I struggle with debates where we can’t determine actual benefit. So I tried to do that.

I found a study I was looking for. In Sweden, natural fluoride varies across its bedrock—some areas like Gotland have 0.8–1.2 mg/L, while nearby Småland drops below 0.3 mg/L. A 2021 Journal of Political Economy study used this variation and found kids in higher-fluoride zones had 20% fewer caries (measured by DMFT—decayed, missing, filled teeth) than those in low-fluoride areas. Sweden doesn’t fluoridate artificially. The study controlled for income and dental visits, pinning the difference on fluoride.

Independent of this study, I used AI to look at a country like Sweden, since it has this type of data available. I asked it to calculate the lifetime benefit of adding fluoride to the water vs areas that have low fluoride. The final result was a reduction in lifetime cavities from 5-7 for those with access to low fluoride vs 4-6 for those with either natural or artificially elevated levels of fluoride to the WHO standard.

So just to make sure we come back to the absolute benefit of these types of programs. We are seeing a lifetime reduction of 1 cavity for your average Swedish citizen with recommended vs low levels of fluoride.

If there is some data that shows otherwise, I am always open minded to these things. But it’s this type of data that shapes my opinion on this particular topic.

1 lifetime cavity.

Let’s start the debate there as we decide whether it’s worth it in terms of tax dollars for these types of programs. This would be independent of the decision on health risks.