Are there any respected science or health organizations organizations worldwide that oppose fluoridation?  NO!

Major science and health organizations worldwide (over 100 listed so far), the health agencies of all 50 states in the U.S. a number of health insurance companies and the States/Provinces in Australia and Canada recognize the safety and effectiveness of community water fluoridation (CWF). 

Fact – In stark contrast to the widespread support for CWF by respected science and health organizations worldwide –– and the hundreds of thousands of scientists and health professionals they represent –– I am aware of no major, recognized science or health organizations that have publicly stated CWF is harmful or ineffective, and there are relatively few scientists and/or health care providers that support the anti-fluoridation conclusions.
** In fact, I have only found a few alternative science/health organizations that accept the anti-fluoridation opinions as legitimate. The few I have found that promote a public anti-fluoridation policy are listed below.  These organizations often also subscribe to other ‘medical’ notions that don’t conform to mainstream medical practices.  Examples: (In the discussion below, links to the anti-F sites are provided on another page as text)

a.      the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) recommends “policies [that] should reduce and work toward eliminating avoidable sources of fluoride, including water fluoridation, fluoride-containing dental materials, and other fluoridated products, as a means to promote overall health.”  IAOMT also oppose dental mercury amalgam fillings and recommend their removal, which has increased the bottom lines of members by advocating expensive, unnecessary removal and replacement of safe, durable, long-lasting amalgam fillings by employing the same types of scare tactics used in the campaign against fluoridation.
In fact, Christine Till, one of the most public and prolific fluoridation/harm researchers (author/coauthor of at least 11 publications promoted by FOs since 2018) chose to speak (virtually) at an IAOMT meeting in September, 2020 which gave top billing to other speakers including defrocked British doctor Andrew Wakefield, whose study linking vaccines and autism (which fueled anti-vaccination passion) was exposed as fraudulent, and Judy Mikovits, a former biochemist who starred in a viral video that promulgated a litany of false information on the coronavirus. The IAOMT is an exceptionally good example of the only type of organizations that accept Till’s studies as well-conducted and relevant.  Note: the current IAOMT listing of the September 2020 meeting no longer shows Wakefield or Mikovits, so I linked to an image of the original listing of meeting participants.  The Wayback site provides a link to an historic IAOMT page that does list Wakefield and Mikovits -- the link should display a calendar for IAOMT 2020.  Mouse-over September 24 and click on the snapshot 16:51:52 link.  That should load a page that shows three meeting videos.   Wait a bit for everything to load, then click on the 09-2020 Nashville, TN link and the speaker list should be displayed.
(Quackwatch, Rationalwiki)

b.      the International College of Integrative Medicine (ICIM) stated, 11/13/2018, “ICIM joins with our similarly minded medical partners in seeking to prevent illness. We whole heartedly support a national ban on the practice of community water fluoridation that augments natural levels of fluoride in the water with an industrially created chemical to a concentration deemed "optimal" by fluoridation proponents. We agree with the IAOMT who in 2017 published a Position Paper Against Fluoride Use in Water, Dental Materials and Other Products that the evidence of harm to the public and to the environment outweigh any arguments of dental benefit. We also agree with the AAEM who recognized fluoride as one of the common irritants for those with multiple chemical sensitivities in 2008.”  In addition to opposing CWF (published letter - faim.org/wetoo-medical-assault-and-battery), as of 7/20/2020, the ICIM did “not recommend that people who are well wear a facemask to protect themselves from respiratory diseases, including COVID-19.”  The ICIM’s advice for treating “more severe cases [of COVID-19]: Osteopathic manipulation of the upper thoracic spine to include the “rib raising technique” increases lymphatic outflow and helps modulate the sympathetic nervous system.”  (Science-based Medicine, Respectful Insolence)

c.       the American College for Advancement in Medicine (ACAM), “The greatest scam ever perpetuated on the American public and our dentists may be the addition of fluoride to water systems, dental office treatments, toothpastes, and mouthwashes.(archived)”,  (Science-Based Medicine)

d.      the International Academy of Biological Dentists and Medicine (IABDM) recommends a NO vote on mandated water fluoridation in Portland.  It also promotes the idea that, with respect to vaccination, “the right of every individual to make their own health decisions” and “too often, [public health] measures cross the line and infringe upon the right of informed consent. Fluoridation is one such measure. Mandatory vaccination is another.”  In 2015 there were about 180 members.

e.      the International Chiropractors Association (ICA) “considers public water fluoridation to be possibly harmful and a deprivation of the rights of citizens to be free from unwelcome mass medication.  The ICA is opposed to the addition of fluoride in any of its forms of drinking water supplies of our nation’s cities and municipalities.”  The ICA also “supports each individual’s right to select his or her own health care and to be made aware of the possible adverse effects of vaccines upon a human body.” and “questions the wisdom of mass vaccination programs.  Chiropractic principles favor the enhancement of natural immunity over artificial immunization.”  It is important to understand that natural (or innate) immunity is only a general type of protection – not the protection vaccination provides against specific viruses and bacteria. (SfSBM, Science-Based Medicine)

f.        the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) “Supports banning the addition of fluoride or products containing fluoride to public water supplies and to any  substances intended for human consumption.”  In 2016 there were about 244 practitioners worldwide.  (Wikipedia, Science Based Medicine, RationalWiki, Quackwatch)

g.      the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) is not a science or health organization.  It is an advocacy group that labels “U.S. Water Fluoridation: A Forced Experiment that Needs to End.”  The organization is anti-vaccination and also believes; “COVID-19 Testing, Reaching, and Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act” is Unconstitutional and Threatens the Liberty of All Americans.”  (Wikipedia, reviews, ACoSaH), Fact Check, Respectful Insolence, Skeptical Raptor, Science-Based Medicine)

h.      the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) is not a science or health organization, but it is one of the larger, more vocal, persistent and well-funded organizations dedicated to halting or preventing CWF.
FAN References: Critique of Claims, Irrational Fears,  Fluoride & IQ, Institute for Science in Medicine, BDJ Team, Respectful Insolence, The Atlantic,

i.        It is advisable to carefully examine the reliability and credibility of any alleged science or health organization you depend on for your health and safety.  This resource provides a list of warning signs for questionable organizations and a list of candidates.  This resource describes why one should be wary of many “Alternative,” “Complementary,” and “Integrative” health methods – and those who promote them.  Note, this “Open Letter” from Fluoride Free NZ has signatures of Paul Connett & Noel Campbell, described below, but there are no representatives from any of the major science or health organizations in the world.

j.        Vocal, high-profile fluoridation opponents who aggressively promote the anti-fluoridation agenda frequently will also oppose other science-based practices like vaccination, and they are often prone to promoting various conspiracy theories to support their beliefs.  Some vocal FOs (with references to evaluations of their opinions) include:
 ·        Paul Connett, Ph.D, is a retired chemistry professor and executive director of FAN.  He has been invited to speak at anti-fluoridation events around the world.  His 2015 presentation in Denver, in an effort to halt fluoridation, is one of the reasons I decided to publicly challenge the claims and tactics of anti-fluoridation activists.  Connett provides an excellent example of the presentation of anti-F– opinions by someone with science training.
** Connett References: ScienceBlogs, Quackwatch, Open Parachute (2013-2014 debate), Campaign for Dental Health, MSoF, I Like My Teeth
·         Bill Osmunson, DDS, MPH is senior advisor of FAN and a vocal opponent of CWF.  He actively promotes misleading anti-fluoridation propaganda like “there’s the same equivalence of fluoride in an 8 ounce glass of fluoridated tap water as there is in a “pea-sized” amount needed to call the Poison Control Center, as recommended on the back of any fluoridated toothpaste.” Osmunson is very active in online comment sections as can be seen in his response to Ken Perrott’s evaluation of studies promoted by FOs and a discussion about a possible online debate.  Osmunson provides an excellent example of the presentation of anti-F– opinions by someone with health-care training.
·        Joseph Mercola is an osteopathic physician and alternative health merchant who is a vocal opponent of vaccination and fluoridation health practices.  He also supports other questionable practices, for example marketing “The 13 Amazing Health Benefits of Himalayan Crystal Salt, the Purest Salt on Earth" in addition to (Himalayan Salt lamps).  His claim is, “Typical Table and Cooking Salt in Your Grocery Store Has Been 'Chemically Cleaned'.  What remains … is sodium chloride – an unnatural chemical form of salt.” 
In fact, after the cleaning process, what remains, the “Typical Table and Cooking Salt“, is actually pure salt (NaCl) which is white.  The pink color of the Himalayan salt is caused by contaminants “at least 84 naturally occurring trace elements (Mercola)”.  Only about ¼ of the minerals in HCS are nutrients, and the other ¾ have no health benefits and “many of them are known to be harmful (mercury, arsenic, lead, for example)”.  There is also no legitimate scientific evidence that HCS lamps have any health benefits whatever.  Mercola has been issued numerous FDA warnings for making false/illegal product claims.  He provides an excellent example of the presentation of anti-F– opinions by someone with alternative-health-care training. 
** Mercola References:  Science-Based Medicine, American Council on Science and Health, RationalWiki, Bad Science Debunked, The Ringer, Skeptiod, ScienceBlogs (more), Skeptic’s Dictionary, Rational Wiki, Slate      
·             ‘Professor’ Noel Campbell, “Bachelor of Dental Science” was one of six original Australian signers of the FAN Professionals’ Statement opposing CWF. The 'Professor' title was apparently given by a Chinese university for his charity work, but sadly the paperwork had been lost. Campbell voluntarily de-registered himself as a dentist many years ago after getting into trouble for repeatedly pumping ozone up a woman's bottom to cure her facial pain. Spoiler alert: Pumping ozone up your bottom doesn't cure facial pain. Not surprisingly, the Dental Practice Board of Victoria found him guilty of "grossly negligent dental treatment".
** Campbell References: UK Against Fluoridation, Sydney Morning Herald, News.com.au, InSight, ABC.net.au, TheAge
·         Mike Adams, the “Health Ranger” (Natural News) is a vocal anti-fluoride activist as well as a vaccine denier and an opponent of modern medicine. His article 'The 10 biggest health care lies in America' begins, “Mainstream health care isn't based on 'health' or 'caring.' It's actually based on an ingrained system of medical mythology that's practiced -- and defended -- by those who profit from the continuation of sickness and disease.” Claims Debunked
** Adams References: Campaign for Dental Health, Rational Wiki, McGill, Science Based Medicine, Forbes, Worst Science Websites, 2016, Bad Science Debunked, Big Think, Skeptical Science
·         Alex Jones (InfoWars) is a vocal anti-fluoride, anti-vaccination activist and promotes a number of conspiracy theories like “the Sandy Hook massacre of 20 first graders and six adults was an elaborate hoax”.
** Jones References: Campaign for Dental Health, Rational Wiki, Bad Science Debunked, Rolling Stone, NY Times (more)
·         David Icke (Son of the Godhead) – former footballer and sports broadcaster – is a vocal anti-fluoride activist and promotes a number of other outlier beliefs.
** Icke References: Rational Wiki, BBC, TheGardian
·          James Reeves – one of the more prolific FOs, publicly denouncing CWF with standard anti-F– claims in wide-spread comment sections responding to any articles that mention fluoride or fluoridation.  Reeves regularly employs two anti-science tactics, Gish Gallop and Argumentum ad nauseam.  An example of 148 Reeves’ comments over a three week period in response to three articles.  If you look at this example, you will see that Reeves seldom responds to my challenges and refutations – he just copy/pastes the next unfounded claim.  I admit to responding to his comments to keep him galloping…

k.       There is absolutely no evidence that most (or even a significant number of) science and health professionals oppose CWF, even though opponents of CWF (and others who hold views contrary to a scientific consensus) are frequently extremely vocal about their beliefs, very eager to share their opinions with others, and will do whatever they can to promote their beliefs.  Most of the vocal anti-CWF activism around the world is conducted by members of the public who are not trained scientists or health care professionals.  However, they have very strong and inflexible personal beliefs that align with those of professional FOs, and they have unconditionally accepted the anti-F– arguments as valid and acted on them.  They believe they are accepting a legitimate interpretation and presentation of the evidence, even though they don’t have the training &/or experience to personally evaluate that evidence.  To be fair, most people who accept the conclusions and recommendations of mainstream scientists and health care providers don’t have the training &/or experience to personally evaluate the relevant bodies of evidence either – they trust their health to professionals who accept the scientific consensus.

In fact: The heavily promoted FAN Professionals Statement to End Water Fluoridation (PStEWF), initiated in 2007 actually confirms the outlier status of FOs.  By March, 2015 the PStEWF had collected about 4,700 signatures from around the world, and by December 2018 a whoppin’ 4,804 signatures had been collected out of the millions of working and retired medical, dental and scientific professionals in the world. For example, out of those 4,804 signatures, only:

  • 378 dentists worldwide signed the petition. That’s roughly 0.02% of the 1.8 million practicing dentists in the world and 0.19% of the 200,000 dentists in the U.S.

  • 582 MDs signed the petition. That’s about 0.006% of the 10-15 million practicing physicians in the world and only 0.06% of the 950,000 physicians in the U.S.

  • o   860 nurses signed the petition.  That’s about 0.003% of practicing nurses worldwide and just 0.03 % of the 3 million registered nurses in the U.S.

  • 106 pharmacists signed the petition. That’s approximately 0.005% of the more than 2 million practicing pharmacists worldwide and 0.03% of the 310,000 pharmacists in the U.S.

  •  537 individuals with a PhD signed the petition.  That’s just 0.01% of the 4.5 million PhD holders in the U.S.

  • 130 dental hygienists signed the petition.  That’s 0.06% of the 219,000 dental hygienists in the U.S.

    Those minute percentages, based on the number of practicing professionals, don’t even reflect the millions more retired professionals in the U.S. and other countries who could have signed the petition if they believed the anti-fluoridation propaganda was supported by accurate and legitimate evidence.

It is significant that the Fluoride Action Network ‘Who Opposes Fluoridation’ page can list no major, respected science or health organizations that support their position.  An examination of the 10 specific fluoridation opponents listed by FAN:

  1. Statements by European officials don’t constitute scientific evidence against fluoridation, and there are many reasons (not based on any proven harm) why other countries don’t choose to fluoridate their water. (Fluoride Myths & Facts #13)  The 2016 World Health Organization, ‘Fluoride and Oral Health’ paper states, “Fluoride is effective at controlling caries because it acts in several different ways...(p70)” and “The question of possible adverse general health effects caused by exposure to fl uorides taken in optimal concentrations throughout life has been the object of thorough medical investigations which have failed to show any impairment of general health. (P79)”  It is important to understand that there have been absolutely no high quality reproducible studies in the subsequent 4 years (2016 – 2020) that have proven (or even strongly suggested) any harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water, despite extremely vocal claims by FOs to the contrary.

  2.  A few Nobel Prize-Winning scientists (all but one before the early 1960s) don’t constitute scientific evidence against fluoridation.

  3.  EPA scientists do not oppose fluoridation – in 1997 a majority of members (20) who attended a meeting were able to adopt a resolution opposing California’s fluoridation law.

  4. Thousands of medical and scientists constitute well under 0.2% of relevant professionals.  Check the numbers described in the FAN Professionals Petition above.

  5. The opinion of a few selected “Key Leaders” does not constitute a scientific consensus, but the support of community water fluoridation by the major science and health organizations, their members, and the majority of relevant experts does constitute a scientific consensus.

  6. The personal opinions of a few (4) civil rights leaders does not constitute a scientific consensus, and unless they are specifically trained, their opinions are based entirely on who they choose to believe – not on a personal evaluation of the evidence.

  7. The opinion of Ralph Nader does not constitute or reflect the scientific consensus.

  8. Whether or not communities in North America or other countries fluoridate their water is usually a political decision ultimately decided by a majority of voters (or elected officials), most of whom do not have the training or experience to personally evaluate the body of complex scientific evidence.

  9. See # 8.  The values presented completely ignore all the other communities in the U.S. that continue to fluoridate their drinking water.

  10. The arguments have nothing to do with the safety and effectiveness of community water fluoridation confirmed by the overwhelming body of evidence from over 75 years of research, evaluated by relevant experts and accepted by virtually all recognized science and health organizations in the world.