For decades, fluoride has been marketed as a public health miracle. But behind the praise lies a growing fluoride conflict of interest – where many of the doctors and institutions promoting fluoride are financially connected to companies like Colgate, Procter & Gamble, and Delta Dental. From water supplies to baby products, fluoride’s widespread use raises serious questions about transparency, safety, and the influence of corporate money on public health policy.
But there’s another side to the story – one that involves money, power, and deep-rooted conflicts of interest. While some professionals genuinely believe in the benefits of fluoridation, others may be compromised by their ties to corporations that profit from fluoride’s continued use.
This post exposes the disturbing connections between fluoride’s most vocal advocates and the companies that fund them—and reveals the growing body of science that calls into question fluoride’s safety, especially for children.
Understanding the Fluoride Conflict Of Interest
Let’s start with the key players:
1. American Dental Association (ADA)
The ADA has long been a major proponent of community water fluoridation. Leaders like Dr. Brett Kessler, ADA President, aggressively oppose anti-fluoride voices, often under the banner of “evidence-based science” 9.
What they fail to mention?
The ADA Seal of Acceptance program is funded by companies like Colgate and Procter & Gamble – two of the world’s largest producers of fluoride-containing products 8.
2. Dr. Scott Tomar
An oral health epidemiologist at the University of Illinois Chicago, Dr. Tomar has defended fluoridation in multiple forums 10, 35. Yet his institution receives support from organizations financially aligned with fluoride promotion.
3. Dr. William Maas
Once the top dental official at the CDC, Dr. Maas remains a vocal fluoride supporter. But after leaving the CDC, many fluoride advocates – like Dr. William Kohn, another former CDC director – moved directly into positions at Delta Dental, a company that financially supports fluoridation 8.
This revolving door between public service and private industry raises serious ethical concerns.
4. Dr. Nick Yim
President of AMA Queensland, Dr. Yim is a public health advocate for fluoridation in Australia, citing “health equity” 5. But public health equity is not the same as independent science, especially when advocacy is tied to corporate influence.
Industry Money: Who Benefits?
The corporations with the most to gain from fluoride policy include:
• Colgate-Palmolive
Funds ADA research, employs representatives on fluoride-promoting boards, and produces a full suite of fluoride-based products 8.
• Procter & Gamble
Markets fluoride-based products globally while profiting from water fluoridation as a built-in marketing channel 8.
• Delta Dental
Offers grants and funding to support fluoridation policies while employing former CDC officials who once regulated these very programs 8.
• ALCOA and the Public Health Service
Historically, aluminum companies like ALCOA needed a solution for their toxic fluoride waste. Lobbying efforts in the mid-20th century convinced government health agencies to endorse water fluoridation, transforming industrial waste into “medicine” 11.
This is not speculation. It’s documented history. This fluoride conflict of interest runs deep across public health institutions.
Why The Fluoride Conflict Of Interest Matters For Public Health
As industry-funded voices continue promoting fluoride, a wave of independent research is forcing many to rethink its safety.
1. IQ Reduction in Children
A 2025 government-backed study confirmed that higher fluoride levels in children’s urine are linked to lower IQ scores – up to 7 points lower in high-exposure areas.
Another systematic review of 74 studies found an inverse relationship between fluoride levels and IQ, even below 2 mg/L.
2. Prenatal Exposure Risks
Studies show that for every 1 mg/L increase in maternal fluoride during pregnancy, boys experience a 4.49-point drop in IQ. The effect was not observed in girls, suggesting gender-specific neurodevelopmental sensitivity 3.
3. Cognitive Effects at Low Levels
Even at fluoride concentrations below 1.5 mg/L – typical in many U.S. communities – subtle yet measurable cognitive effects have been observed.
4. Other Health Concerns
Excess fluoride is associated with:
• Dental fluorosis (visible tooth damage)
• Skeletal fluorosis (bone brittleness)
• Thyroid dysfunction
• Possible endocrine disruption 7
The Double Standard
While public health agencies like the CDC 13 and ADA 15 continue to endorse water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L, critics argue that this threshold may be too high for children, pregnant women, and vulnerable populations – especially when recent studies show risk at even lower levels.
Yet many of the same institutions that downplay these findings benefit financially or reputationally from partnerships with fluoride-related industries.
So What Can You Do?
• Ask Questions. When doctors promote fluoride, ask who funds them, who funds their research, and who profits from their messaging.
• Educate Others. Share peer-reviewed studies like this 2025 IQ study and this NIH monograph.
• Avoid blind trust. Credentials don’t equal integrity when money is involved.
Final Thoughts
This isn’t about fear. It’s about transparency.
It’s about asking the right questions and refusing to let corporate-sponsored science dictate public health policy without scrutiny.
Because when powerful institutions are paid to promote a product – and that product carries documented neurological risks for children – we owe it to ourselves, and to the next generation, to follow the truth… not the money.
Want to go deeper?
Check out these references to explore the research and history for yourself:
Fluoride IQ studies – CNN, JAMA, NIH, NYT