Fluoride Linked to Cancer Risk in Studies and Reports
Author: Fluoride Action Network
Published: 2011/09/16 - Updated: 2026/02/16
Publication Type: Informative
Category Topic: Cancer - Tumors - Related Publications
Page Content: Synopsis - Introduction - Main - Insights, Updates
Synopsis: This report details scientific evidence linking fluoride and its salts to an increased risk of cancer, particularly osteosarcoma - a type of bone cancer - in boys and young men. The information draws on published studies, findings from the National Research Council, National Toxicology Program data, and a formal submission by the Fluoride Action Network to California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Key studies cited include Bassin et al. (2006) from Harvard University, which found a connection between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma risk, and the 1990 National Toxicology Program report documenting increased bone, liver, and oral cancers in fluoride-exposed rats. For anyone concerned about the safety of fluoridated water supplies - including parents, seniors, people with compromised immune systems, and individuals with disabilities who may already face elevated health vulnerabilities - this collection of evidence raises important questions about a chemical added to drinking water in communities across the United States - Disabled World (DW).
- Definition: Fluoride
Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral found in soil, water, and certain foods, and it has been widely added to public water supplies and dental products since the mid-twentieth century as a measure to reduce tooth decay. While most major public health organizations have endorsed water fluoridation at recommended levels as safe and effective, a body of scientific research has raised concerns about potential health risks associated with fluoride exposure, particularly at higher concentrations or over prolonged periods. Among the most debated risks is the possible link between fluoride and osteosarcoma, a rare but serious form of bone cancer that primarily affects adolescent boys and young men during periods of rapid bone growth. Research from institutions including the National Toxicology Program, Harvard University, and the National Research Council has produced findings suggesting fluoride may have the potential to initiate or promote certain cancers, though the scientific community remains divided on the strength and implications of this evidence. The debate is further complicated by the fact that the most commonly used fluoridation chemicals - known as silicofluorides - have also been associated with elevated blood lead levels in children, introducing additional health concerns beyond the direct effects of fluoride itself.
Introduction
Fluoride Can Cause Cancer
Association between fluoride and various cancers including evidence that fluoride can increase risk of osteosarcoma a type of bone cancer in boys and young men.
Many published human and animal studies have reported an association between fluoride and various cancers, including valid and un-refuted scientific evidence that fluoride can increase the risk of osteosarcoma (a type of bone cancer) in boys and young men, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) in its recent submission to the California Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).
Main Content
Fluoride is commonly added to municipal water supplies and dental products with the intention of reducing tooth decay. However, current scientific evidence shows that swallowing fluoride does much more harm than good.
OEHHA requested public comments on its recently-released document "Evidence on the Carcinogenicity of Fluoride and Its Salts," where OEHHA states:
"Multiple lines of evidence...appear to support several plausible hypotheses: that fluoride is incorporated into bones...where it can stimulate cell division of osteoblasts [bone-forming cells]...; induce genetic changes; induce other cellular changes leading to malignant transformation, and alter cellular immune response...thereby increasing the risk of development of osteosarcomas" (our emphasis).
The Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) of OEHHA's Science Advisory Board is scheduled to review the carcinogenicity status of fluoride on October 12-13.
FAN Executive Director Paul Connett, Ph.D., says:
"Special interest groups are already protecting fluoride rather than the people who are consuming it." For example, the American Dental Association recently gave the California Dental Association $200,000 "to assist in our effort to prevent the placement of 'fluoride and its salts' on the List of Chemicals Known to the State to Cause Cancer".
Organized dentistry must overcome the following inconvenient facts if it continues to assert fluoridation is safe for everyone:
According to the National Research Council's (NRC) 2006 Fluoride in Drinking Water report, "fluoride appears to have the potential to initiate or promote cancers, particularly of the bone... osteosarcoma is of particular concern..."
Bassin et al. (2006) reported in Cancer Causes and Control that fluoride exposure is linked to an increased risk of osteosarcoma in boys and young men.
Bassin's Harvard University doctoral adviser, Chester Douglass, signed off on Bassin's results, but then promised his larger study would refute Bassin's findings. However, Douglass's study, when finally published in the Journal of Dental Research (7/28/11), was seriously flawed and incapable of refuting Bassin's results.
Connett says:
"Douglass's 'financial ties to corporations profiting from fluoride sales make Douglass's involvement with any study related to fluoride and health effects a serious conflict of interest.'"
But Bassin's isn't the only study linking fluoride with an increased risk of cancer.
In 1990 the National Toxicology Program (NTP) reported an increase in osteosarcoma in male rats exposed to fluoride, an increased risk for liver and oral cancers, and an increase in thyroid follicular cell tumors.
Among human studies, Hoover et al. (1991) found a 79% increase in osteosarcoma in males under 20 years old in fluoridated counties, compared to a 4% decrease in non-fluoridated counties over time.
Cohn (1992) similarly reported an increased risk for osteosarcoma in males under age 20 living in fluoridated versus non-fluoridated counties.
Also, the NRC recommends further research be conducted on the effects of fluoride on the risk of bladder cancer.
In addition, the most commonly used fluoridation chemicals (silicofluorides) have been linked with increased levels of lead in children's blood, according to Kathleen Thiessen, Ph.D., a risk analysis professional who has served on two NRC subcommittees dealing with fluoride toxicology.
Thiessen's submission to CIC states:
"U.S. EPA considers lead to be a probable human carcinogen...there is considered to be no safe level of lead exposure, and the MCLG [maximum contaminant level goal] for lead is zero. OEHHA should be aware that silicofluoride use is associated with increased blood levels of a human carcinogen (one that is also associated with neurotoxicity and developmental toxicity), apart form the carcinogenicity of fluoride itself."
FAN's submission concludes:
"While we understand that there will be tremendous pressure put on the CIC and OEHHA by the proponents of fluoride and fluoridation, we ask that the Committee continue to rely on its high level of scientific knowledge and integrity when deliberating and reaching a final conclusion on the carcinogenicity status of fluoride and its salts."
Insights, Analysis, and Developments
Editorial Note: What makes the fluoride-cancer question so difficult to resolve is not a shortage of data but a surplus of institutional resistance to examining that data honestly. Multiple studies spanning decades - from the National Toxicology Program's 1990 animal findings to Bassin's 2006 human epidemiological work at Harvard - point in the same direction, yet organized dentistry and public health agencies have largely treated the subject as settled rather than evolving. The revelation that the American Dental Association provided $200,000 specifically to prevent fluoride from being listed as a known carcinogen in California illustrates how financial and professional interests can complicate what should be a straightforward scientific review. None of this means the question is closed in either direction, but it does mean that the millions of people drinking fluoridated water every day - including children, the elderly, and those with chronic health conditions - deserve a regulatory process driven by evidence rather than industry pressure, and that further independent research is long overdue - Disabled World (DW).Attribution/Source(s): This quality-reviewed publication was selected for publishing by the editors of Disabled World (DW) due to its relevance to the disability community. Originally authored by Fluoride Action Network and published on 2011/09/16, this content may have been edited for style, clarity, or brevity.