Facts are stubborn things, and the facts against fluoride continue to mount. In fact, they’re what led US District Judge Edward Chen to rule back in September that fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk to children’s neurological development that the EPA must now do something about.
Facts are also driving multiple lawsuits against leading toothpaste and mouthwash manufacturers, including Procter & Gamble (Crest), Colgate-Palmolive, and others over fluoride in oral hygiene products marketed to children.
The six complaints…focus on tooth discoloration and pitting, called fluorosis, following ingestion of fluoride in dental products designed for children. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and World Health Organization (WHO) have long recognized the risks of fluorosis and issued rules for industry or guidance for consumers and other parties to avoid that problem.
Indeed, fluorosis rates have skyrocketed in recent years. In 1986-87, for instance, the rate of dental fluorosis in kids aged 12 to 15 was 22.6%. By 1999-2004, the rate was up to 40.7%. By 2012, the rate was up to 65%. Notably, fluoridation rates also increased during that same time period, too, increasing total fluoride exposure.
The lawsuits accuse the targeted manufacturers of presenting their products in misleading ways. As Bloomberg Law reported,
Crest’s Kid’s products are marketed “in ways that lead parents and caregivers to believe they are formulated to be extra safe for children—which [the] defendant knows is false,” that complaint said.
Among the “deceptive” tactics Colgate uses on its children’s toothpastes is to conceal FDA’s required warnings and directions “by hiding them behind a label containing promotional claims,” where “only the most diligent consumer will notice there is any information hidden beneath the back label, let alone information about the product being potentially poisonous if swallowed,” that complaint said.
Fluoride rinses “convey the false and misleading impression that the products are specially formulated to be safe,” even though such rinses aren’t recommended for young children, the complaints said. And some of the products named violate the FDA’s regulatory requirements, according to the complaints.
Mouth rinses from Tom’s of Maine, part of Colgate, mention real fruit being used to make them. “Presenting fluoride mouthrinse as a kids’ flavored drink product, or as a candy-like product in the case of Colgate Rinse, is both deceptive and dangerous,” that complaint said.
Similarly, Firefly is among the companies that make products aimed at children made in bubble gum and other flavors. Yet the FDA says “marketing dangerous products to children through the use of candy or food flavoring is a ‘misleading’ marketing tactic that can render a product ‘misbranded,” the complaint against Perrigo said.
The legal implications of a win could be far-reaching, according to Lynn Bergeson, a managing partner of Bergeson & Campbell PC, which specializes in chemical statutes. Beyond potential repackaging requirements and revised marketing claims, she told Bloomberg Law, companies could face tort claims for adverse health effects, failure to warn, and breach of contract.
“What is certain,” she said, “is the cost of litigation is high and adverse media attention and brand damage is certain to follow.”
Yet groups like the American Dental Association, American Medical Association, and American Academy of Pediatrics, along with the CDC, continue to double down on fluoridation as a great public health achievement.
But as the old saying goes, the truth will out.
For more on the potential health impacts of fluoride exposure, visit the IAOMT’s patient resources or explore our archives.
The post “Safe”? Consumers Challenge How Kids’ Dental Products with Fluoride Are Marketed appeared first on Toothbody.