Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

What You Should Know About Fluoride

News Feed
Wednesday, April 9, 2025

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced on Monday that he will direct the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to stop recommending water fluoridation nationwide “It makes no sense to have [fluoride] in our water supply,” Kennedy told reporters during a visit to Utah. “I’m very, very proud of this state for being the first state to ban it, and I hope many more will come.”But what exactly is fluoride? What does it do? And why are people like Kennedy calling for its removal from public water systems? We asked experts to break down the debate. What is fluoride? Why is it in drinking water?“Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral that belongs to a group of chemical compounds containing the element fluorine,” said Dr. Jarrett L. Manning, a dentist and founder of JLM Dental Studio. “It exists in various forms: sodium fluoride, stannous fluoride and sodium monofluorophosphate.”Small amounts of fluoride are naturally present in soil, plants, water and certain foods, but it’s also added to drinking water and dental products due to its ability to strengthen tooth enamel and prevent cavities.“Many communities add fluoride to public water supplies, a process known as water fluoridation, to improve oral health and help prevent tooth decay on a population level,” Manning explained.Basically, acid-producing bacteria grows in the mouth, which dissolves minerals on the surface of teeth and can lead to tooth decay, or cavities. Fluoride prevents and stops that bacterial growth and can even reverse early tooth decay, thus reducing the need for treatments, which can be painful and expensive.“Research over many years has shown that water fluoridation can significantly reduce the incidence of cavities in both children and adults, regardless of access to dental care,” said Dr. Cheryline Pezzullo, a clinical associate professor and director of community-based programs at New York University’s College of Dentistry. “By adding small, safe amounts of fluoride to the water supply, communities can reduce tooth decay across the board, particularly benefiting those who may not have regular access to dental care.”Grand Rapids, Michigan, became the first city to fluoridate its public water supply, in 1945, and a decade later, the rate of cavities in local children had fallen 60% to 65%. Researchers reported similar findings among both kids and adults as more communities adopted fluoridation in the subsequent decades.Today, more than 60% of the U.S. population receives fluoridated water.“The American Dental Association has long been a proponent of water fluoridation since its introduction and study,” said cosmetic dentist Dr. Amanda Lewis. Other public health groups, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), similarly support this practice due to its benefits to oral and overall health. Preventing tooth decay lowers the need for treatments such as tooth extractions and fillings, and if left untreated, cavities can lead to serious abscesses, infections and even sepsis.The Public Health Service recommends a concentration of 0.7 milligram of fluoride per liter of water in community systems, which the CDC equates to about three drops of water in a 55-gallon barrel. Communities that already have naturally higher levels of fluoride do not need fluoridation.What’s the controversy?“The controversy around fluoride in water often centers on questions about health risks, personal choice and concerns about overexposure,” Pezzullo said. “Although I do not agree, some argue that fluoride ― even in small amounts ― could have potential health risks and question the ethics of adding it to public water supplies.”In recent years, communities across the U.S. have voted to stop fluoridating their water systems. Many experts believe that the anti-fluoridation movement gained more traction amid the growing mistrust of public health authorities and government overall during the COVID-19 pandemic. “Some people feel that adding fluoride to public water supplies violates their right to choose what goes into their bodies,” Manning noted.In September, a federal judge in California ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency must strengthen regulations around water fluoridation to address concerns about potential health risks, particularly with regard to children’s cognitive development. “There’s skepticism from certain groups about the long-term effects, despite decades of research showing its safety and effectiveness when used correctly,” Pezzullo said. “Additionally, misinformation and conflicting studies have created more confusion and lead to more public debate.”Many skeptics point to a review from the National Toxicology Program, which concluded “with moderate confidence” that there is an association between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in children.But that analysis is primarily based on studies conducted in other countries and involving fluoride concentrations of 1.5 milligrams per liter of water and above ― which is more than double the recommended limit for drinking water in the U.S.“More studies are needed to fully understand the potential for lower fluoride exposure to affect children’s IQ,” the organization stated in its report.The AAP has also expressed concerns about the limitations of the NTP’s review, including the high fluoride levels but also the geographic heterogeneity of the study populations, which hinders the ability to account for other factors that might affect IQ and assess whether the data is “accurate, comparable, or generalizable.” The organization noted that similar reviews from other groups have reached different conclusions and that the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine rejected two earlier drafts of the report.Nico De Pasquale Photography via Getty ImagesTewodros R. Godebo, an assistant professor at the Tulane University Celia Scott Weatherhead School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine who studies fluoride, told HuffPost there’s still a shortage of research on public water fluoridation in the U.S.“Before we make a policy decision to remove fluoride from U.S. public water supply systems, we need to get some questions answered,” he said. “We need more studies in the U.S. if we are going to make policy here, and the science is not yet consistent enough to make a decision.”He pointed to the lack of data on fluoridation’s effect on adults and the inconsistent conclusions about any potential association between fluoride in developed countries’ community water systems and children’s cognitive development. “If we find there is some association between IQ points and low fluoride exposure, then the next critical step would be to do a risk-benefit analysis because there is a benefit to water fluoridation in terms of dental health,” Godebo said.“What would be the cost in terms of treating dental decay and associated diseases because it’s linked to our overall health and things like heart disease. What would the total IQ loss be in a child ― would it be one point? Then is our first step to reduce water fluoridation? Do we cut that 0.7 in half? This decision has to be based on strong science.”These decisions might also have to vary on the local level in accordance with area-based data, which will likely differ across the U.S. Many fluoride studies are also limited by the challenge of accounting for other sources of fluoride exposure beyond water supply systems.Critics have argued that adding fluoride to drinking water may no longer be as effective as it was when the practice first began due to the increased use of fluoride toothpaste over time. Some point to the large number of countries that do not fluoridate their public water but have still seen reductions in tooth decay. Future data from the American communities that have removed fluoride from their systems will presumably provide more clarity.Meanwhile, misleading claims about fluoride’s potential harms have gained momentum. On Nov. 2, Kennedy asserted in a social media post that the mineral is associated with thyroid disease, arthritis and bone-related issues such as bone cancer and bone fractures.Medical experts have responded by emphasizing the lack of rigorous U.S.-based research linking fluoride to thyroid disease and arthritis. As for bone health, repeated fluoride exposure above the recommended level can lead to skeletal fluorosis, which causes weakened bones, joint pain and stiffness, but that condition is extremely rare in the U.S.Excessive fluoride exposure in children whose permanent teeth are still developing (usually up to the age of 8) can result in a cosmetic condition called dental fluorosis, which gives the teeth white spots, flecks or lines but does not cause pain or impair tooth function.To address concerns about dental fluorosis, the U.S. government amended its recommendations on public water fluoridation in 2015. Though the previous guidance recommended 0.7 milligram per liter in warmer climates and 1.2 milligrams in cooler places, the standard became 0.7 everywhere.Similarly, the ADA recommends very small amounts of fluoride toothpaste for young children to limit excess ingestion and prevent dental fluorosis. Here’s what you should know if you’re concerned about fluoride in water.Headlines can be alarming, so if you’re feeling overwhelmed by the fluoride debate taking place online and in the news, talk to your doctor, your dentist or your child’s pediatrician.“For those who are new to the topic, it’s helpful to know that fluoride has been safely added to water supplies across many parts of the world since the 1940s, with a significant decrease in cavities as a result,” Pezzullo said.She emphasized that fluoride levels in public drinking water are carefully regulated and monitored.“While it’s good to be cautious, substantial amounts of scientific research have shown that fluoride at these regulated levels is safe and does not cause harm,” Pezzullo explained. “I give fluoridated water to my own toddler and brush his teeth with fluoridated toothpaste! I can always tell when a child is not exposed to fluoride when they sit in my chair as they always have more cavities than they should.”Water fluoridation is a “simple but powerful health measure” that has been particularly beneficial for children and communities with limited access to dental care, she added. “As a dentist, I see the difference fluoride makes every day, especially in vulnerable populations.”Assessing the relative benefits and risks of water fluoridation is crucial for making policy decisions at the government level and personal choices on an individual level.Although the data has not been conclusive, preliminary research suggests that fluoride exposure during pregnancy could potentially lead to neurobehavioral issues in children. Experts who have studied this possible link are notably not calling for an end to water fluoridation, but they have suggested that pregnant women might want to opt for filtered water.“Those who prefer to avoid fluoride can choose to use fluoride-free dental products or install home water filters that remove fluoride,” Manning said. “There are alternatives to fluoride and complementary approaches for maintaining strong teeth and good oral health. Some of those alternatives are xylitol, hydroxyapatite and recaldent, just to name a few.”Lewis similarly advised reading the labels on your dental products if you want to cut down on your fluoride intake while opting for toothpastes and mouth rinses with other decay-preventing ingredients. She noted that the time and manner in which we eat, sleep and breath can also affect our oral health and thus overall health and wellness.“If you live in a city with fluoride, exposure will be inevitable,” Lewis said, listing sources like washed produce, showers and restaurant coffee, tea and water. “You can filter your water at home or purchase filtered water from a number of locations, but it is unlikely that you can completely eliminate your exposure.”It’s worth reiterating, however, that there has not been sufficient data to determine if the 0.7 milligram fluoride standard in the U.S. is linked to the health concerns critics have raised.And although Kennedy has promised to “advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” the federal government ultimately cannot decide whether a community fluoridates its water supply. That decision remains at the state and local level. We Don't Work For Billionaires. We Work For You.Big money interests are running the government — and influencing the news you read. While other outlets are retreating behind paywalls and bending the knee to political pressure, HuffPost is proud to be unbought and unfiltered. Will you help us keep it that way? You can even access our stories ad-free.You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We won't back down from our mission of providing free, fair news during this critical moment. But we can't do it without you.For the first time, we're offering an ad-free experience to qualifying contributors who support our fearless journalism. We hope you'll join us.You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We won't back down from our mission of providing free, fair news during this critical moment. But we can't do it without you.For the first time, we're offering an ad-free experience to qualifying contributors who support our fearless journalism. We hope you'll join us.Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.This story has been updated to reflect new announcements from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Here's what medical and public health experts are saying about the debate around fluoridation of drinking water.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced on Monday that he will direct the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to stop recommending water fluoridation nationwide

“It makes no sense to have [fluoride] in our water supply,” Kennedy told reporters during a visit to Utah. “I’m very, very proud of this state for being the first state to ban it, and I hope many more will come.”

But what exactly is fluoride? What does it do? And why are people like Kennedy calling for its removal from public water systems? We asked experts to break down the debate.

What is fluoride? Why is it in drinking water?

“Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral that belongs to a group of chemical compounds containing the element fluorine,” said Dr. Jarrett L. Manning, a dentist and founder of JLM Dental Studio. “It exists in various forms: sodium fluoride, stannous fluoride and sodium monofluorophosphate.”

Small amounts of fluoride are naturally present in soil, plants, water and certain foods, but it’s also added to drinking water and dental products due to its ability to strengthen tooth enamel and prevent cavities.

“Many communities add fluoride to public water supplies, a process known as water fluoridation, to improve oral health and help prevent tooth decay on a population level,” Manning explained.

Basically, acid-producing bacteria grows in the mouth, which dissolves minerals on the surface of teeth and can lead to tooth decay, or cavities. Fluoride prevents and stops that bacterial growth and can even reverse early tooth decay, thus reducing the need for treatments, which can be painful and expensive.

“Research over many years has shown that water fluoridation can significantly reduce the incidence of cavities in both children and adults, regardless of access to dental care,” said Dr. Cheryline Pezzullo, a clinical associate professor and director of community-based programs at New York University’s College of Dentistry. “By adding small, safe amounts of fluoride to the water supply, communities can reduce tooth decay across the board, particularly benefiting those who may not have regular access to dental care.”

Grand Rapids, Michigan, became the first city to fluoridate its public water supply, in 1945, and a decade later, the rate of cavities in local children had fallen 60% to 65%. Researchers reported similar findings among both kids and adults as more communities adopted fluoridation in the subsequent decades.

Today, more than 60% of the U.S. population receives fluoridated water.

The American Dental Association has long been a proponent of water fluoridation since its introduction and study,” said cosmetic dentist Dr. Amanda Lewis.

Other public health groups, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), similarly support this practice due to its benefits to oral and overall health. Preventing tooth decay lowers the need for treatments such as tooth extractions and fillings, and if left untreated, cavities can lead to serious abscesses, infections and even sepsis.

The Public Health Service recommends a concentration of 0.7 milligram of fluoride per liter of water in community systems, which the CDC equates to about three drops of water in a 55-gallon barrel. Communities that already have naturally higher levels of fluoride do not need fluoridation.

What’s the controversy?

“The controversy around fluoride in water often centers on questions about health risks, personal choice and concerns about overexposure,” Pezzullo said. “Although I do not agree, some argue that fluoride ― even in small amounts ― could have potential health risks and question the ethics of adding it to public water supplies.”

In recent years, communities across the U.S. have voted to stop fluoridating their water systems. Many experts believe that the anti-fluoridation movement gained more traction amid the growing mistrust of public health authorities and government overall during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Some people feel that adding fluoride to public water supplies violates their right to choose what goes into their bodies,” Manning noted.

In September, a federal judge in California ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency must strengthen regulations around water fluoridation to address concerns about potential health risks, particularly with regard to children’s cognitive development.

“There’s skepticism from certain groups about the long-term effects, despite decades of research showing its safety and effectiveness when used correctly,” Pezzullo said. “Additionally, misinformation and conflicting studies have created more confusion and lead to more public debate.”

Many skeptics point to a review from the National Toxicology Program, which concluded “with moderate confidence” that there is an association between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in children.

But that analysis is primarily based on studies conducted in other countries and involving fluoride concentrations of 1.5 milligrams per liter of water and above ― which is more than double the recommended limit for drinking water in the U.S.

“More studies are needed to fully understand the potential for lower fluoride exposure to affect children’s IQ,” the organization stated in its report.

The AAP has also expressed concerns about the limitations of the NTP’s review, including the high fluoride levels but also the geographic heterogeneity of the study populations, which hinders the ability to account for other factors that might affect IQ and assess whether the data is “accurate, comparable, or generalizable.” The organization noted that similar reviews from other groups have reached different conclusions and that the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine rejected two earlier drafts of the report.

Nico De Pasquale Photography via Getty Images

Tewodros R. Godebo, an assistant professor at the Tulane University Celia Scott Weatherhead School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine who studies fluoride, told HuffPost there’s still a shortage of research on public water fluoridation in the U.S.

“Before we make a policy decision to remove fluoride from U.S. public water supply systems, we need to get some questions answered,” he said. “We need more studies in the U.S. if we are going to make policy here, and the science is not yet consistent enough to make a decision.”

He pointed to the lack of data on fluoridation’s effect on adults and the inconsistent conclusions about any potential association between fluoride in developed countries’ community water systems and children’s cognitive development.

“If we find there is some association between IQ points and low fluoride exposure, then the next critical step would be to do a risk-benefit analysis because there is a benefit to water fluoridation in terms of dental health,” Godebo said.

“What would be the cost in terms of treating dental decay and associated diseases because it’s linked to our overall health and things like heart disease. What would the total IQ loss be in a child ― would it be one point? Then is our first step to reduce water fluoridation? Do we cut that 0.7 in half? This decision has to be based on strong science.”

These decisions might also have to vary on the local level in accordance with area-based data, which will likely differ across the U.S. Many fluoride studies are also limited by the challenge of accounting for other sources of fluoride exposure beyond water supply systems.

Critics have argued that adding fluoride to drinking water may no longer be as effective as it was when the practice first began due to the increased use of fluoride toothpaste over time. Some point to the large number of countries that do not fluoridate their public water but have still seen reductions in tooth decay. Future data from the American communities that have removed fluoride from their systems will presumably provide more clarity.

Meanwhile, misleading claims about fluoride’s potential harms have gained momentum. On Nov. 2, Kennedy asserted in a social media post that the mineral is associated with thyroid disease, arthritis and bone-related issues such as bone cancer and bone fractures.

Medical experts have responded by emphasizing the lack of rigorous U.S.-based research linking fluoride to thyroid disease and arthritis. As for bone health, repeated fluoride exposure above the recommended level can lead to skeletal fluorosis, which causes weakened bones, joint pain and stiffness, but that condition is extremely rare in the U.S.

Excessive fluoride exposure in children whose permanent teeth are still developing (usually up to the age of 8) can result in a cosmetic condition called dental fluorosis, which gives the teeth white spots, flecks or lines but does not cause pain or impair tooth function.

To address concerns about dental fluorosis, the U.S. government amended its recommendations on public water fluoridation in 2015. Though the previous guidance recommended 0.7 milligram per liter in warmer climates and 1.2 milligrams in cooler places, the standard became 0.7 everywhere.

Similarly, the ADA recommends very small amounts of fluoride toothpaste for young children to limit excess ingestion and prevent dental fluorosis.

Here’s what you should know if you’re concerned about fluoride in water.

Headlines can be alarming, so if you’re feeling overwhelmed by the fluoride debate taking place online and in the news, talk to your doctor, your dentist or your child’s pediatrician.

“For those who are new to the topic, it’s helpful to know that fluoride has been safely added to water supplies across many parts of the world since the 1940s, with a significant decrease in cavities as a result,” Pezzullo said.

She emphasized that fluoride levels in public drinking water are carefully regulated and monitored.

“While it’s good to be cautious, substantial amounts of scientific research have shown that fluoride at these regulated levels is safe and does not cause harm,” Pezzullo explained. “I give fluoridated water to my own toddler and brush his teeth with fluoridated toothpaste! I can always tell when a child is not exposed to fluoride when they sit in my chair as they always have more cavities than they should.”

Water fluoridation is a “simple but powerful health measure” that has been particularly beneficial for children and communities with limited access to dental care, she added. “As a dentist, I see the difference fluoride makes every day, especially in vulnerable populations.”

Assessing the relative benefits and risks of water fluoridation is crucial for making policy decisions at the government level and personal choices on an individual level.

Although the data has not been conclusive, preliminary research suggests that fluoride exposure during pregnancy could potentially lead to neurobehavioral issues in children. Experts who have studied this possible link are notably not calling for an end to water fluoridation, but they have suggested that pregnant women might want to opt for filtered water.

“Those who prefer to avoid fluoride can choose to use fluoride-free dental products or install home water filters that remove fluoride,” Manning said. “There are alternatives to fluoride and complementary approaches for maintaining strong teeth and good oral health. Some of those alternatives are xylitol, hydroxyapatite and recaldent, just to name a few.”

Lewis similarly advised reading the labels on your dental products if you want to cut down on your fluoride intake while opting for toothpastes and mouth rinses with other decay-preventing ingredients. She noted that the time and manner in which we eat, sleep and breath can also affect our oral health and thus overall health and wellness.

“If you live in a city with fluoride, exposure will be inevitable,” Lewis said, listing sources like washed produce, showers and restaurant coffee, tea and water. “You can filter your water at home or purchase filtered water from a number of locations, but it is unlikely that you can completely eliminate your exposure.”

It’s worth reiterating, however, that there has not been sufficient data to determine if the 0.7 milligram fluoride standard in the U.S. is linked to the health concerns critics have raised.

And although Kennedy has promised to “advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” the federal government ultimately cannot decide whether a community fluoridates its water supply. That decision remains at the state and local level.

We Don't Work For Billionaires. We Work For You.

Big money interests are running the government — and influencing the news you read. While other outlets are retreating behind paywalls and bending the knee to political pressure, HuffPost is proud to be unbought and unfiltered. Will you help us keep it that way? You can even access our stories ad-free.

You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We won't back down from our mission of providing free, fair news during this critical moment. But we can't do it without you.

For the first time, we're offering an ad-free experience to qualifying contributors who support our fearless journalism. We hope you'll join us.

You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We won't back down from our mission of providing free, fair news during this critical moment. But we can't do it without you.

For the first time, we're offering an ad-free experience to qualifying contributors who support our fearless journalism. We hope you'll join us.

Support HuffPost

Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages.

This story has been updated to reflect new announcements from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

The Case for Growth

For the past few years, American politics have been organized around a simple, unnerving feeling: Life is getting too expensive, and no one seems to know what to do about it. Rent and home prices feel out of reach. Child care feels like it costs as much as a second mortgage. Groceries, utilities, and health […]

For the past few years, American politics have been organized around a simple, unnerving feeling: Life is getting too expensive, and no one seems to know what to do about it. Rent and home prices feel out of reach. Child care feels like it costs as much as a second mortgage. Groceries, utilities, and health care have all climbed faster than people’s paychecks. Politicians have reached for familiar tools — blaming corporate “greedflation,” flirting with price controls and tariffs, promising to “take on” whoever is convenient in an election year — but none of that gets to the deeper question: How do we make it genuinely easier to build, to work, and to live well in America? For most of this country’s history, we thought we knew the answer: growth. That means a bigger economy, higher productivity, cheaper and cleaner energy, new technology, and more people able to participate in all of the above. Growth was the background assumption — not a panacea, but the thing that made every other problem a little easier to solve.  Then, beginning in the 1970s, that consensus started to break. Economic growth slowed. Concerns about inequality, consumerism, and environmental damage mounted. A certain anti-growth mentality took root on both the left and the right, and “more” became something to be eyed with suspicion rather than embraced and steered. There were real reasons people were wary of a political project organized around “more” — the environmental damage of fossil fuels, the experience of being left out of past booms, the sense that consumerism had filled our lives with stuff instead of meaning. But, in overcorrecting for the very real mistakes of the past, the US inadvertently locked itself into a low-growth, high-friction status quo that has only made our hardest problems harder. That’s why we need to take sustainable growth seriously again, to move from zero-sum fights over who gets what slice of a fixed pie to a world where the pie is actually bigger. Not growth at all costs, but growth the smart way. That is the animating idea behind this project, The Case for Growth. Over the coming weeks, in explainers, features, and podcast episodes, we’ll look at why our most productive cities have been effectively locking out families and what it would take to open them up. We’ll imagine what an era of clean energy abundance could unlock, from vertical farming to sci-fi climate solutions. We’ll explore how advances in artificial intelligence might finally shake us out of a prolonged productivity slump and how our addiction to cars and meat is choking off more sustainable growth. We’ll talk to experts who make the case that growth can run side by side with policies that prevent the worst of global warming.  In an era when so much of our politics has been reduced to zero-sum arguments over who loses so someone else can win, we want to reopen the possibility of positive-sum progress — of building more; inventing more; and including more people in that story, while taking care of the planet. Growth won’t solve everything, but without it, almost nothing gets solved at scale. The Case for Growth is our attempt to put that idea back into conservation as part of a serious effort to make life more affordable, more sustainable, and more abundant in the US and far beyond. This series was supported by a grant from Arnold Ventures. Vox had full discretion over the content of this reporting. Cities made a bet on millennials — but forgot one key thing We can have growth while fighting climate change The long, fun list of things we could do with unlimited clean energy Why owning a house is overrated The massive stakes of the big federal housing bill, explained

Mapping the Exposome: Science Broadens Focus to Environmental Disease Triggers

By Deanna Neff HealthDay ReporterSATURDAY, Nov. 29, 2025 (HealthDay News) — After decades of intense focus on genetics, the biomedical research...

By Deanna Neff HealthDay ReporterSATURDAY, Nov. 29, 2025 (HealthDay News) — After decades of intense focus on genetics, the biomedical research community is undergoing a major shift, focusing on a new framework called "exposomics."Similar to the way scientists work to map the human genome, this emerging field aims to map the chemical, physical, social and biological elements a person encounters throughout their life.Experts estimate that genetic mutations account for only about 10% of diseases like Parkinson’s for example. The remaining 90% are thought to be caused by environmental factors, prompting scientists to look beyond genes, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) reported.Some examples of exposomic data include light and temperature, biomarkers in the blood or other body fluids, dietary intake, environmental chemicals, physical activity, income and education.The ultimate goal? To turn this big bucket of individual knowledge points into practical, personalized health solutions.Researchers envision a future where a person's "exposomic profile" is included in their electronic medical records, according to the AAMC.Gary Miller, vice dean for research strategy and innovation at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in New York City, who helped coin the term two decades ago, says the field is now gaining momentum.Exposomics is an enormous undertaking because it requires researchers from various disciplines — including genetics, environmental science and data science — to work together.The goal is to move beyond simply identifying a single cause of disease and instead capture the entire picture of a person’s unique lifetime of exposures.Driving this surge are new technologies that can handle the sheer volume of data involved to map all of the possible exposures.Geospatial data: Satellite images and social determinants of health data help to measure location-specific exposures like air pollution and water quality. Mass spectrometry: Advanced chemical analysis helps to detect thousands of markers in biological samples like blood and urine. Wearable devices: Devices, such as the "exposometer" developed at Stanford Medicine in California, can collect chemical and biological samples directly from the wearer. Chirag Patel, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School and co-leader of NEXUS, explained that his lab uses computational models and artifical intelligence to systematically sort through huge amounts of data.“We’re moving away from looking at causes for disease in a targeted fashion... and moving toward what are non-targeted mass spectrometry approaches,” Patel told AAMC.Rima Habre, also co-leader of NEXUS and associate professor of environmental health and spatial sciences at the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, believes exposomics can help physicians move beyond educated guesswork.She says it's more "discovery-based." It allows researchers to scan everything and follow it up with hypothesis testing.As Miller notes, this new health assessment paradigm requires both sides of the coin: “The genomics and exposomics. They complement each other.”SOURCE: Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), Nov. 12, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Some Suicide Victims Show No Typical Warning Signs, Study Finds

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Nov. 26, 2025 (HealthDay News) — For many families who lose someone to suicide, the same question comes...

WEDNESDAY, Nov. 26, 2025 (HealthDay News) — For many families who lose someone to suicide, the same question comes up again and again: “How did we not see this coming?”A new study suggests that for some people, there truly weren’t clear warning signs to see.Researchers at the University of Utah found that people who die by suicide without showing prior warning signs, such as suicidal thoughts or past attempts, may have different underlying risk factors than those who express suicidal behavior.About half of people who die by suicide have no known history of suicidal thoughts or behaviors. Many also don't have diagnosed mental health conditions like depression.To better understand these people, researchers analyzed anonymized genetic data from more than 2,700 people who died by suicide.They found that people with no prior signs of suicide had:"There are a lot of people out there who may be at risk of suicide where it’s not just that you’ve missed that they’re depressed, it’s likely that they’re in fact actually not depressed," lead study author Hilary Coon, a psychiatry professor at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, said in a news release."That is important in widening our view of who may be at risk," she added. "We need to start to think about aspects leading to risk in different ways."The study also found that this group wasn't any more likely than the general population to show traits like chronic low mood or neuroticism.Suicide prevention has long focused on identifying and treating depression and related mental health disorders. But this research suggests that approach may not reach everyone who's at risk."A tenet in suicide prevention has been that we just need to screen people better for associated conditions like depression," Coon explained."And if people had the same sort of underlying vulnerabilities, then additional efforts in screening might be very helpful. But for those who actually have different underlying vulnerabilities, then increasing that screening might not help for them."In other words: If someone isn’t depressed or showing typical symptoms, current screening tools may miss them.Coon and her team are now looking into other factors that might raise suicide risk in this hidden group, including chronic pain, inflammation and respiratory diseases.They are also studying traits that may protect against suicide to better understand why some people remain resilient even in difficult situations.She emphasized that there is no single suicide "gene."Her goal? To help doctors spot high-risk individuals earlier, even when they do not express suicidal thoughts."If people have a certain type of clinical diagnosis that makes them particularly vulnerable within particular environmental contexts, they still may not ever say they’re suicidal," Coon said. "We hope our work may help reveal traits and contexts associated with high risk so that doctors can deliver care more effectively and specifically."The 988 Lifeline is available for anyone facing mental health struggles, emotional distress, alcohol or drug use concerns or who just needs someone to talk to.SOURCE: University of Utah Health, news release, Nov. 24, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Switch to Vegan Diet Could Cut Your Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Half

By Ernie Mundell HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Nov. 26, 2025 (HealthDay News) — The equivalent of a 4.3-mile trip in a gas-powered car: That’s the...

By Ernie Mundell HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Nov. 26, 2025 (HealthDay News) — The equivalent of a 4.3-mile trip in a gas-powered car: That’s the amount of greenhouse gas emissions the average person spares the planet each day when they switch to a healthy, low-fat vegan diet, new research shows.The group describes itself as “a nonprofit organization that promotes preventive medicine.” It has long advocated for plant-based diets as being healthier for people and the planet. The new data comes out of prior Physicians Committee research that found that low-fat plant-based diets are effective in helping people shed excess pounds and help control blood sugar, as compared to fattier diets containing meat.  Kahleova’s new analysis looked at the environmental impact of switching to a vegan diet. They linked data from two datasets — the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Commodity Intake Database and the Database of Food Impacts on the Environment for Linking to Diets.The analysis found a 51% daily reduction in personal greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) once a person made the switch — the daily equivalent of preventing carbon dioxide emissions from a more than 4-mile gas engine car trip. As well, switching to the vegan diet spurred a 51% decline in what’s known as cumulative energy demand (CED) — the amount of energy used up in harvesting the raw materials consumed in a diet, as well as their processing, transport and disposal.Much of these reductions were linked to folks forgoing meat, dairy products and eggs, the research showed.According to Kahleova, plant-based diets are gaining popularity in the United States, with a recent survey showing that almost half of Americans take environmental concerns into account when thinking about switching away from meat.“As awareness of its environmental impact grows, swapping plant foods for animal products will be as ubiquitous as reduce, reuse and recycle,” she said. “Prior research has shown that red meat, in particular, has an outsized impact on energy use compared to grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables,” Kahleova added. “Our randomized study shows just how much a low-fat vegan diet is associated with a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and energy use, significant drivers of climate change.”SOURCE: Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, news release, Nov. 17, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

These 5-Second Hand Exercises For Dementia Are Going Viral. Here's What Neurologists Think.

Is boosting your brain health really this simple?

Social media is full of health hacks for better sleep, clear skin, a functioning gut, you name it. Lately, a tip for aging and cognitive function is gaining traction. Videos showing hand and finger exercises have racked up millions of views on TikTok and Instagram, with users suggesting these movements can help prevent dementia or Alzheimer’s disease.The exercises include things like alternated clapping, tapping, arm circles and pointing your fingers in different directions. And although they might look easy enough, exasperated folks in the comments sections highlight that some of these motions are a lot harder than they appear. But does failing at intricate finger movements and hand coordination exercises mean you’re cognitively doomed? And can these exercises really ― as the captions claim ― prevent dementia or Alzheimer’s? HuffPost asked a neurologist to weigh in. “While there are a few studies showing that aspects of mild cognitive impairment might be improved with these types of hand exercises, I would put forward that there is nothing magical about these movements,” said neurologist Dr. Chris Winter.Hand exercises are a way to practice motor skills, which can be beneficial for maintaining cognitive abilities as we age. But it might be a stretch to suggest that specific movements are going to remove your risk of developing dementia or Alzheimer’s disease. Can simple hand exercises really prevent dementia?Winter explained that hand and finger coordination can be beneficial as part of a larger pattern of mental and physical activity, but it’s not the hand gestures themselves that matter ― it’s the engagement and concentration involved.“Learning to play the piano or other activities that force concentration and the practice of improved hand/eye coordination are potentially just as useful,” Winter said. “I recommend that people stay active and engage in appropriately challenging activities. Learn a new language, pick up a guitar or a used set of drums, play pickleball. If you have the capacity to do these things, get off of TikTok and go do these things instead.”Brain function is less about hand gestures and more about movement and mental engagement that challenge your mind and body overall. “While no single exercise can prevent Alzheimer’s disease, regularly engaging your brain in complex, novel activities helps build what we call ‘brain reserve.’ A higher brain reserve can delay the onset of dementia symptoms or reduce their severity later in life,” said Dr. Majid Fotuhi, a neurologist and author of “The Invincible Brain: The Clinically Proven Plan to Age-Proof Your Brain and Stay Sharp for Life.”Board-certified neurologist Dr. Luke K. Barr emphasized that TikTok viewers shouldn’t mistake their inability to do some of these hand exercises as a red flag for cognitive decline. If you have trouble alternating pointing your thumbs and pinkies, that doesn’t mean you’re “already developing dementia,” as some commenters fear. “These are complex exercises that are difficult, especially at first, and require a lot of concentration and practice,” Barr said. “Just because someone is not able to do it easily right away, does not necessarily mean that they have dementia.”As with most anything complicated, practice makes perfect. “I think there are a variety of reasons why one could not do these gestures ― or rub their stomach while patting their head,” Winter added. “While someone with significant dementia is probably not likely to be able to do these activities, the fact that someone struggles with coordination does not indicate dementia or progression in this direction. Ability to pat your hands together is not a diagnostic test for cognitive decline.”So while those quick coordination challenges might be fun or stimulating, experts say, your best bet for brain health still lies in the basics: regular exercise, quality sleep, a balanced diet and staying mentally and socially active.“Factors such as poor diet, sedentary lifestyle, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, sleep problems, chronic stress and excessive alcohol can contribute to shrinkage in the brain,” Fotuhi said. “Along with genetic and environmental factors, these lifestyle and medical factors can damage small blood vessels, reduce rinsing mechanisms in the brain, cause ‘leaky brain’ and increase brain inflammation ― which over time lead to cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease. So rather than worrying about one task, it’s better to focus on overall brain health habits.”Ultimately, what exercise and mental stimulation mean can vary based on individuals’ abilities. “If you only have the capacity to practice hand gestures, then that’s OK too,” Winter said. But just remember that the real “hack” for keeping your brain sharp isn’t a social media exercise ― it’s a holistic approach to living a healthy, mindful and engaged life.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.