The Truth About Fluoride In Your Water With Michael Connett

Attorney Michael Connett has spent more than two decades investigating fluoride—and seven years battling the Environmental Protection Agency in federal court over the risks of adding it to drinking water. In this episode, he takes us inside the landmark case that resulted in a federal judge finding that water fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk to children’s developing brains.

Michael discusses research linking fluoride exposure during pregnancy with reduced IQ in children, the government report he says officials tried to prevent from being released, and how the court’s decision helped propel efforts to end water fluoridation in Utah and Florida. He also explains where the fluoride added to drinking water comes from, why swallowing fluoride is not necessary for its purported dental benefits, and why he believes fluoridation raises serious questions about informed consent.

We also explore research surrounding fluoride and bone health, the current status of Michael’s case against the EPA, his new lawsuits involving children’s fluoride products, and the prevalence of dental fluorosis among American children. Finally, Michael offers practical ways to reduce fluoride exposure and explains how ordinary citizens can get involved in efforts to end water fluoridation in their own communities.

WAPF Ad: Come to the 26th Annual Wise Traditions Conference, October 16th-18th in Washington, D.C. Visit 2026 Wise Traditions Conference for details.

To learn more about Michael Connett, visit Siri & Glimstad LLP

Join the Nourishing Our Children closed Facebook group

Check out our sponsors:

LUMIRAM: Use code: wise for 10% off your first order

NEW BIOLOGY CLINIC: Use code WISETRADITIONS to get $100 off your membership activation fee, or code WAPF to get your first month free on an enrichment services-only membership. Codes must be in all capital letters.

—

Watch the episode here

Listen to the podcast here

Episode Transcript

Within the below transcript the bolded text is Kendall Nelson and the regular text is Michael Connett.

For decades, fluoride has been added to drinking water across the United States with the promise that it prevents cavities. What happens when that long-standing public health practice is challenged in a court of law and government scientists are forced to answer questions about fluoride safety under oath? This is Episode 600 and our guest is Attorney Michael Connett. Michael has spent more than two decades investigating the Science, history, and politics of water fluoridation. His family founded the Fluoride Action Network in 2000.

Michael later became the lead attorney in a landmark lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency, challenging water fluoridation under the Toxic Substances Control Act. After more than seven years of litigation and two trials, a federal judge ruled in 2024 that fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk to human health based on evidence of neurological effects, including reduced IQ in children. In this episode, Michael takes us behind the scenes of that extraordinary legal battle.

He explained the research linking fluoride exposure during pregnancy with lower IQ in children. The government report on fluoride and neurological development that he says officials attempted to suppress and how documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests helped bring that story to light. We also discuss how the 2024 court decision helps spur Utah and Florida to ban water fluoridation and where the case stands today after the EPA appealed the ruling.

Michael also explains where the fluoride-added drinking water comes from and why he believes the original justification for swallowing fluoride no longer holds up. Also, the research suggests fluoride exposure and the developing brain, bones, and fractures. We discussed informed consent why fluoride is different from chemicals added to make water safe to drink. His current lawsuit challenges the way fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash are marketed to young children.

Before we get into the conversation. Are you looking for a conference that feeds more than just your mind? Join us in Washington, DC, for the 2026 Wise Traditions Conference. The conference that nourishes you in every way. Spend three inspiring days with more than 40 speakers, exploring nutrition, farming, health, food freedom, traditional cooking, and practical ways to live well. Enjoy delicious nutrient-dense meals prepared with real traditional foods. Browse an exhibit hall filled with like-minded vendors, and connect with people who share your passion for healthy living.

Whether you’re a long-time advocate or just beginning your journey, you’ll leave with new knowledge, new friends, and renewed inspiration. Come hungry for wisdom, for community, and for real food. Visit Wise Traditions to register and learn more. We hope to see you in Washington, DC. Now, let’s welcome Michael Connett.

—

Michael, welcome to the show.

Thank you, Kendall. It’s great to be here.

I’m so happy that you’re here. Michael, I had your colleague Aaron Siri on the show. When I told him I was planning to interview you, he essentially said, “Michael is to fluoride what I am to vaccines.” Meaning that you are one of the world’s foremost attorneys in the fight against water fluoridation. I’m curious if you can take us back to your family. I know that you have family involvement in the Fluoride Action Network. Can you tell me a little bit about that?

That goes back quite a while. It was back in the late 1990s in our small town in Canton, New York, which is North of the Adirondacks, for those who know New York. Our little town was thinking about ending fluoridation. I didn’t know anything about the issue. My parents didn’t either. My father’s an environmental toxicologist, a chemist. My mother is an environmental activist. They work together on a lot of environmental campaigns like incineration and working to oppose those facilities, which produce dioxins and other chemicals.

We heard about this issue. We didn’t know anything about it. My mom was the one who instigated it and found that there was troubling data to indicate some health concerns with fluoridation. It became a family project, if you will. In 2000, we ended up starting this organization called Fluoride Action Network.

I was the project director for that organization and spent about eight years intensively researching the history, the science, and the politics of this issue. I then went to law school and became a lawyer. I didn’t think I was going to remain involved necessarily, especially not as actively on this issue. Long story short, once I became a practicing attorney, I have been involved with a number of fluoride lawsuits. It has been a journey.

Water fluoridation isn’t as safe as we’ve been told. Federal court rulings prove it poses real risks to developing brains.

One of the lawsuits you’re most famous for is the one that you did in 2017, where you brought a suit against the EPA. Can you tell us a little bit about that?

There’s a federal law called the Toxic Substances Control Act or TSCA, where EPA has the authority to ban the particular use of a chemical that poses an unreasonable risk to human health. We filed a petition under that statute, way back in the fall of 2016. We argued that the addition of fluoride to drinking water is a particular use of fluoride that presents an unreasonable risk to human health. We focused on only one effect because, as I imagine we’ll discuss, there are a number of chronic health problems associated with fluoride exposure.

Exposing Fluoride Neurotoxicity in Federal Court

We focused on one effect, and that is the effects on the brain, neurotoxicity. There’s been a burgeoning amount of data indicating that fluoride can affect the brain and it’s troubling data. We brought that petition and ended up going to federal court in 2017 and litigating the case for over seven years. We had two trials in the case featuring extensive expert testimony, including scientists from the government.

After all of that, the federal court ruled in our favor. Concluding that fluoridation does pose an unreasonable risk to human health in the form of neurodevelopmental toxicity effects on the developing brain as manifested in the research by reduced IQ in children. That’s been the most common data point that the studies have looked at. Although, it’s certainly not the only form of neurotoxicity that fluoride can cause. It’s just the one that we have the most quantitative data on. The court agreed with us in September of 2024 that this policy poses an unreasonable risk.

What were you putting in front of the court? I imagine that you were deposing people and they had to tell the truth under oath. What facts were coming out that made it so that the court decided that putting fluoride in your water can reduce IQ?

In our first trial, there’s these birth cohort studies that have been funded by the National Institutes of Health, the NIH here in the US. The studies have been conducted in Canada and Mexico. In these studies, you have a group of pregnant mothers who volunteer to take part in the study. During their pregnancy, researchers take measurements of the fluoride levels circulating in their urine, which is a measurement of total fluoride intake.

Uncovering Suppressed NIH Fluoride Studies

When the children are born, when the children are 3, 4, 6, or 12 years of age, the researchers measure the children’s IQ and other parameters of neurodevelopment. What these studies looked at was, does the fluoride exposure during the mother’s pregnancy correlate to the child’s IQ? Sure enough, each of these studies, the one in Canada and the one in Mexico, found that they do. The fluoride exposure levels during pregnancy correlate to the child’s IQ later in life, going down. It’s an inverse relationship. The more fluoride, the lower the IQ.

These were very high-quality studies. Everyone in the trial, including EPA’s experts, agreed these were state-of-the-art epidemiological studies. The NIH wouldn’t fund them if they weren’t. Not only were they well conducted, but they looked at the levels of exposure, the so-called optimal levels of exposure that we use for cavity protection. The criticism of the prior studies that had been done in countries like China is that they were looking at higher levels of fluoride exposure typically than we have in the US.

These studies went and focused on the so-called optimal levels and they still detected this adverse effect on neurodevelopment. That was the real focus of the first trial. In the second trial, the real focus there was this report by the National Toxicology Program, the NTP, which is part of the NIH, which did a systematic review of the whole body of research on fluoride in the brain. Consistent with our concerns and allegations, concluded that there is a consistent body of research, including high-quality research, linking fluoride to impacts on neurodevelopment. That was a real thrust of the evidence in the case.

How hard was it to get that report? I have a feeling there was some censorship going on and some shenanigans. Can you tell us about what endeavor it was to get that report to the court?

That was a fascinating part of this case because it was simultaneous to our litigation. The NTP was working on this report, and we knew they were working on the report. The reason why the court decided not to rule after the first trial, which was back in the summer of 2020. The court knew that the NTP was working on this comprehensive report. The EPA experts and the plaintiff experts all recognize that the NTP is an authoritative and reliable organization for these kinds of issues.

The judge said, “I want to see what the NTP has to say.” We were disappointed. We wanted to move forward and get a ruling, but the judge wanted to wait for the NTP. We were waiting for about two years for the NTP to finally release its report. I got wind through a confidential source in the government saying that this report that we were all waiting on had been completed, but had been suppressed. The NTP was instructed to not release the report, which, when I heard that, to say the least, it was very disturbing because our entire case was waiting on that. Obviously, there’s a public interest in having the NTP release this report.

Wise Traditions - Kendall Nelson | Michael Connett | Fluoride — Fluoride: High-quality government-funded studies show fluoride exposure during pregnancy directly correlates with lower childhood IQ.

When I found that, we immediately began filing FOIA requests to get the documents internally to understand what is going on and why they are holding this report up. Long story short, the FOIA documents came in and sure enough, it was clearly politics going on where agencies like the CDC Oral Health Division, which are aggressive promoters of fluoridation, were preventing the NTP from releasing the report because the CDC and the other pro-fluoride entities within the HHS recognized that this NTP report would be very problematic for their promotion of water fluoridation.

They were literally sending around emails to each other and saying that they wanted to suppress this report and not let it out. Is that correct?

In so many words, yes. The emails are not very subtle. The CDC and other higher-ups at HHS did not want the report to see the light of day. Thankfully, the FOIA documents and having this lawsuit going on with this judge who wanted to see this report ultimately compelled the HHS to release it. My suspicion is if we did not have litigation going on and the HHS did not feel the pressure of the federal court. They may have just buried it. We were ultimately able to force them to release this report.

Michael, what was the number one thing in the report that was so damning that the judge took it into consideration?

The sheer consistency of the studies to date on fluoride and IQ. For example, the NTP identified nineteen high-quality studies that have investigated fluoride’s impact on IQ in human populations. Of those 19 studies, 18 found an adverse association between fluoride and reduced IQ. The combination of having quality studies on this subject and consistently finding an association was very compelling for the judge.

You win the case. I know that Utah took fluoride out of their water and so did Florida. Joe Ladapo, the Surgeon General of Florida, has praised you. This court case is the reason that they took the fluoride out of their water. Is that correct?

Yes, the court decision, which was released in September of 2024, was the catalyst for first Utah banning fluoridation. The Florida Surgeon General, Dr. Ladapo, issued guidance on recommending that all communities in Florida end their fluoridation programs. In an interview with Governor DeSantis, Dr. Ladapo discussed how it was the court’s findings that brought this issue to his attention because he previously, as with many others in the public health community, thought that fluoridation was a safe and effective program.

The court’s findings led him to reassess this policy. After Dr. Ladapo issued that recommendation and guidance, the Florida legislature ended up banning fluoridation. This is the first time ever that you have states banning this policy of fluoridation. It is one of the gratifying elements of the court’s decision. We’ve already seen real policy action being taken.

Is it just Utah and Florida that ban it or are there other states that ban it as well?

Only those two states. Although Hawaii, I believe, does not have any communities that fluoridate their water, I don’t believe that’s a ban. I believe that they have not yet fluoridated any of Hawaii. There’s been local resistance in Hawaii to fluoridation programs. Besides Hawaii, every other state in the US has at least some communities that fluoridate. Unfortunately, there are about 18 or 20 states that mandate fluoridation for every single community that has a certain number of people being provided public water, like over 5,000 or over 10,000 people.

This is a serious fight you’re taking on. Before we go more into the court cases. Can we back up a little bit? Can you talk to us about fluoride? Where does it come from? I had always heard that it was a toxic waste product that was being put into our water. Can you explain just the very basics of what fluoride is? What are they putting in the water?

The Truth About Industrial Fluoride Sources

For starters, fluoride, as with other toxic elements like lead and arsenic, does occur naturally in the Earth’s crust. It is natural in that sense. That doesn’t make it safe, just like lead and arsenic is not safe. Not all naturally occurring compounds are safe. In terms of the fluoride that we add to drinking water, it’s an industrial chemical. Every gallon of fluoride that goes into your water once went through a smokestack. There was an impurity in that smokestack that was trapped and captured and then barreled up and sent to a community for water fluoridation.

Did you know tap water fluoride isn’t natural mineral water? It’s captured industrial waste from factory smokestacks.

We are using fluoridation as an industrial byproduct. That’s always been the case. There’s never a situation where a community wants to fluoridate their water and they go to mine some fluoride from the earth for that purpose. You’re dealing with a very low-quality, impure fluoride chemical that is used for fluoridation.

Whose idea was this in the first place to put this in our water? It wasn’t always in our water.

The first recommendation to fluoridate water was in 1939 by a scientist named Gerald Cox. Gerald Cox was funded by two industries, the aluminum industry and the sugar industry. The aluminum industry had a major problem with fluoride pollution because the aluminum industry emits a lot of fluoride into the air and into the water. Naturally, the aluminum industry had concerns with government regulations on its use of fluoride.

Workers in the aluminum industry were suffering serious harm from the fluoride exposure. Downwind, downstream communities were suffering harm. The aluminum industry knew that it had a litigation problem, a liability problem. It was actively funding research on fluoride back in the ‘30s, ‘40s, and ‘50s. The sugar industry also had an interest in fluoride because the sugar industry was looking for other ways to address the problem with tooth decay other than restricting the amount of sugar that kids consume. In the early days of fluoridation, you do see certain special interests being involved in promoting the use of fluoride for oral health purposes.

What is the argument for putting fluoride in your water? It’s to prevent cavities, but what’s the whole picture? What are the proponents of this saying when you go to court?

It’s pretty straightforward. The argument is, “Fluoride reduces cavities. We need to add it to everyone’s water because some people don’t have, say, access to dentists or appropriate dental care. When you add it to everyone’s water, people don’t have to do anything. They’re passively given this benefit of improved oral health and less cavities.” That’s the premise of water fluoridation, is it reduces cavities. If you want, I can talk about some of the problems with that argument, but that is the premise of the policy.

I was naturally going to ask you next, where’s the proof that putting this into your water prevents cavities?

The proof in the early days was these epidemiological studies. Studies of human populations comparing humans living in areas with elevated fluoride versus communities with low fluoride and looking at their cavity rates. These early studies were pretty simple. By modern standards, they would be considered not super reliable studies. Back in those days, they were considered reliable. I would say it wasn’t a very strong research base to support the program. More problematically, back in the early days, they had much less data on safety than they did on benefits.

The evidence they had on benefits was much stronger than the evidence that they had on safety, which was very threadbare, very thin. That was one of the real problems with this whole policy. We had very little idea as to what the long-term chronic health impacts would be of adding fluoride to so many people’s water, where they’re drinking it from birth all the way till their elderly years. This policy began in the days of better living through chemistry, where there concerns about chemical toxicity were generally dismissed or not appreciated. The lack of safety data for this program was a major fundamental problem from the very beginning.

Is there any proof that putting fluoride in your water, that drinking it as opposed to maybe putting it on topically with a toothpaste or something? Is there any proof that drinking fluoride prevents cavities?

This gets to an important issue and a key point that everyone should understand. That is, when the public health community endorsed fluoridation in the ‘40s and ‘50s, the premise of it was that you needed to swallow the fluoride while the teeth were developing. From birth to about ages 6 to 8 is when the teeth are developing. The notion was, as your teeth develop, the fluoride that is circulating in your blood gets into the developing enamel. The enamel has a higher fluoride content and the tooth is stronger for life. That was the basic premise.

Topical Benefits Versus Systemic Ingestion Hazards

Fluoride was treated as a nutrient. As something like a calcium that you needed to ingest. That whole understanding was flipped on its head in later research, starting in around the ‘70s in Europe. What this later research showed, and is now very well accepted, even by pro-fluoride dentists and policymakers, is fluoride’s predominant, if not exclusive, benefit comes from topical contact with the teeth. Not from ingestion.

For those people who want fluoride for their oral health regimen, you don’t need to swallow this. The real impact comes when the fluoride is in your mouth, on the surface of the teeth. There’s a chemistry that takes place with how fluoride can interact with the tooth enamel that can prevent the formation of cavities but that is a topical effect. Not a systemic effect. In my view, there are lots of reasons to not want fluoridation before that, but that development was critical.

It shows you that you don’t need to be adding this to drinking water. In fact, by adding it to drinking water, you are unnecessarily exposing people to risk. If you can use it topically and spit it out, that is what we should be doing because when you swallow it, you are taking on a risk. If you don’t need to take on that risk, why are we subjecting people to it? That’s an important fundamental point about the whole fluoride paradigm. It’s not a systemic effect. It’s that the benefit is topical.

You’re making me. I don’t use toothpaste with fluoride in it because I think of it as a toxic waste product. I’m not going to put that in my mouth. All of these people who are drinking fluoride bring up the subject of informed consent. They may not even be informed that it is in their water, but also, they’re being medicated essentially without their consent. Can you speak to that a little bit?

Forced Medication and the Informed Consent Crisis

That has been one of the concerns from the very get-go on this policy. Fluoride is the only chemical that we add to water that does not treat the water. Chlorine has its risks. Chlorine is treating the water to kill the bugs so that when you drink the water, you don’t get sick. It’s a very clear and tangible benefit. Fluoride, as defined by the FDA, is a drug when used to prevent disease like tooth decay. It’s the only drug we add to drinking water. As for all other medications, the patient has the right to informed consent. You understand the benefits, and you’re given information about the benefits and the risks, and then you make a decision. Do you want this or not?

With fluoridation, that right is stripped away and everyone has to have it coming out of their faucet even every day. In Europe, this was one of the reasons why most European nations rejected fluoridation because they said the water supply is just not the right way to deliver medicine. Use it. If you want fluoride, get it in individual products like toothpaste, where you’re not forcing it on everybody in the population. With toothpaste, it’s something which is very inexpensive. There’s some pharmaceuticals out there that, if you just say, “Go buy it yourself,” some people aren’t going to be able to buy it.

Toothpaste is not like that. It costs like $2 or $3 for a tube that lasts several months. It’s a very inexpensive product. The good thing about toothpaste is every family has that right to choose. Do you want it or not? What do you do? You apply it to your teeth and you spit it out. You’re applying it to the only part of the body that stands to benefit and you’re minimizing the ingestion, which is where the risks come in. Although, I would note lastly. We do have to be very careful with young children, like preschool children because they’re not able to spit very well. They often ingest a lot of the toothpaste that goes in their mouth. That’s another discussion, but I want to flag that.

We’re talking about drugs here. Is it true that fluoride is in some drugs and if I want to go buy fluoride in the grocery store or the pharmacy, I can only buy toothpaste with fluoride? Is it true that it’s considered a toxic substance or such a powerful substance that you have to get a prescription for it? Is that right?

That is right. There are things called fluoride supplements, which is a misnomer. With a calcium supplement, you go into the grocery store and you buy the calcium on the shelf. You don’t need a doctor’s prescription. It’s safe to swallow. You don’t have to worry about how much you’re ingesting. With fluoride, if you want to get fluoride in a pill, you cannot buy it on the shelf. It’s too dangerous to be sold on the shelves. You need to get a prescription and go to a pharmacist. It’s not an over-the-counter drug. What’s notable here is the dose that you get from a fluoride pill is for cavity protection purposes.

It’s the same dose that you ingest each day through fluoridated water on average. Roughly in the ballpark. Yet you need a prescription to get it. What does that mean? It means we are adding a prescription-strength dose of a drug to drinking water for everybody, be it old, young, healthy, sick, people who want it, or people who don’t. There’s no other medication that is delivered to the population like this. It’s incredibly reckless and it does carry significant risks to chronic health.

Michael, let’s go back to the risks. We talked about the reduced IQ, but I know that’s not the only thing that fluoride affects. Can you talk about the other dangers of fluoride? What you’ve seen in your studies and all the research you’ve done?

Fluoride Accumulation and Bone Fracture Risks

First, the bones. We know that most of the fluoride that is ingested, that it stays in the body, goes into the bones. Fluoride is a bone-seeking element. Your bones accumulate fluoride as you age. We have a large number of animal studies and human clinical trials, which show that when fluoride accumulates in your bones, it makes the bones weaker, more fragile, and more prone to fracture. Now, I mentioned human clinical trials. Why were there ever clinical trials giving fluoride to people?

We knew that excess exposures to fluoride can create, in some individuals, more bone mass. It’s an irregular bone. It is not a well-formed bone, but it’s more bone mass. The thinking was in osteoporosis patients, maybe fluoride could counteract the bone thinning and reduce fracture rates. They used experimental fluoride drugs at higher doses than we add to water, to be clear, 10 to 20 times higher than we get from drinking water.

Adding drugs to municipal drinking water removes your right to informed consent. You can’t control the dose coming from your tap.

We gave these clinical trial participants fluoride for about 1 to 4 years. The results of these trials have been uniformly bad. Rather than reducing fracture rates, they increase fracture rates, for the most part. Not every study is the same, but the overwhelming body of evidence from the clinical trials goes towards increased fracture rates, including of the hip. A lot of the trials were finding that people were suffering higher rates of hip fracture from the fluoride therapy.

The clinical trials also showed that fluoride doesn’t just increase bone mass. It can reduce bone mass as well. What these trials and as well as the animal studies have shown is that fluoride does tend to increase bone mass in the spine, on the axial skeleton, which is mostly made up of trabecular bone, the spongier bone. The cortical bone, which is the primary bone in our legs, in our arms, and the critical part of the hip.

In the cortical bone, fluoride tends to reduce the density of cortical bone. There’s a contradictory effect, and that helps to explain some of the increase in fracture rates that we have seen in the clinical trials. We know for sure, there’s no question at all, that fluoride exposure can increase bone fractures, period. None. No question. The only question, and this is the case with a lot of fluoride’s effects on health, is what is that dose that goes from safe to toxic?

How does that dose vary based on each individual’s susceptibility, each individual’s nutrition, their health condition, their age? One dose does not fit all with fluoride. That whole premise has been completely ignored by policymakers on this program. For the entire time of this policy, we treat everyone as if they’re going to respond in the same exact way to fluoride. That is not the way it works.

The question that people are probably asking is, “We know that high-dose exposure increases fracture rates. What about water fluoridation? What about the levels that we get for these so-called optimal levels for cavity protection?” We have studies already that have found associations between fluoride added to drinking water and hip fracture and other forms of fracture like wrist fracture. Now, in the studies, there’s been mixed findings.

Some studies have not found an effect. Some studies have. Some of the contradictory findings can be explained by poor methodologies. Some bad studies are not finding effects, but you wouldn’t necessarily expect them to find effects. What’s compelling here, and I would encourage people to look at it, is there was a 2021 study from Sweden. A very rigorous, well-done study published in an NIH-funded journal, which found that long-term exposure to one part per million fluid and water, which is basically the optimal level, significantly increased the rate of hip fracture and other forms of fracture in post-menopausal women.

That study, which has not been refuted, is very significant. It found an increased risk of about 50% from long-term exposure to fluoridated water. Hip fracture is a serious thing. It’s a serious thing for an elderly person to fracture their hip. This is something that is being ignored by policymakers, but is important to consider when we’re looking at fluoride exposure.

We have to consider damage to the thyroid and other problems, too. Is it true that the father of fluoride, Trendley Dean, was even warning about the toxic effects of fluoride and even getting cataracts?

Before we started fluoridation, the first experimental trial of fluoridation was in 1945. H. Trendley Dean, as you mentioned, was the father of fluoridation, who promoted the idea of it. He was concerned about the potential for toxic effects, including on the bone. Before that first clinical trial, he said, “We need to do a study in a high fluoride area.” An area with elevated fluoride and see if it’s causing noticeable effects on health.

They did the study in 1943 down in Texas, a high-fluoride area. Sure enough, the study found that they were finding the same types of bone disease, which includes arthritis, which I didn’t mention osteoarthritis, calcification of the ligaments. They were finding the same types of fluoride bone disease that we see in industrial workers who are exposed to high levels of fluoride.

What did they do about that? They buried the study. They never published it. They never discussed it publicly. They went ahead with fluoridation. The one safety test that Trendley Dean recommended to assess whether fluoridation was going to be safe failed the test. The government health authorities never published a study and went forward with fluoridation. That is indicative of how government health authorities have approached this issue. They have not been transparent. The risks of this policy have been suppressed. The public has not been given a true appreciation of some of the health concerns.

It’s very concerning. Michael, let’s go back to your court case. You started this court case in 2017. You were in litigation for quite a while and you won. That resulted in having a couple of states take out the fluoride in their water, but then what happened? You went back to court. Was it the government that appealed the case? Explain what happened next.

The EPA, which was the defendant, appealed the judge’s decision. The EPA did not appeal the decision on the factual findings. The EPA was not saying the judge got it wrong on the science. Instead, the EPA argued that the judge made various procedural mistakes in how he navigated this complex litigation. In March of 2026, we had oral argument before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a three-judge panel.

Unfortunately, that panel in May 2026 issued a very brief decision, which did not have much reasoning in it. They issued a very brief decision agreeing with EPA that the judge made a procedural mistake. The 9th Circuit vacated the district court’s decision and instructed the district court to go back and issue a new decision based on a limited set of the evidence that we had. That’s where we currently stand on that.

That case is still open. It’s not completely decided yet. Is that correct?

That is correct. The important thing for the public is that there’s nothing about the EPA’s appellate arguments or the 9th Circuit decision that challenges what this district judge found in his decision. The fact that the fluoridation presents an unreasonable risk. That decision, which is online and available, is something that is still just as important as it was for informing policy. What the 9th Circuit decision does is it says, as it currently stands, “The EPA is no longer under an obligation under this court order to take regulatory action.” The EPA did need to take regulatory action absent this appeal. It needed to take action to end the risk of fluoridation.

Now, given the 9th Circuit ruling, it does not need to take action. For all the communities out there, local communities and states, they can act on the judge’s decision. They don’t need to wait for the EPA. That’s something important to consider. We are proceeding with this litigation and we’re still pursuing our potential appeals, but that’s where it currently stands.

No matter how you look at it, it’s a huge win because now it’s set policy. It basically exposed the EPA’s argument as being bogus. That water fluoridation is safe. What are you working on now? I believe you’re involved in some suits with Procter and Gamble and Colgate. What are you currently doing?

I have filed some class action lawsuits against the largest manufacturers of kids’ fluoride products. Including Proctor and Gamble and Colgate. I’m talking about, like, kids’ toothpaste and kids’ mouthwash. I’m actively litigating these cases now, deposing corporate officials, and getting internal documents. Most of which are marked confidential. At the present time, we’re not able to discuss what we’re finding in these documents and the depositions.

The thrust of these cases is that these companies are very recklessly marketing these products. Remember what I was saying, we know that young children, kids under six, have difficulty spitting out what goes in their mouth, especially when you’re 2 and 3. Most of what goes in your mouth, the child’s going to swallow. These companies are taking adult-strength fluoride products and they are marketing them like they’re candy.

They have cartoons, like young, friendly, funny, cute cartoon characters with bubblegum flavor and silly strawberry flavor. They’re marketing these in ways that make them seem harmless. Totally safe. What is that doing? Parents are using these products. They’re giving their kids way more information than they should. It is putting children’s health at risk. With toothpaste, for example. The American Dental Association, which by no means I agree with on most things on this issue.

They have recognized that we need to strictly limit how much fluoride toothpaste a young child receives. A kid under three, according to the ADA, should receive no more than a smear of paste. If you look at a photo of a smear, it is very little toothpaste. Children under six should use no more than a pea. The problem for these companies is if parents follow these instructions and use that much paste, these companies are going to sell much less fluoride toothpaste.

Targeting Marketing to Children and Dental Fluorosis

Parents are going to start asking questions, “Why do I have to use a smear of paste?” It raises questions about the safety of these products. Rather than inform people of these guidelines, these companies are marketing them as candy flavors and fun-friendly cartoons. It is leading to significant overexposure to fluoride. That overexposure is manifested in a very visible way. That is this. We now have in the United States about 68% of children showing signs of a condition called dental fluorosis.

Dental fluorosis is a defect of tooth enamel caused by too much ingestion of fluoride during the early years of life. That presents itself as discoloration of the enamel. In the mild stages, it is white splotches, and then it can be more severe. Sixty-eight percent of children now have a visible sign of overexposure to fluoride in the US. That’s not just because of these kids’ fluoride products. It’s also because of water fluoridation and all the processed foods and beverages made with fluoridated water. These kids’ fluoride products are a major cause. Our lawsuits are aimed at trying to get them to change their marketing practices so that parents are better informed about the risks of these products.

Michael, as we begin to wrap up, I have one question for you. That is, what can the reader do to protect themselves, but also maybe to help you in this fight against water fluoridation? What can we do to help?

First thing, if you don’t already know, check and find out if your community adds fluoride to its water. If you have the time, it would be great to communicate with others in your community and your city or town board and express concerns. A lot of communities, since the court decision have voted to remove fluoride from their water. I think we have over 60 communities in the past two years that have done so as well as the two states we’ve discussed.

Over 68% of American kids now show signs of dental fluorosis. Overexposure from flavored products and tap water is the cause.

One of the good things about this issue is, it’s something that you can affect at the local level. There’s a lot of things that we are concerned about that you feel like you can’t do anything about because it’s being made by national federal decision makers. With fluoridation, for the most part, for most communities, it’s a local decision. People can’t influence that. That’s one thing.

The second thing is, if you do have fluoride added to your water, then you can buy certain filters that can remove the fluoride, but not all filters remove the fluoride. A Brita filter does not remove it. Anything that uses activated carbon does not remove the fluoride. You need to get something like a reverse osmosis filter. That’s something to look into. A filtration system that would remove the fluoride from your drinking water. Those are some things that people can do.

That’s good advice. I hope everybody gets involved and certainly takes care of themselves. You are going to be speaking at the Weston A. Price Conference in October 2026. I hope everybody comes, sees you, gets to meet you and can ask you all the questions that they have, because I wish we had a lot more time with you.

I’m looking forward to that and just so that readers know. At my presentation, I will be providing clips of the depositions of the EPA’s experts and scientists and showing the admissions that we got from the government health authorities, including from the CDC that contributed to us winning that court case. People will find a behind-the-scenes glimpse into the litigation. It’s quite interesting.

I can’t wait. I’m going to be at your talk and I can’t wait to meet you in person. Thank you, Michael, for being with us. You were terrific.

Thank you. I appreciate it.

—

Our guest was Attorney Michael Connett. To learn more about this work, visit his law firm at Siri and Glimstad. For more information about the ongoing effort to end water fluoridation, including facts, research and ways to get involved, visit the Fluoride Action Network. This conversation challenged us to reconsider a practice that has been part of American public health policy for generations, adding fluoride to drinking water.

Michael walked us through the landmark lawsuit he brought against the EPA and the evidence presented in Federal Court, linking fluoride exposure to neurodevelopmental harm, including reduced IQ in children. We also explored concerns about fluoride beyond the developing brain, including its potential risks on bones and fracture risk, and the larger question of informed consent. There is reason for optimism. Since the Federal Court’s 2024 decision, communities around the country have reconsidered fluoridation.

Utah and Florida have become the first states to ban the practice. Michael reminded us, that this is an issue where individuals can have a real impact because fluoridation is often decided at the local level. Find out what’s in your water, educate yourself, and make your voice heard in your community. If you’d like to hear more from Michael, he’ll be speaking at the Wise Traditions Conference in Washington, DC.

He’ll share a behind-the-scenes look at the fluoride litigation he’s doing. Including clips from depositions of EPA experts and government scientists. If you are enjoying the show, we’d be grateful if you take a moment to leave a rating or review wherever you tune in. Your feedback helps others discover the show and become part of this growing community. Thank you for spending this time with us. Be well, be nourished, and be free.

About Michael Connett

Michael Connett is a partner at Siri & Glimstad LLP with extensive experience in complex civil litigation, including toxic torts, regulatory matters, and class actions.

Mr. Connett’s civil practice is focused on obtaining justice for individuals harmed by corporate negligence and misguided medical practices. He has successfully represented individuals and families who have suffered catastrophic injuries as a result of toxic substances, and has spearheaded groundbreaking litigation to challenge outdated chemical safety standards under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Mr. Connett is currently litigating class action lawsuits against the largest manufacturers of kids’ fluoride products for deceptive labeling that leads to unsafe use of these products.

Mr. Connett received his J.D., magna cum laude, from Temple Law School in 2011, where he received numerous academic honors and served as Editor-in-Chief of the Temple Law Review.

After law school, Mr. Connett served as a law clerk to the Honorable Judge Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Honorable Judge Franklin Van Antwerpen of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.