) could exceed the 0.8 ppm fluoride safety threshold in about 114 years. Based on the 0.7 ppm risk level identified in the recent U.S. ruling, this threshold could be surpassed in about 100 years. Reaching the WHO’s safety limit of 1.5 ppm would take approximately 214 years.

This is a rough and simplified future simulation, but if the current exposure situation persists over centuries, it suggests that fluoride concentrations exceeding water quality standards could gradually accumulate in local soil, rivers, and coastal areas. This could impact Japan’s overall water supply, agricultural and marine products, and increase fluoride poisoning cases among residents from the 23rd century onward.

If fluorides discharged over the past 30 years since the 1990s have already accumulated in local natural environments, the day when groundwater in those areas becomes undrinkable may be even closer.

 

 

Increasing Fluoride Contamination in Japan’s Groundwater Exceeding Environmental Standards

According to a 2019 survey conducted by Japan’s Ministry of the Environment, water quality was measured in 3,191 wells nationwide, with approximately 1.0% of these wells showing inorganic fluoride concentrations exceeding the environmental standard of 0.8 ppm (mg/L). Over the past 30 years, the rate of wells exceeding this standard has fluctuated between 0.4% and 1.2%.

Fluoride contamination in groundwater is attributed to various sources: shallow wells may be affected by industrial wastewater or river seepage, while deep wells may experience fluoride leaching from geological sources such as fluorite or biotite in granite. The graph referenced above illustrates the trend of fluoride concentrations in Japanese groundwater exceeding the environmental standard of 0.8 ppm from 1990 to 2020, indicating the percentage of wells deemed undrinkable due to excessive fluoride levels.

Over the past 30 years, the rate of wells exceeding the environmental standard has gradually increased. Recent surveys by the Ministry of the Environment report this rate reaching 1.2%, raising concerns about the future rise in fluoride concentrations in Japan’s groundwater.

This increase is not due to a sudden dissolution of fluoride from naturally occurring minerals like fluorite in Japan’s subsurface over the past 30 years. Instead, it clearly indicates progressive contamination of Japan’s natural environment and groundwater by imported fluorides, promoted since the 1990s.

Japan’s water is globally renowned for its exceptional qualities: drinkable directly from the tap, nurtured by abundant nature, gentle to living organisms, low in impurities, soft, clear, delicious, affordable, and safe. To ensure the continued safety and sustainability of Japan’s world-class water, rice, salt, and food, as well as to safeguard the health of the Japanese population and manage water resources sustainably, urgent forward-looking measures are required.

 

Metric	1990	2021	Change (%)
PFAS Contamination (ng/L)	2.5	10.0	300.0
Fluoride Contamination in Wells (%)	0.4	1.2	200.0
Developmental Disorders (per 10k)	20.0	35.0	75.0
Disabilities (per 10k)	50.0	70.0	40.0
Fluorite Import (tons)	1000	1200	20.0
Radiation Levels (µSv/hour)	0.08	0.09	12.5
Mercury in Environment (ng/m³)	1.5	1.6	6.7
Total Population (millions)	125.0	122.0	-2.4
School-Aged Children (millions)	20.0	14.0	-30.0
PM2.5 (µg/m³)	20.0	12.0	-40.0
Neonicotinoid Pesticides (tons)	50.0	442.0	784.0

1. Environmental Ministry Reports: https://www.env.go.jp/
2. Japanese Government Statistics: https://www.stat.go.jp/english/index.html
3. Trade Data Reports – JETRO: https://www.jetro.go.jp/
4. Organic Farming News: https://organic-newsclip.info/
5. World Bank, Japanese Statistics Bureau: https://data.worldbank.org/
6. Japanese Government Healthcare Data: https://www.stat.go.jp/

 

Protecting the Future of Our Children: For Your Precious Baby, Parents Must Understand the Risks Highlighted by the Latest Information and Make Informed Decisions

In the 2020s, Japan is experiencing an unprecedented decline in birth rates, while the number of children with developmental and other disabilities is on the rise. In particular, conditions such as autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have been increasing significantly among Japanese children in recent years.

When considering the total Japanese population, including adults, Japan’s population is decreasing by approximately 850,000 people annually. Amid this rapid population decline, the number of Japanese individuals with disabilities reached 11.646 million in 2022, an increase of 2.28 million (24.3%) compared to five years earlier in 2017. This marks the highest number of individuals with disabilities in Japan’s history.

Mental disabilities, which account for just over half of all disabilities, increased by 2.224 million (56.6%) over the past five years, reaching 6.148 million in 2022. This represents the highest number of individuals with mental disabilities ever recorded in Japan.

According to data from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, the total number of children and students attending schools nationwide decreased from approximately 18.41 million in 2007 to about 16.3 million in 2018, an 11.5% decline, reflecting an unprecedented level of Japan’s declining birth rate.

While Japan’s child population decreases by about 100,000 annually, the total number of children and students receiving special education, attending special needs classes, or enrolled in special needs schools has increased by approximately 6,000 each year, rising from about 276,000 in 2007 to 422,000 in 2018. Over these 11 years, the number of children with disabilities has grown by approximately 1.5 times, marking the highest number of children with disabilities in Japan’s history.

In particular, within Tokyo’s public elementary and junior high schools, the number of children receiving instruction in special needs classrooms surged from approximately 11,545 in the 2016 academic year to about 29,048 in the 2021 academic year, a roughly 2.5-fold increase in just five years, setting a record for the highest number of children with disabilities in Tokyo.

This increase can partly be attributed to revised diagnostic criteria, advancements in early detection technologies, and improved support systems for developmental disabilities. However, the social impact of an annual decrease of approximately 100,000 Japanese children, contrasted with an annual increase of about 6,000 children with disabilities, alongside an annual population decline of about 850,000 and a sharp rise in the number of children and adults with disabilities, cannot be overlooked. The total of approximately 12 million individuals with disabilities (representing about 9.31% of Japan’s population) continues to break historical records, presenting a reality that future Japanese parents and families cannot ignore.

The annual increase of about 6,000 children with disabilities translates to an additional 12,000 Japanese mothers and fathers shedding tears each year over their beloved babies born with disabilities. The 12 million individuals with disabilities represent the sorrow faced by roughly 24 million parents, and when including siblings and other family members, tens of millions of Japanese citizens are affected. This issue spans a lifetime, from early intervention and therapy to finding a place in society and employment after graduation, and ultimately addressing the challenges faced by individuals with disabilities after their parents pass away. Many of our children are suffering from various conditions, and the increasing tears of these children and their parents are a pain felt by many who recognize this situation and urgently hope for change.

In this context, parents blessed with a baby must take proactive steps to protect their one-and-only precious child. This involves not only avoiding harmful chemical substances identified by the latest science as posing risks to fetal development—such as mercury, neonicotinoid pesticides, organophosphorus pesticides, medications contraindicated during pregnancy, and synthetic bactericides—but also considering multiple risk factors, including genetic predispositions, maternal nutrition during pregnancy, air pollutants, and the mother’s overall health.

Despite extensive research, pinpointing the exact causes of the rising rates of developmental and mental disabilities remains challenging at this stage. Therefore, to mitigate risks, it is necessary to investigate and avoid substances suspected of neurotoxicity, which are increasingly linked to the rise in disabilities, as well as chemicals and food additives subject to tightening regulations overseas. Particular caution is warranted during the critical period when fetuses and infants are small and most vulnerable. Parents should maintain distance from harmful chemical substances suspected of neurotoxicity, including pesticides, mineral toxins, chemical plants, waste treatment facilities, pest control operations, fields where insecticides or herbicides are used, and areas where pesticides are sprayed.

During the crucial period of pregnancy, when a precious fetus or baby is developing, parents should check local groundwater and air quality test results on municipal websites and, whenever possible, choose areas with minimal air or tap water pollution. Use mineral water or trusted water sources for baby formula, drinking, and cooking. Select reliable pesticide-free or organic foods and teas, paying special attention to strawberries, which are often grown with pesticides and lack a protective skin; opt for organic strawberries or wash them thoroughly with alkaline water for pregnant mothers. Fruits and vegetables treated with insecticides should be thoroughly washed, and if possible, their skins peeled. Avoid foods and drinks containing additives or chemical substances, medications prohibited for pregnant women, pest control agents, pet insecticides, chemical building materials, cyanide, neurotoxic substances, radiation, stress, and prolonged smartphone use. Embracing a natural and healthy lifestyle is an effective way to safeguard your family.

To protect the neurodevelopment of your family’s one-and-only precious baby, parents must take practical steps to address preventable risk factors. Utilizing the latest scientific information from public institutions or reliable sources and prioritizing environmental factors and health considerations are positive actions that parents can take to secure a brighter future for their cherished child.

Chemicals Subject to Increasing Global Regulations

 

Chemical Substance	Main Regulating Countries	Regulation Start Year	Regulation Details	Remarks
Fluorides	EU, United States	2024	Mandatory disclosure of IQ reduction risks in children	When fluorides are added to drinking water, they are noted to potentially affect brain development in fetuses and infants, with risks of IQ reduction. Neurotoxicity has been identified, leading to strengthened regulations following court rulings. Not yet regulated in Japan.
PFAS	EU, United States, Canada	2020s	Restrictions on manufacturing and use, strengthened wastewater standards	PFAS may adversely affect lipid metabolism and neurodevelopment, with concerns about bioaccumulation due to high persistence. Impacts on neurobehavioral functions are under study. Regulation under consideration in Japan.
Neonicotinoid Pesticides	EU, Canada	2010s	Prohibition on use for specific crops	These pesticides, with nicotine-like effects, impact the nervous systems of insects and humans. Linked to colony collapse disorder (CCD) in bees, with potential neurodevelopmental risks in humans under discussion. Not regulated in Japan.
Bisphenol A (BPA)	EU, United States, Canada, Japan	2010s	Prohibition in food containers and toys	BPA’s effects on the nervous system are being researched, with concerns about behavioral development in fetuses and children.
Organophosphorus Pesticides	EU, United States, Japan	2000s	Restrictions on use as pesticide ingredients	By inhibiting acetylcholinesterase, these pesticides severely affect neurotransmission. High concentrations pose risks of acute poisoning and long-term neurological disorders.
Chromium Compounds	EU, United States, Japan	2000s	Strengthened wastewater standards, restrictions on industrial use	Hexavalent chromium causes oxidative stress and is reported to be neurotoxic. Long-term exposure may affect neurotransmission functions.
Cyanides	EU, United States, Japan	1990s	Industrial wastewater regulations, use prohibition	Cyanides inhibit cellular respiration, causing severe central nervous system damage in acute poisoning. Widely recognized as a fast-acting neurotoxin.
Cadmium	EU, United States, Japan	1990s	Strict emission standards, restrictions on agricultural use	Long-term exposure is noted to affect the nervous system, particularly through disruption of calcium metabolism in the brain, raising neurotoxicity concerns.
Formaldehyde	EU, United States, Japan	1990s	Regulations on use in building materials and furniture	High-concentration exposure is noted to cause inflammation in the nervous system, potentially leading to chronic neurological damage.
Lead	EU, United States, Japan	1980s	Prohibition of lead-containing paints, mining regulations	Lead poisoning affects the central nervous system, leading to memory and cognitive impairments. Particularly in infants, it causes neurodevelopmental disorders.
Mercury	EU, United States, Japan	1970s onward	Use prohibition, emission restrictions	Mercury has direct toxicity to the central nervous system, causing memory impairment, ataxia, and developmental disorders. It severely impacts fetuses and infants.

Fruits and Vegetables with High Pesticide Use That Pregnant Mothers Should Thoroughly Wash Before Eating

 

Crop Name	Average Pesticide Application Frequency (Times/Year)	Estimated Application Volume (L/10a)	Remarks
Strawberries	Approx. 50–65	100–300 L	Long cultivation period, severe damage from aphids and spider mites.
Green Tea	Approx. 10–30	200–500 L	High application frequency to combat pests and diseases.
Mangoes	Approx. 15–25	200–600 L	Fruits are vulnerable to scale insects and thrips.
Apples	Approx. 15–20	200–700 L	Requires measures against aphids and apple fruit flies.
Grapes	Approx. 15–20	200–500 L	Thin skins, susceptible to spider mites and thrips damage.
Peaches	Approx. 10–15	200–700 L	Severe damage from aphids and peach fruit moths.
Tomatoes	Approx. 10–15	150–300 L	Pest control for aphids and spider mites is critical.
Kale	Approx. 10–15	100–300 L	Nutrient-rich, vulnerable to aphids and cutworms.
Eggplants	Approx. 8–15	150–300 L	Frequent damage from spider mites and aphids.
Cabbage	Approx. 8–15	150–300 L	Used to prevent damage from caterpillars and cutworms.

Europe, the United States, and Japan’s Future: Perspectives on Fluoride and Public Health

For years, Japan has seen a contentious debate over fluoride’s health risks, pitting concerns from physicians and neuroscientists about its potential neurotoxicity against the advocacy of dentists promoting fluoride for caries prevention. The recent landmark U.S. court ruling in September 2024 marks a significant turning point, likely influencing Japanese citizens to align with trends observed in Europe and the United States regarding fluoride’s future.

In Japan, fluoride promotion for caries prevention was initially influenced by U.S. policies. However, opposition from physicians, neuroscientists, and dental scholars concerned about fluoride’s neurotoxicity to fetuses and infants, combined with the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare’s prohibition of water fluoridation, prevented mandatory fluoride addition to public drinking water. Instead, strategies focused on expanding high-concentration fluoride products in the oral care market, alongside school-based programs for collective fluoride mouth rinsing and application, exposing infants and children to high fluoride levels.

Regulatory changes in the 2010s further facilitated this trend. In 2017, the upper limit for fluoride ion concentration in adult toothpaste was raised to a high concentration of 1,500 ppm. By January 2023, the limit for infant products was increased from 500 ppm to 1,000 ppm, approving higher fluoride concentrations in the Japanese market. Nearly all commercial toothpaste now contains fluoride, with high-concentration fluoride oral care products achieving a 91% market share in 2015 and aiming for 100% dominance.

However, the United States, which pioneered fluoride’s use for caries prevention in the 1950s—backed by scientific papers and evidence demonstrating its efficacy and safety through water fluoridation and high-concentration fluoride toothpaste—is now, in the 21st century, emphasizing fluoride’s dangers and shifting its stance. The 2024 U.S. federal court ruling, supported by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), highlighted fluoride’s potential to cause IQ reduction in children at concentrations as low as 0.7 ppm, prompting calls for stricter regulations.

In Japan, research on fluoride’s neurological effects at low concentrations (below 1 ppm), as presented by the NTP, is scarce. Japan has largely relied on overseas research evidence and safety standards to promote fluorides for caries prevention. Similar to the limited domestic research on organic fluorine compounds (PFAS), Japan’s studies on inorganic fluorides’ neurotoxicity are minimal, with available data primarily from animal experiments at high concentrations of 150 ppm and 15 ppm.

Japan’s Path Forward: Lessons from Europe and the United States

Europe’s Precautionary Approach
Europe, particularly countries like Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands, has long adopted a cautious stance toward fluoride, avoiding widespread water fluoridation due to health and ethical concerns. The European Union’s stringent environmental and health regulations prioritize risk avoidance, favoring alternative caries prevention methods such as dental care, dietary improvements, and fluoride-free oral care products. For instance, Sweden’s Gothenburg Technique, developed in the 1980s, uses high-concentration fluoride toothpaste (1,000–1,450 ppm) but is not recommended for children under 12, and water fluoridation remains absent. This reflects a broader European trend of prioritizing consumer choice and natural, sustainable oral care solutions, driven by concerns over fluoride’s neurotoxicity and environmental impact.

United States’ Shift
The U.S., once a global leader in fluoride promotion, is now reevaluating its policies following the 2024 ruling. The NTP’s systematic review of over 500 studies underscored fluoride’s potential neurodevelopmental risks, particularly at concentrations as low as 0.7 ppm, challenging decades-old safety assumptions. Consumer behavior, especially in areas like the San Francisco Bay Area, reflects growing awareness, with parents opting for fluoride-free water and oral care products to protect their children. The rise of fluoride-free toothpaste, priced at around $10 compared to $1 fluoride-containing options, signals a market shift toward safer, high-value alternatives. This ruling may accelerate the development of non-fluoride technologies and influence global oral care trends.

Japan’s Future Trajectory
Japan’s reliance on imported scientific evidence and its lag in domestic research on fluoride’s low-dose neurotoxicity place it at a crossroads. The U.S. ruling and Europe’s cautious approach suggest Japan may face increasing pressure to reassess its fluoride policies. Key considerations for Japan’s future include:

1. Public Awareness and Consumer Choice: As Japanese citizens become more informed about fluoride’s potential risks, demand for fluoride-free oral care products is likely to grow, mirroring U.S. and European trends. Products like ORALPEACE, utilizing plant-based Neonisin-e technology, offer sustainable alternatives that align with Japan’s cultural emphasis on natural solutions. Parents, particularly those concerned about neurodevelopmental risks, may shift toward safer options, especially given the rising rates of developmental disabilities among Japanese children (e.g., a 2.5-fold increase in Tokyo’s special needs students from 2016 to 2021).
2. Regulatory Reevaluation: Japan’s current fluoride regulations, allowing up to 1,500 ppm in adult toothpaste and 1,000 ppm in infant products, contrast with Europe’s avoidance of water fluoridation and stricter oversight. The Ministry of Health’s prohibition on water fluoridation reflects historical caution, but the expansion of high-concentration fluoride products may prompt scrutiny, especially as environmental fluoride accumulation raises concerns. Japan’s groundwater already shows fluoride levels exceeding the 0.8 ppm standard in 1.0–1.2% of wells, potentially exacerbated by fluoride from oral care products. Regulatory bodies may face calls to align with global trends, possibly lowering permissible fluoride concentrations or mandating clearer labeling.
3. Environmental Sustainability: The environmental impact of fluoride discharge from toothpaste and mouthwash (estimated at 105 tons annually) poses a long-term threat to Japan’s pristine water resources. Projections suggest Japan’s water sources could exceed the 0.8 ppm safety threshold in 114 years, or the U.S.-identified 0.7 ppm risk level in 100 years, if current trends persist. Adopting Europe’s focus on sustainable, biodegradable oral care products could mitigate this risk, preserving Japan’s globally renowned clean water.
4. Health and Social Implications: Japan’s declining birth rate (a loss of 100,000 children annually) and rising disability rates (12 million individuals, or 9.31% of the population, in 2022) amplify the stakes of fluoride’s potential neurotoxicity. The increasing prevalence of developmental disorders, such as autism and ADHD, underscores the need for precautionary measures. Parents may increasingly prioritize avoiding neurotoxic substances, including fluoride, pesticides, and PFAS, to safeguard their children’s future.

Japan’s Opportunity for Leadership
Japan stands at a pivotal moment to learn from Europe’s precautionary model and the U.S.’s policy shift. By investing in domestic research on fluoride’s low-dose effects, promoting fluoride-free alternatives like Neonisin-e, and strengthening environmental regulations, Japan can lead in sustainable oral care. This aligns with its cultural values of harmony with nature and could position Japan as a global innovator in green oral health technologies. Embracing consumer-driven demand for safer products and prioritizing child health will not only protect Japan’s future generations but also preserve its cherished natural resources.

In conclusion, the trajectory of Europe and the U.S. suggests Japan’s future will involve heightened public scrutiny of fluoride, a shift toward sustainable oral care, and stricter regulations. By proactively addressing these trends, Japan can safeguard its children and environment, ensuring a healthier, more resilient society.

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

Reference Information: Progress in Japan’s Latest Independent Research (Source: Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology KAKEN: Scientific Research Grants Database Excerpts)

Impact of Fluoride Exposure on the Nervous System: Consideration of Susceptibility

URL: https://kaken.nii.ac.jp/ja/grant/KAKENHI-PROJECT-19K10612/

Research Institution: National Defense Medical College, Department of Medicine, Advanced Course and Specialized Programs, Animal Experiment Facility, Shared Research Facility, Hospital, and Defense Research
Research Period: April 1, 2019 – March 31, 2022
Keywords: Fluoride / Neurotoxicity / Two Generations / Behavioral Tests / Rats / F1 Animals / Growth Suppression / Open Field Test / PPI Test / Ureteral Ligation / Drinking Water / Body Weight Changes / Susceptibility / Environmental Pollution

Research Overview at Start:
This study aims to elucidate the effects of fluoride on the nervous system as a first step by employing established behavioral tests (Open Field Test, Prepulse Inhibition Test) for screening neurological impacts and quantifying neurotransmitters in brain regions to determine whether fluoride exhibits toxicity. Focusing on differences in fluoride susceptibility, the study examines whether exposure during the fetal and developmental periods—when chemical impacts are heightened—enhances fluoride’s effects on the nervous system. Additionally, since the kidneys play a primary role in fluoride excretion, the study investigates whether renal impairment, which increases blood fluoride concentrations, amplifies neurological effects.

Summary of Research Outcomes:
To investigate the neurotoxicity of fluoride (F) exposure during development, pregnant rats were administered fluoride at 150 ppm through drinking water. The resulting F1 rats were divided into a group continuing fluoride exposure (FF group) and a group without further exposure (FC group), raised until 12 weeks of age, and evaluated using the Open Field Test and Prepulse Inhibition (PPI) Test compared to a control group. In male FF group rats, suppression of body weight gain was observed compared to the control group. Additionally, in the PPI Test, the %PPI (an indicator of startle response suppression) was significantly lower in the male FF group at a 70 dB prepulse compared to the control group. These findings suggest potential toxicity from fluoride exposure during development in males.

Academic and Social Significance of Research Outcomes:
Regarding fluoride, a significant issue due to groundwater contamination in countries like India and China, this study suggests that neurotoxicity, previously unclarified, may occur in animals exposed during the highly susceptible fetal and developmental periods. Combined with the observation of significant growth suppression, the study highlights the risks associated with fluoride exposure during these sensitive growth periods, holding both academic and social significance. Future research should integrate these findings with epidemiological studies.

---

Examination of Autism-Like Behaviors Due to Low-Dose Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy

URL: https://kaken.nii.ac.jp/ja/grant/KAKENHI-PROJECT-19K07808/

Research Institution: Juntendo University, Faculty of Medicine
Research Period: April 1, 2019 – March 31, 2025
Keywords: Fluoride / Developmental Dysfunction / Behavioral Tests / Autism Spectrum Disorder / Neurotransmitters / Fluorine / Autism Spectrum Disorder / ASD / Prenatal Exposure

Research Overview at Start:
In regions like China and India, where water with high fluoride content is consumed, there is a high prevalence of skeletal fluorosis and dental fluorosis. Recent reports have noted additional health impacts, including IQ reduction, cognitive impairment, and learning/behavioral disorders resembling autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Concerns exist that fluoride exposure before and after birth may affect brain development. While animal studies on fluoride exposure show inconsistent results regarding memory, learning ability, and anxiety, it is generally accepted that chemical exposure during fetal and developmental periods significantly impacts the nervous system. This study aims to investigate whether fluoride exposure in drinking water during pregnancy induces autism spectrum disorder in offspring mice.

Summary of Research Outcomes:
[Research Purpose] Fluoride is a suspected neurotoxic substance, and in countries with high fluoride content in groundwater or where fluoridation is implemented, it is suggested to impact children’s brain development. This study administered drinking water with fluoride concentrations of 15 ppm and 30 ppm to pregnant mice (10 per group) to examine the effects on behavior and brain neurotransmitters in mature offspring.
[Research Results] In the Open Field Test, grooming frequency increased in fluoride-exposed groups compared to the control group (15 ppm: p<0.05; 30 ppm: p<0.001), suggesting fluoride exposure induced anxiety. In the Barnes Maze, both the time to reach the escape box and the number of errors increased in fluoride-exposed groups compared to the control group over five days of training and probe tests (15 and 30 ppm: p<0.01), indicating spatial memory impairment. Regarding neurotransmitters, glutamate levels in the cerebellum were significantly lower in exposed groups compared to the control group (15 and 30 ppm: p<0.01). Glutamate reduction was associated with increased grooming frequency in the Open Field Test (p=0.02), reduced average speed (p=0.002), increased error counts in the Barnes Maze probe test (p=0.025), and delayed time to reach the escape box (p=0.031). In the midbrain, noradrenaline levels were significantly lower in the 15 ppm group compared to the control group (p<0.05), correlating with increased error counts in the Barnes Maze (p=0.042). These results suggest that low-dose fluoride exposure during the fetal period may induce developmental dysfunction. The findings were presented at the 91st Annual Meeting of the Japanese Society for Hygiene, and a paper is currently under revision for journal submission.

---

Analysis and Implications for Japan’s Future

These Japanese studies, funded by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, provide critical insights into fluoride’s neurotoxic potential, particularly at concentrations relevant to human exposure. The National Defense Medical College study (2019–2022) demonstrated that high-dose fluoride exposure (150 ppm) during development in rats led to suppressed body weight gain and impaired startle response inhibition, suggesting neurotoxicity in males. The Juntendo University study (2019–2025) is particularly significant, showing that low-dose fluoride exposure (15 ppm and 30 ppm) during pregnancy in mice induced anxiety-like behaviors and spatial memory impairments, linked to altered neurotransmitter levels (glutamate and noradrenaline). These findings align with global concerns, such as the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s 2024 review, which highlighted IQ reduction risks at 0.7 ppm.

Implications for Japan:

1. Limited Domestic Research: Japan’s research on fluoride’s neurological effects at low concentrations (<1 ppm) is sparse, with most studies, like those above, focusing on higher doses (15–150 ppm). This reliance on overseas evidence, as seen in the U.S. and Europe, underscores the need for Japan to invest in low-dose studies relevant to its 1,000–1,500 ppm toothpaste standards.
2. Rising Disability Rates: The increasing prevalence of developmental disorders in Japan (e.g., a 2.5-fold rise in Tokyo’s special needs students from 2016 to 2021) parallels global concerns about neurotoxic exposures. The Juntendo study’s findings on autism-like behaviors suggest fluoride could contribute to this trend, necessitating further investigation.
3. Policy Reevaluation: Japan’s prohibition of water fluoridation reflects historical caution, but the 2017 and 2023 regulatory increases in toothpaste fluoride concentrations (to 1,500 ppm for adults and 1,000 ppm for infants) contrast with Europe’s avoidance and the U.S.’s shift. These studies may prompt calls for stricter regulations, such as lowering permissible fluoride levels or mandating fluoride-free alternatives.
4. Environmental Impact: The annual discharge of approximately 105 tons of fluoride from oral care products, as noted previously, risks groundwater contamination (1.0–1.2% of wells exceed 0.8 ppm). The environmental persistence of fluorides, combined with neurotoxicity concerns, may drive Japan toward sustainable, fluoride-free solutions like ORALPEACE’s Neonisin-e.

Future Outlook: Japan’s trajectory mirrors Europe’s precautionary approach and the U.S.’s pivot away from fluoride advocacy. Public awareness, fueled by global rulings and domestic studies, is likely to increase demand for fluoride-free products. Parents, concerned about rising developmental disability rates (9.31% of Japan’s population), may prioritize safer oral care to protect their children’s neurodevelopment. By fostering research, promoting green technologies, and aligning with global standards, Japan can safeguard its health and environment, ensuring a sustainable future for its children.

Implications of the U.S. Ruling for Japan’s Fluoride Policy and the Path Forward

The recent U.S. federal court ruling in September 2024 marks a pivotal shift in global fluoride policy. The United States, which pioneered fluoride’s use for caries prevention in the 1950s, has now taken a regulatory stance due to new research evidence highlighting health risks, particularly the potential for IQ reduction in children. This ruling, supported by the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) comprehensive review, indicates that previous safety standards are no longer reliable and have become outdated. It raises critical questions about which safety data can be trusted, leaving Japan’s fluoride promotion efforts without a robust global consensus, strong backing, or the latest safety evidence.

Current State of Fluoride Policy in Japan

Japan’s fluoride policy has historically relied on overseas evidence, particularly from the U.S., rather than robust domestic research. The country has avoided water fluoridation, prohibited by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, but has embraced high-concentration fluoride products in oral care. Regulatory changes in 2017 and 2023 raised fluoride limits in toothpaste to 1,500 ppm for adults and 1,000 ppm for infants, respectively, driving a market where 91% of oral care products contained fluoride by 2015, with aims for near-total dominance. However, the U.S. ruling and emerging Japanese studies, such as those from the National Defense Medical College (2019–2022) and Juntendo University (2019–2025), suggest potential neurotoxicity at concentrations far below these levels (e.g., 15–150 ppm in animals), underscoring the need for reevaluation.

The absence of Japanese research on low-dose fluoride effects (<1 ppm) comparable to the NTP’s findings leaves the country vulnerable to outdated safety assumptions. The environmental impact of fluoride discharge (approximately 105 tons annually from oral care products) further complicates the situation, with 1.0–1.2% of wells exceeding the 0.8 ppm standard, potentially threatening Japan’s pristine water resources. As global leaders like the U.S. and Europe shift toward caution, Japan faces a critical juncture to align with modern safety standards or risk lagging behind.

The Need for Japan-Specific Research

To ensure the safety of fluoride use in Japan, particularly at low concentrations (<1 ppm), the country must prioritize domestic clinical trials and scientific evidence to establish robust safety data. This mirrors the U.S.’s trajectory: in 1950, it was the first to identify fluoride’s efficacy for caries prevention, and in 2024, it was the first to regulate it due to IQ reduction risks. By proactively conducting such research, Japan can make informed decisions that minimize future risks to children, aligning with the U.S.’s latest judgment and demonstrating a commitment to child health.

Key steps for Japan include:

1. Low-Dose Clinical Trials: Fund and conduct human studies on fluoride’s neurological effects at concentrations relevant to current exposure levels (e.g., 0.7–1,000 ppm in water and oral care products). These should focus on vulnerable populations, such as fetuses and infants, given their limited excretory capacity (80–90% fluoride retention vs. 40–50% in adults).
2. Neurodevelopmental Research: Expand studies like Juntendo University’s, which linked low-dose prenatal fluoride exposure (15–30 ppm) to autism-like behaviors in mice, to human cohorts to assess risks like IQ reduction and developmental disorders.
3. Environmental Impact Assessments: Investigate the long-term accumulation of fluoride in groundwater and soil, building on the Ministry of the Environment’s findings that 1.0–1.2% of wells exceed 0.8 ppm, to inform sustainable oral care policies.

Addressing Potential Challenges

As seen in the U.S., Japan may face pushback from fluoride advocacy industries, including dental product manufacturers and public health organizations, potentially leading to litigation or counterarguments. However, the priority must be protecting humanity’s future generations—our children and grandchildren—from risks to brain development. The U.S. ruling underscores that decisions should be grounded in the latest scientific evidence, prioritizing child health over entrenched interests.

Japan’s aging population and critical low birth rate (a loss of 100,000 children annually) amplify the urgency of safeguarding the neurodevelopment of its dwindling youth. With developmental disabilities rising (e.g., a 2.5-fold increase in Tokyo’s special needs students from 2016 to 2021), and 12 million individuals with disabilities (9.31% of the population) in 2022, the societal stakes are immense. Ensuring the intellectual and competitive potential of future generations is not just a health issue but a national imperative for maintaining Japan’s global standing in education and innovation.

A Call for Transformative Leadership

True leadership is not merely about making decisions but about envisioning the future and boldly tackling uncharted challenges. Japan has an opportunity to lead by:

• Listening to Global and Public Voices: Align with Europe’s precautionary approach and the U.S.’s regulatory shift, responding to growing public awareness of fluoride risks, particularly among parents concerned about neurodevelopmental impacts.
• Investing in Green Alternatives: Promote fluoride-free oral care solutions like ORALPEACE’s Neonisin-e, a plant-based antibacterial technology, to reduce environmental fluoride discharge and meet consumer demand for sustainable products.
• Enhancing International Competitiveness: By prioritizing child health and environmental sustainability, Japan can strengthen its educational institutions and workforce, fostering a generation capable of global leadership.
• Driving Social Change: Implement policies that reflect the latest safety data, encouraging a societal shift toward health-conscious, evidence-based practices that protect future generations.

This transformative action is not about clinging to past practices but about embracing flexibility and innovation. By heeding the latest global safety information and public sentiment, Japan can protect its precious children, reverse the tide of developmental risks, and secure a vibrant future. The time for bold leadership is now, ensuring that Japan’s next generation thrives in a world that values health, sustainability, and intellectual excellence.

The Global Shift Toward Defluoridation Starting in 2025 Due to Regulations and Resource Depletion, and the Spread of Proper Caries Prevention Through Dietary and Brushing Guidance by Dentists

As we move forward, Europe’s environmental and health regulatory policies are expected to continue, with strengthened regulations on fluoride used for caries prevention, similar to those for fluorite-derived substances like freon gases (essential for air conditioning), PFAS, and PFOS. Additionally, the depletion of fluorite (fluorspar, CaF₂), the raw material for fluorides, is projected within a few decades.

In fact, Japan’s research and technology related to fluorine are among the world’s best, leading in areas from production to environmental considerations. With cutting-edge technologies and highly skilled professionals in heavy industry, Japan is well-positioned to address global societal challenges through advanced fluoride pollution prevention, recycling, and zero-emission technologies, contributing significantly to environmental and health regulatory compliance.

Currently, peer-reviewed scientific papers on the risk of IQ reduction in children due to fluoride exposure, which served as the basis for the September 2024 U.S. court ruling, are slated for publication. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing new fluoride intake safety standards based on the latest scientific research from this ruling, and updated safety guidelines from the American Dental Association (ADA) are anticipated starting in 2025.

As water fluoridation is phased out, individuals who still consider fluoride essential for caries prevention are likely to seek safer methods, such as fluoride application directly to teeth at dental clinics, leading to increased patient visits. Moreover, there will be a growing reliance on safe caries prevention methods practiced by humanity for tens of thousands of years, such as brushing guidance and dietary advice on sugar intake. This shift is expected to enhance the trust and societal demand for dentists and dental hygienists as local healthcare leaders.

For billions of years, humanity has survived and achieved remarkable intellectual development without applying chemical fluoride to teeth. Ancient people used natural tools like twigs to clean their teeth, devising methods to reduce caries risk, which contributed to human progress up to the present day. Even in modern times, thorough dietary guidance—particularly on sugar intake—and brushing education can prevent caries without relying on fluoride, which carries potential side effects. Given the concerns about side effects in fetuses and infants and the projected depletion of fluorite within decades, fluoride is not humanity’s only option for caries prevention. Basic toothbrushing habits, grounded in human history and scientific evidence, represent the safest and most effective choice.

In a society where disparities based on ability are widening, parents during pregnancy and child-rearing face an era where they must navigate a flood of conflicting information from various stakeholders and interests on the internet. Leveraging AI and automated translation to directly access the latest overseas information and enhancing information literacy are increasingly essential. This empowers parents to make informed decisions not only about intellectual development, career paths, skill development, and educational strategies but also about future income and lifestyle choices. Parental self-reliance and responsibility now significantly shape their children’s futures.

Protecting Your Family’s Future: Entering an Era of Individual “Health Responsibility”

In 2024, we stand at a historic turning point where awareness of health and environmental concerns is undergoing a profound transformation. In Japan, amid a deepening low birth rate crisis, the risks that chemical substances pose to children and future generations are drawing significant attention.

On the other hand, those who are unconcerned may continue using fluoride without worry, and those who believe it is safe or advocate for its use may persist in consuming it themselves or with their families, monitoring any changes or health impacts over time. Conducting clinical experiments within advocacy groups to confirm safety could also serve as valuable data for humanity’s future decisions, especially as health issues or patient numbers rise and prompt stricter national regulations.

However, for ordinary parents who aspire to build a family, have a baby, and ensure their lineage thrives happily—hoping their children grow smarter, achieve higher intelligence, increase income and prosperity, and live long, healthy lives—self-education is critical. Regardless of others’ opinions or criticism from those with differing professional interests, parents must surpass global knowledge and academic standards, trust their own research and values, and make informed decisions based on the latest scientific information. This effort is essential to protect their precious babies and families from risks and to proactively create a happy future.

In 2024, as Japan grapples with a delayed low birth rate crisis and heightened interest in the environmental toxicity of chemical substances, the country is poised to experience a movement akin to Europe’s organic boom 20 years ago. Individuals are awakening from ignorance, gaining a clear understanding of the issues, accessing diverse global scientific information, and enhancing health literacy. This marks the dawn of an era where many informed consumers demand truly safe food, drinks, and environments.

In Japan’s increasingly stratified society, driven by disparities in academic achievement and ability, parents’ judgments and self-reliance significantly influence their children’s intelligence, academic performance, skills, future income, social status, and the happiness of each family member. Moving forward, individuals will increasingly be required to exercise personal “health responsibility” to minimize risks for their families, children, grandchildren, and future descendants.

This “health responsibility” extends beyond genetics to encompass lifestyle, diet, living environment, intelligence, social status, and prosperity, all of which are inherited by children, grandchildren, and subsequent generations. It is poised to become a critical obligation for individuals, partners, parents, families, society, and humanity as a whole. Consumers must enhance health literacy and make choices grounded in the latest scientific evidence on a personal and family level. Plant-based products and new, safe biotechnologies will expand options to support health and living environments. The time has come for each of us to take responsibility for choices that protect the next generation’s environment and health.

---

Addressing Global Social Challenges in Caries Prevention with Japan’s Cutting-Edge Technology

Following this historic U.S. ruling, the mainstream approach to caries prevention for children worldwide in the 21st century is shifting. The focus is moving away from the 20th-century reliance on fluoride—a limited, depleting resource with health risks—through enamel oxidation to prevent caries, toward new, safe, and sustainable biotechnologies that can be applied in space exploration. Attention is now on caries prevention methods that are safe to ingest and environmentally friendly.

For example, Japan’s patented lactic acid bacteria antibacterial peptide “Neonisin-e” exemplifies alternative green technology. Research and development in this field, investments in eco-friendly green technology companies, market revitalization, nurturing future scientists and research institutions requiring high intelligence and creativity, and—most crucially—public health initiatives like meticulous brushing guidance by dental professionals are gaining prominence.

Looking to the future, as scientific progress continues, regulations on toxic chemical substances in Earth’s air, water, and environment, as well as in food, drinks, medications, and oral care products, are expected to intensify. Year by year, synthetic bactericides, surfactants, preservatives, colorants, artificial sweeteners, and liquid plastics in environments and oral care products will be phased out. Ultimately, chemical-free oral care products that prevent caries and periodontal disease while being non-toxic to the environment and human body—safe at food-grade levels—are expected to gain widespread support. These products will emerge as survivors of the 21st-century global technological innovation race.

The pursuit of sustainable solutions that prioritize human health and environmental friendliness—protecting air, water, and living environments—while addressing future challenges is seen as a positive and genuine contribution. This effort is expected to enhance children’s intelligence, fostering peace and paving the way for humanity’s future.

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

Updated Information: The HighWire’s Coverage of Fluoride Risks and Japan’s Path Forward

The HighWire, a platform known for its critical examination of public health policies, aired a significant episode on October 31, 2024, titled “EXPERT ATTORNEY EXPOSES DECADES OF FLUORIDE HARMS.” In this approximately one-hour special, lead attorney Michael Connett, Esq., discussed the historic U.S. federal court ruling against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in September 2024, which mandated stricter regulations on fluoride in drinking water due to its “unreasonable risk” to children’s IQ. Connett highlighted decades of concealed evidence on fluoride’s harms, emphasizing neurotoxicity risks at levels as low as 0.7 ppm, as supported by the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) review of over 500 studies. This episode underscores the global shift away from fluoride, driven by new evidence and regulatory changes, with implications for Japan’s fluoride policies.
https://thehighwire.com/ark-videos/expert-attorney-exposes-decades-of-fluoride-harms/

The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson
Publication Date: January 4, 2011
Description: A documentary by a renowned investigative journalist probing the background of fluoride promotion for caries prevention.
Link: https://amzn.asia/d/0wVAY1v (Amazon)
This book is currently a hot topic in the United States. I think Japanese parents with babies or children should read it too. This book documents the strong ties to historical assurances of fluoride’s safety by large corporations and institutions. It reads like a thriller but is supported by over 200 pages of source notes, years of investigative reporting, numerous interviews with scientists, and archival research, including newly declassified documents from the Manhattan Project and the Atomic Energy Commission. This book is nothing less than the unearthing of a great secret story of the industrial era. It reveals how fluoride, one of the most harmful environmental pollutants and a severe workplace toxin during the Cold War, came to be added to our drinking water and toothpaste.

“Whether you are for, against, or neutral on water fluoridation, this book is worth reading. By Chapter 3, you will notice that the arguments against fluoridation are extremely persuasive. The book is written in a way that reads easily like an excellent novel.” — The Water Exchange

“[Bryson’s] investigation and outstanding writing reveal the shocking truth of over 60 years of fluoride cover-up and deception. His expression is brilliant, and it has the potential to become a social issue that prompts public outcry and action.” — Washington Free Press

“This astonishing culmination of records and scientific discoveries is a must-read for every consumer with a toothbrush.” — E Magazine

“I earnestly hope that Christopher Bryson’s thorough investigation of the scientific literature on fluoride’s biological effects and his comprehensive summary of decades of debate will receive the attention it deserves and that its impact will be seriously considered.” — Arvid Carlsson (2000 Nobel Prize Laureate in Physiology or Medicine)

About the Author
Christopher Bryson is an award-winning investigative journalist and television producer. In the late 1980s, he reported for BBC World Service, NPR (National Public Radio), and The Atlanta Constitution. He received the George Polk Award and the Sidney Hillman Award for his work on The Kwitny Report. His reporting has appeared in The Manchester Guardian, The Christian Science Monitor, Lingua Franca, and BBC, covering a wide range of investigations. In 1998, he won a National Headliner Award for a History Channel documentary. He currently resides in New York City with his wife, Molly, and son, Owen.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr
https://x.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1852812012478398923
On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S . water systems to remove fluoride from public water. Fluoride is an industrial waste associated with arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, IQ loss, neurodevelopmental disorders, and thyroid disease. President and First Lady want to Make America Healthy Again.

Translation of the Provided Text into English

Attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (70), nominated as Secretary of Health and Human Services in the incoming administration, posted on X:
“Fluoride is industrial waste, and on the first day of taking office, January 20, 2025, the White House will recommend the removal of fluoride from all U.S. drinking water.”

In early November 2024, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stated that the incoming Trump administration plans to recommend the removal of fluoride from water systems across the United States on its first day in office, January 20, 2025.

Kennedy claims that fluoride is a byproduct generated alongside industrial promotion and constitutes industrial waste. He asserts that the strategy of adding industrial waste to drinking water is associated with health issues such as arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, IQ reduction, neurodevelopmental disorders, and thyroid disease.

This statement was made amid reports that Kennedy is being considered for the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services in the incoming Trump administration.

Historically, the addition of fluoride to drinking water has been implemented as a public health measure for caries prevention, supported by the American Dental Association (ADA) and certain public health advocacy groups and supporting companies for its safety and effectiveness.

However, recent studies have suggested that excessive fluoride intake may be linked to IQ reduction in children, culminating in a historic ruling on fluoride regulation in California in September 2024.

Already, municipalities such as those in Florida are increasingly moving to discontinue fluoride addition to drinking water, with growing discussions among local residents.

In response to this trend, investors anticipating a potential increase in caries due to the cessation of water fluoridation are beginning to impact the stock prices of related companies. Expectations of improved future performance due to rising demand for caries treatment are driving upward trends in the stock prices of dental equipment manufacturers such as Sirona and Danaher, toothpaste manufacturers like Colgate and Procter & Gamble, and dental insurance companies like MetLife, which are expected to benefit from increased dental insurance usage.

Furthermore, improving children’s IQ is likely to have long-term positive impacts on numerous industries and society, particularly benefiting sectors such as education, technology, research and development, and companies offering premium products and services. Expected impacts include:

• Education-Related Companies: Increased interest in intelligence and skill development is expected to boost demand for educational services and products.
• Educational Toys and Children’s Products: The market for educational toys and learning tools is projected to expand to support next-generation intelligence development.
• Technology Companies: An increase in intellectual labor will accelerate growth in the technology sector.
• Knowledge Industries and Research Institutions: Companies supporting research and development and advanced knowledge work will benefit.
• Creative Industries: Businesses requiring high creativity and intelligence will gain popularity.
• Fashion Industry: High-value, intellectually liberating jobs will become more sought after.
• Arts Industry: Intellectual and highly creative artists will emerge as popular professions.
• Space Industry: Enhanced researcher intelligence will accelerate space development.
• Healthcare: Increased demand for proper preventive guidance by dentists and dental hygienists.
• Pharmaceutical Companies: Heightened focus on health and wellness may create new demand.
• Toothpaste Industry: Increased caries trends will drive sales of fluoride-free products and toothbrushes.
• Dental Equipment Industry: Rising societal needs will spur demand for cutting-edge dental equipment, originating in Japan and expanding globally.
• Vocational Training and Human Resources Services: Companies offering specialized knowledge to enhance labor market competitiveness will gain attention.
• Premium Consumer Product Companies: Intellectual consumers will demand high-quality products and services.
• Investment and Finance: Improved IQ will lead to an increase in individual investors.
• Amusement Facilities: Reduced low birth rates will boost demand from child-rearing generations.
• Sports and Travel: Increased participation due to a growing healthy population.
• Agriculture and Fisheries: Contributions to food safety and quality will invigorate the industry.
• General Businesses: Enhanced national intelligence will improve international competitiveness.

Conversely, the fluoride compound supply industry for water treatment is vast, and the impact of discontinuing fluoridation is considered minimal. Additionally, reducing the risk of high-concentration fluoride exposure for workers provides peace of mind to families and many others.

For those who still believe fluoride is necessary for caries prevention, high-concentration fluoride toothpaste is readily available at local drugstores or online for about $1, making it easily accessible for individual use. Many opinions suggest that discontinuing fluoride addition to drinking water (only 1% of which is used for drinking) solely for caries prevention has little significant impact, as individual choice suffices.

Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency is rapidly developing new fluoride intake safety standards to address the risks identified by the latest scientific research from the September ruling, with formal new safety guidance expected from the American Dental Association starting in 2025.

As fluoride is removed from drinking water, patients seeking safer, non-ingestible methods of fluoride application to teeth are expected to increase, leading to more dental clinic visits. Additionally, trust in and societal demand for dentists and dental hygienists as local healthcare leaders will grow, driven by a return to humanity’s safe caries prevention methods practiced for tens of thousands of years—lovingly guiding children on brushing and dietary sugar intake without reliance on chemical substances.

Kennedy also plans to advance regulations on other health-risk chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, and chemical additives, fostering broader positive societal impacts through sustainable technological innovation, health, safety, and industrial progress. The upcoming U.S. decisions are prompting a reevaluation of fluoride’s impact on human health, and global attention is focused on future developments.

＝＝＝＝＝

 

初稿：2024年9月27日 米国 カリフォルニア時間
Legally checked  ChatGPTex