The United States Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has recently campaigned for his strategy called Make America Healthy Again (MAHA). His plans have been informed by a series of controversial scientific claims and he has shared his skepticism about vaccines, pushed for a national ban on fluoride, and made debatable observations regarding autism.
Kennedy, just last week, inadvertently conceded that at least one aspect of these plans poses potential hazardous outcomes. During an appearance on Fox’s The Faulkner Focus, host Harris Faulkner initiated a conversation with RFK, Jr., regarding his beliefs about the removal of fluoride from drinking water.
Faulkner voiced the apprehension of dental professionals, who highlight the potential negative impact on children from disadvantaged families, whose dental health may be compromised sans the preventative measures offered by water fluoridation. The Health Secretary responded, expressing his acknowledgment of the issue at hand. He responded, ‘You know, it’s a struggle. The trade-off could be, perhaps, a minor increase in tooth decay.’
Kennedy continued to share his standpoint, ‘Despite the allegations, the evidence from Europe, where a fluoride ban exists, did not register a consequential increase in cavities. The matter boils down to parental choice, as the scientific stand on fluoride is pretty unambiguous. The National Toxicity Program published a report presenting a strong reverse correlation between fluoride water content and IQ reduction.’
However, The American Dental Association (ADA), in their April 2025 publication, maintained their stance on the importance of fluoride. According to their statement, the ADA maintains that ‘effective oral health is an interplay of appropriate dietary habits, oral cleanliness, and optimally fluoridated water. Community water fluoridation at the ideal levels has been safely serving the purpose of tooth decay reduction for the past 80 years, thereby promoting oral health.’
Moreover, it’s important to clarify that Europe isn’t completely fluoride-free as commonly perceived. As reported by the BBC in May 2025, several regions naturally have fluoride content in their water, while some choose to introduce fluoride in their milk, salt, or bottled water.
Further, the National Toxicology Program’s research that Kennedy referenced specifically emphasizes the instances of diminished IQ among children due to the consumption of water containing ‘over 1.5 milligrams per liter of fluoride,’ which surpasses the CDC’s recommended concentration of 0.7 milligrams per liter by more than double.
The study also outlines that ‘There’s a lack of adequate data to decide if the recommended fluoride level of 0.7 mg/L in U.S. community water supplies has an adverse effect on children’s IQ.’ It is worth noting that both the U.S. and other countries that removed fluoride from their water supplies in the past have documented a rise in the occurrence of dental cavities.
This is clearly demonstrated by the case of Calgary, in Alberta, Canada. A decade removed from fluoride, Calgary is now reintroducing it into its water supply, starting this very week. As reported by The New York Times, ‘The Alberta Children’s Hospital marked a significant uptick in the count of Calgary’s youngsters requiring antibiotic treatments for dental infections succeeding the removal of fluoride from the potable water supply.’
The message being conveyed by Kennedy is one rooted in opposition to the norm, against established bodies of scientific research. It advocates a sharp departure from established, globally recognized, and practiced methods of maintaining public health, particularly oral health.
His endorsement for the removal of fluoride from water supplies, in part, ties back to evidence concerning its impact on children’s IQ. However, it’s crucial to note that the evidence he refers to discusses levels of fluoride that are more than twice the current recommended concentration.
Given the reaction from the international scientific community, and taking into account the information from Europe and Canada, there remains a serious question about the reliability and potential consequences of the MAHA plan, as well as the broader agenda that Kennedy supports. A more thorough and detailed examination of all scientific evidence available is necessary for such drastic measures.
Finally, public health, especially when it comes to matters of oral hygiene, is not just about immediate concerns but also about the long-term impacts. The conversation stirred by Kennedy emphasizes the need, more than ever, for comprehensive, interdisciplinary, and open discussions on how to move forward in the best interest of public health.
As this debate continues, it is important to remember the core tenets of health policy: the delivery of evidence-based care, the promotion of health equity, and the focus on the improved health outcomes of all individuals, regardless of their socioeconomic status.
RFK Jr.’s stance has initiated a conversation about the pros and cons of fluoride in water, allowing for a deeper understanding and a need for further research. However, this must be achieved while bearing in mind the widespread and scientifically backed evidence claiming the advantages of appropriate fluoride levels.
With the onset of such a bold refutation of conventional wisdom and practice in public health, the importance of science-based policy making, transparency, and continuous public health education has never been made more apparent. Let us hope for the best outcomes for all stakeholders, especially those most vulnerable, the children of America.
The post RFK Jr.: A Controversial Stand for Removing Fluoride from Water appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
