An apparently harmless proposal from the person in charge of the health portfolio of the next Trump administration appears to be not so innocuous and may have serious economic implications. The large companies involved.
The future Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) of the United States, Robert F. Kennedy Jr..launched a revolutionary proposal weeks ago that consists of stopping adding fluoride to drinking water. While removing this mineral – known for its cavity-preventing properties – from the drinking water supply of about two-thirds of Americans falls to local and state health authorities, the nephew of assassinated President Kennedy said via X that the Trump administration “will recommend eliminating fluoride from the country’s drinking water.” The future official explained that the compound, which is commonly found in toothpaste and dental treatments, is “an industrial waste associated with arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, loss of IQ, neurodevelopmental disorders and thyroid diseases”.
It’s worth noting that in 2015 HHS lowered recommended fluoride levels, but since the 1960s the federal government has supported adding small amounts of fluoride to drinking water to combat tooth decay and promote oral health. However, recent court rulings have led to reductions in fluoride levels in water, and some experts question the need for fluoridation, given that fluoride is widely available in dental products. Unlike the US, most Western European countries do not fluoridate their water; for example, in England only 10% of the population has access to fluoridated water.
Water fluoridation: a little history
A little history: Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral found in water, soil and air, known for its ability to prevent tooth decay by strengthening enamel and reversing early cavities, Community water fluoridation began in 1945 in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where it reduced childhood dental caries by more than 60%, which was a great public health success. In the 1950s, water fluoridation was widely adopted in the US, with the support of the Public Health Service and the Association Dental Americana, which led to its incorporation into dental products such as toothpaste. Currently, about 63% of Americans have access to fluoridated water, with a cost ranging from 50 cents to $3 per person per year, depending on the size of the community.
As already mentioned, most countries do not fluoridate their water, opting instead for alternative solutions such as fluoridated salt or relying on naturally high levels of fluoride. In the case of the US, fluoride levels in drinking water are regulated: the Public Health Service recommends levels below 0.7 mg/l and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes a mandatory limit of 4.0 mg/l. But there has been pressure to regulate fluoride for some time now, hence recent lawsuits urging the EPA to tighten its standards.
Now, what do the experts think: The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has ranked drinking water fluoridation as one of the 10 greatest public health successes of the 20th century.noting that it effectively prevents dental cavities regardless of the person’s socioeconomic situation or their access to health care. For its part, the American Dental Association has reiterated its support for community water fluoridation to help prevent tooth decay. Studies show that community water fluoridation reduces tooth decay by more than 25% in children and adults, even at a time when fluoride is widely available in other sources such as toothpaste, according to the association. Kellogg Schwab of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Maryland explains that adding fluoride to the water supply has been beneficial for Americans’ dental health, and research shows there is a very low risk of negative consequences.
Fluorine and companies: the economic implications
Up to this point it seems like a health issue, but it has economic implications and on the stock market, because it affects some companies. To which ones? There are several companies that are involved with fluoride that could be affected by the (potential) future decisions of the Trump administration. Among them, the chief economist of the Mirabaud group, John Plassard, highlights four chemical companies and three pharmaceutical companies. Let’s see.
Among the chemical companies, the Belgian group stands out Solvay which produces fluorochemicals for industrial and consumer applications; and the Americans Honeywell (which manufactures a range of fluorine-based chemicals including refrigerants and industrial compounds); to DuPont (known for its chemical specialties, including fluorine derivatives); already Mosaic Company (which produces fluorosilicic acid, a byproduct of phosphate fertilizer production, used for water fluoridation). While among pharmaceutical companies, such as fluorinated compounds such as sodium fluoride and stannous fluoride, which are manufactured for toothpastes and dental care, Plassard mentioned Colgate-Palmolive, Procter & Gamble (Crest) already GlaxoSmithKline (Sensodyne).
The Mirabaud economist recognizes that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s proposal to eliminate water fluoridation in the United States triggered a great debate about the benefits and risks of fluoride for public health, and although fluoride has demonstrated its effectiveness in prevention of dental caries and is considered a major public health success, critics point out its potentially harmful, although rare, health effects. However, “a decision of this type could have important economic repercussions, especially for chemical and pharmaceutical companies, which depend on the use of fluoride in their products”he warns.
Source: Ambito
