American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry warns that current methodology could erode decades of advancement in children’s oral health and urges immediate reconsideration CHICAGO, Feb. 27, 2026 /PRNewswire/ — The American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD), representing over 11,000 pediatric dental specialists, has formally submitted comments on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Fluoride Preliminary Assessment Plan and Literature Survey (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2025-3823). The Academy warns that the EPA’s current trajectory relies on discredited reports and inapplicable information that threatens safe community water fluoridation, triggering a public health crisis for American children. The AAPD is joined by 140 state and national organizations in its concern over the EPA plan and its repercussions.In a comprehensive comment letter addressed to the EPA, the AAPD expressed “significant concerns” regarding the scientific integrity of the EPA’s plan, arguing it fails to meet the Administration’s own “Gold Standard Science” requirements.Key Concerns Raised by the AAPD:
- Misclassifying “Mild Fluorosis” as Toxicity Indicator: The AAPD strongly objects to the EPA considering mild dental fluorosis – a purely cosmetic condition – as a “toxic” or “adverse” effect of safe water fluoridation. “Mild fluorosis has no deleterious or pathologic qualities,” the letter states, noting that it often correlates with lower rates of tooth decay.
- Reliance on a Flawed Report: The Assessment Plan relies heavily on the 2024 National Toxicology Program (NTP) report despite its failed attempts at passing peer review with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). The majority of the NTP report’s underlying studies were not conducted in the U.S. and do not reflect U.S. community water fluoridation exposure levels. The NTP report authors cautioned against using the report to set a recommended fluoride dose, yet EPA relies on the report for its planned assessment.
- Ignoring Health Benefits: The EPA explicitly stated they would not consider health benefits of fluoride in its assessment. The AAPD strongly disagrees with this approach and states that deriving a toxicity review conducted in a vacuum without a cost-benefit analysis or risk-benefit analysis is “irresponsible.” The Academy points to historical data in other countries showing that when communities intentionally remove fluoride from water, children experience increases in dental pain, infection, and missed school days.
- Methodological Red Flags: The AAPD highlighted several problematic shortcomings in the planned assessment, including an outdated literature search that excludes 2025 studies and the absence of a transparent, pre-specified systematic review protocol.

Source link















Leave a Reply